We performed a lateral approach for the release of post-traumatic stiffness of the elbow in 22 patients using a modified technique designed to spare the lateral ligaments. They were reviewed after a mean interval of 26 months. The
We have investigated the mid-term outcome of total shoulder replacement using a keeled cemented glenoid component and a modern cementing technique with regard to the causes of failure and loosening of the components. Between 1997 and 2003 we performed 96 total shoulder replacements on 88 patients, 24 men and 64 women with a mean age of 69.7 years (31 to 82). The minimum follow-up was five years and at the time of review 87 shoulders (77 patients) were examined at a mean follow-up of 89.1 months (60 to 127). Cumulative survival curves were generated with re-operations (accomplished and planned), survivorship of the proshesis, loosening of the glenoid (defined as tilt >
5° or subsidence >
5 mm), the presence of radiolucent lines and a Constant score of <
30 as the endpoints. There were two re-operations not involving revision of the implants and the survival rate of the prosthesis was 100.0% for the follow-up period, with an absolute Constant score of >
30 as the endpoint the survival rate was 98%. Radiological glenoid loosening was 9% after five years, and 33% after nine years. There was an incidence of 8% of radiolucent lines in more than three of six zones in the immediate post-operative period, of 37.0% after the first year which increased to 87.0% after nine years. There was no correlation between the score of Boileau and the total Constant score at the latest follow-up, but there was correlation between glenoid loosening and pain (p = 0.001). We found that total shoulder replacement had an excellent mid-term survivorship and clinical outcome. The surgical and cementing techniques were related to the decrease in radiolucent lines around the glenoid compared with earlier studies. One concern, however, was the fact that radiolucent lines increased over time and there was a rate of glenoid loosening of 9% after five years and 33% after nine years. This suggests that the design of the glenoid component, and the implantation and cementing techniques may need further improvement.
Between 1976 and 2004, 38 revision arthroplasties (35 patients) were performed for aseptic loosening of the humeral component. The mean interval from primary arthroplasty to revision was 7.1 years (0.4 to 16.6). A total of 35 shoulders (32 patients) were available for review at a mean follow-up of seven years (2 to 19.3). Pre-operatively, 34 patients (97%) had moderate or severe pain; at final follow-up, 29 (83%) had no or only mild pain (p <
0.0001). The mean active abduction improved from 88° to 107° (p <
0.01); and the mean external rotation from 37° to 46° (p = 0.27). Excellent or satisfactory results were achieved in 25 patients (71%) according to the modified Neer rating system. Humeral components were cemented in 29, with ingrowth implants used in nine cases. There were 19 of standard length and 17 were longer (two were custom replacements and are not included). Bone grafting was required for defects in 11 humeri. Only two glenoid components were left unrevised. Intra-operative complications included cement extrusion in eight cases, fracture of the shaft of the humerus is two and of the tuberosity in four. There were four re-operations, one for recurrent humeral loosening, with 89% survival free of re-operations at ten years. Revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the humeral component provides reliable pain relief and modest improvement of movement, although there is a substantial risk of intra-operative complications. Revision to a total shoulder replacement gives better results than to a hemiarthroplasty.
While frequently discussed as a standard treatment for the management of an infected shoulder replacement, there is little information on the outcome of two-stage re-implantation. We examined the outcome of 17 consecutive patients (19 shoulders) who were treated between 1995 and 2004 with a two-stage re-implantation for the treatment of a deep-infection after shoulder replacement. All 19 shoulders were followed for a minimum of two years or until the time of further revision surgery. The mean clinical follow-up was for 35 months (24 to 80). The mean radiological follow-up was 27 months (7 to 80). There were two excellent results, four satisfactory and 13 unsatisfactory. In 12 of the 19 shoulders (63%) infection was considered to be eradicated. The mean pain score improved from 4.2 (3 to 5 (out of 5)) to 1.8 (1 to 4). The mean elevation improved from 42° (0° to 140°) to 89° (0° to 165°), mean external rotation from 30° (0° to 90°) to 43° (0° to 90°), and mean internal rotation from the sacrum to L5. There were 14 complications. Our study suggests that two-stage re-implantation for an infected shoulder replacement is associated with a high rate of unsatisfactory results, marginal success at eradicating infection and a high complication rate.
There are theoretical and practical advantages to modular rather than monoblock designs of prostheses for shoulder arthroplasty, but there are no reported studies which specifically compare the clinical and radiological results of their use. We have compared the results of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using both types of implant. The monoblock design was used between 1992 and 1995 and the modular design after 1995. Both had cemented all-polyethylene glenoids, the monoblock with matched and the modular with mismatched radii of curvature. There were 34 consecutive shoulders in each group with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years in the first and 5.2 years in the second. There were no significant differences in improvement of pain scores, active elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, patient satisfaction, or the Neer ratings between the two groups. Two of 28 glenoid components in the first group and six of 30 in the second met the criteria for being radiologically at risk for loosening (p = 0.25). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome or radiological changes between the first- and second-generation designs of implant for shoulder arthroplasty.
