Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1280 - 1284
1 Oct 2019
Kang JR Logli AL Tagliero AJ Sperling JW

Aims. A number of methods have been described to remove a well-fixed humeral implant as part of revision shoulder arthroplasty. These include the use of cortical windows and humeral osteotomies. The router bit extraction technique uses a high-speed router bit to disrupt the bone-implant interface. The implant is then struck in a retrograde fashion with a square-tip impactor and mallet. The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics and frequency of the different techniques needed for the removal of a well-fixed humeral stem in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Patients and Methods. Between 2010 and 2018, 288 revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures requiring removal of a well-fixed humeral component were carried out at a tertiary referral centre by a single surgeon. The patient demographics, indications for surgery, and method of extraction were collected. Results. Of the 288 revisions, 284 humeral stems (98.6%) were removed using the router bit extraction technique alone. Four humeral stems (1.39%) required an additional cortical window. Humeral osteotomy was not necessary in any procedure. Most of the humeral stems removed (78.8%) were cementless. Of the four humeral stems that required a cortical window, three involved removal of a hemiarthroplasty. Two were cemented and two were cementless. Conclusion. The router bit extraction technique removed a well-fixed humeral component in a very high proportion of patients (98.6%). This method allows surgeons to avoid more invasive approaches involving a cortical window or humeral osteotomy, and their associated complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1280–1284


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 4 | Pages 504 - 511
1 Apr 2016
Ajami S Blunn GW Lambert S Alexander S Foxall Smith M Coathup MJ

Aims. To assess the extent of osteointegration in two designs of shoulder resurfacing implants. Bony integration to the Copeland cylindrical central stem design and the Epoca RH conical-crown design were compared. Patients and Methods. Implants retrieved from six patients in each group were pair-matched. Mean time to revision surgery of Copeland implants was 37 months (standard deviation (. sd. ) 23; 14 to 72) and Epoca RH 38 months (. sd. 28; 12 to 84). The mean age of patients investigated was 66 years (. sd. 4; 59 to 71) and 58 years (. sd. 17; 31 to 73) in the Copeland and Epoca RH groups respectively. None of these implants were revised for loosening. . Results. Increased osteointegration was measured under the cup in the Copeland implant group with limited bone seen in direct contact with the central stem. Bone adjacent to the Epoca RH implants was more uniform. . Conclusion. This difference in the distribution of bone-implant contact and bone formation was attributed to the Epoca implant’s conical crown, which is positioned in more dense peripheral bone. The use of a central stem may not be necessary provided there is adequate peripheral fixation within good quality humeral bone. Take home message: Poor osteointegration of cementless surface replacement shoulder prosthesis may be improved by implant design. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:504–11


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 1 | Pages 83 - 90
1 Jan 2022
Batten TJ Gallacher S Evans JP Harding RJ Kitson J Smith CD Thomas WJ

Aims

The use and variety of stemless humeral components in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) have proliferated since their advent in 2004. Early outcomes are reassuring but independent mid-term results are scarce. This independent study reports a consecutive series of 143 Eclipse stemless shoulder prostheses with a minimum five-year (5 to 10) follow-up.

Methods

Outcomes of 143 procedures undertaken for all indications in 131 patients were reviewed, with subset analysis of those for osteoarthritis (OA) (n = 99). The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at a minimum of five years. Secondary outcomes were ranges of motion and radiological analysis of humeral radiolucency, rotator cuff failure, and glenoid loosening.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 3 | Pages 530 - 535
1 Mar 2021
Giannicola G Castagna V Villani C Gumina S Scacchi M

Aims

It has been hypothesized that proximal radial neck resorption (PRNR) following press-fit radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is due to stress-shielding. We compared two different press-fit stems by means of radiographs to investigate whether the shape and size of the stems are correlated with the degree of PRNR.

Methods

The radiographs of 52 RHAs were analyzed both at 14 days postoperatively and after two years. A cylindrical stem and a conical stem were implanted in 22 patients (group 1) and 30 patients (group 2), respectively. The PRNR was measured in the four quadrants of the radial neck and the degree of stem filling was calculated by analyzing the ratio between the prosthetic stem diameter (PSD) and the medullary canal diameter (MCD) at the proximal portion of the stem (level A), halfway along the stem length (level B), and distally at the stem tip (level C).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1549 - 1554
1 Nov 2020
Schwartz AM Farley KX Boden SH Wilson JM Daly CA Gottschalk MB Wagner ER

Aims

The impact of tobacco use on readmission and medical and surgical complications has been documented in hip and knee arthroplasty. However, there remains little information about the effect of smoking on the outcome after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). We hypothesized that active smokers are at an increased risk of poor medical and surgial outcomes after TSA.

Methods

Data for patients who underwent arthroplasty of the shoulder in the USA between January 2011 and December 2015 were obtained from the National Readmission Database, and 90-day readmissions and complications were documented using validated coding methods. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to quantify the risk of smoking on the outcome after TSA, while controlling for patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital-level confounding factors.