Shoulder arthroplasty humeral stem design has evolved to accommodate patient anatomy characteristics. As a result, stems are available in numerous shapes, coatings, lengths, sizes, and vary by fixation method. This abundance of stem options creates a surgical paradox of choice. Metrics describing stem stability, including a stem's resistance to subsidence and micromotion, are important factors that should influence stem selection, but have yet to be assessed in response to the diametral (i.e., thickness) sizing of short stem humeral implants.

Eight paired cadaveric humeri (age = 75±15 years) were reconstructed with surgeon selected ‘standard’ sized short-stemmed humeral implants, as well as 2mm ‘oversized’ implants. Stem sizing conditions were randomized to left and right humeral pairs. Following implantation, an anteroposterior radiograph was taken of each stem and the metaphyseal and diaphyseal fill ratios were quantified. Each humerus was then potted in polymethyl methacrylate bone cement and subjected to 2000 cycles of 90º forward flexion loading. At regular intervals during loading, stem subsidence and micromotion were assessed using a validated system of two optical markers attached to the stem and humeral pot (accuracy of <15µm).

The metaphyseal fill ratio did not differ significantly between the oversized and standard stems (0.50±0.06 vs 0.50±0.10; P = 0.997, Power = 0.05); however, the diaphyseal fill ratio did (0.52±0.06 vs 0.45±0.07; P < 0.001, Power = 1.0). Neither fill ratio correlated significantly with stem subsidence or micromotion. Stem subsidence and micromotion were found to plateau following 400 cycles of loading. Oversizing stem thickness prevented implant head-back contact in all but one specimen with the least dense metaphyseal bone, while standard sizing only yielded incomplete head-back contact in the two subjects with the densest bone. Oversized stems subsided significantly less than their standard counterparts (standard: 1.4±0.6mm, oversized: 0.5±0.5mm; P = 0.018, Power = 0.748;), and resulted in slightly more micromotion (standard: 169±59µm, oversized: 187±52µm, P = 0.506, Power = 0.094,).

Short stem diametral sizing (i.e., thickness) has an impact on stem subsidence and micromotion following humeral arthroplasty. In both cases, the resulting three-dimensional stem micromotion exceeded, the 150µm limit suggested for bone ingrowth, although that limit was derived from a uniaxial assessment. Though not statistically significant, the increased stem micromotion associated with stem oversizing may in-part be attributed to over-compacting the cancellous bed during broaching, which creates a denser, potentially smoother, interface, though this influence requires further assessment. The findings of the present investigation highlight the importance of proper short stem diametral sizing, as even a relatively small, 2mm, increase can negatively impact the subsidence and micromotion of the stem-bone construct. Future work should focus on developing tools and methods to support surgeons in what is currently a subjective process of stem selection.

Shoulder arthroplasty is effective at restoring function and relieving pain in patients suffering from glenohumeral arthritis; however, cortex thinning has been significantly associated with larger press-fit stems (fill ratio = 0.57 vs 0.48; P = 0.013)1. Additionally, excessively stiff implant-bone constructs are considered undesirable, as high initial stiffness of rigid fracture fixation implants has been related to premature loosening and an ultimate failure of the implant-bone interface2. Consequently, one objective which has driven the evolution of humeral stem design has been the reduction of stress-shielding induced bone resorption; this in-part has led to the introduction of short stems, which rely on metaphyseal fixation. However, the selection of short stem diametral (i.e., thickness) sizing remains subjective, and its impact on the resulting stem-bone construct stiffness has yet to be quantified.

Eight paired cadaveric humeri (age = 75±15 years) were reconstructed with surgeon selected ‘standard’ sized and 2mm ‘oversized’ short-stemmed implants. Standard stem sizing was based on a haptic assessment of stem and broach stability per typical surgical practice. Anteroposterior radiographs were taken, and the metaphyseal and diaphyseal fill ratios were quantified. Each humerus was then potted in polymethyl methacrylate bone cement and subjected to 2000 cycles of compressive loading representing 90º forward flexion to simulate postoperative seating. Following this, a custom 3D printed metal implant adapter was affixed to the stem, which allowed for compressive loading in-line with the stem axis (Fig.1). Each stem was then forced to subside by 5mm at a rate of 1mm/min, from which the compressive stiffness of the stem-bone construct was assessed. The bone-implant construct stiffness was quantified as the slope of the linear portion of the resulting force-displacement curves.

The metaphyseal and diaphyseal fill ratios were 0.50±0.10 and 0.45±0.07 for the standard sized stems and 0.50±0.06 and 0.52±0.06 for the oversized stems, respectively. Neither was found to correlate significantly with the stem-bone construct stiffness measure (metaphysis: P = 0.259, diaphysis: P = 0.529); however, the diaphyseal fill ratio was significantly different between standard and oversized stems (P < 0.001, Power = 1.0). Increasing the stem size by 2mm had a significant impact on the stiffness of the stem-bone construct (P = 0.003, Power = 0.971; Fig.2). Stem oversizing yielded a construct stiffness of −741±243N/mm; more than double that of the standard stems, which was −334±120N/mm.

The fill ratios reported in the present investigation match well with those of a finite element assessment of oversizing short humeral stems3. This work complements that investigation's conclusion, that small reductions in diaphyseal fill ratio may reduce the likelihood of stress shielding, by also demonstrating that oversizing stems by 2mm dramatically increases the stiffness of the resulting implant-bone construct, as stiffer implants have been associated with decreased bone stimulus4 and premature loosening2. The present findings suggest that even a small, 2mm, variation in the thickness of short stem humeral components can have a marked influence on the resulting stiffness of the implant-bone construct. This highlights the need for more objective intraoperative methods for selecting stem size to provide guidelines for appropriate diametral sizing.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.