The survival of humeral hemiarthroplasties in patients with relatively intact glenoid cartilage could theoretically be extended by minimizing the associated postoperative glenoid erosion. Ceramic has gained attention as an alternative to metal as a material for hemiarthroplasties because of its superior tribological properties. The aim of this study was to assess the in vitro wear performance of ceramic and metal humeral hemiarthroplasties on natural glenoids. Intact right cadaveric shoulders from donors aged between 50 and 65 years were assigned to a ceramic group (n = 8, four male cadavers) and a metal group (n = 9, four male cadavers). A dedicated shoulder wear simulator was used to simulate daily activity by replicating the relevant joint motion and loading profiles. During testing, the joint was kept lubricated with diluted calf serum at room temperature. Each test of wear was performed for 500,000 cycles at 1.2 Hz. At intervals of 125,000 cycles, micro-CT scans of each glenoid were taken to characterize and quantify glenoid wear by calculating the change in the thickness of its articular cartilage.Aims
Methods
Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey. NJR shoulder arthroplasty records were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and the National Mortality Register. TSA and HA performed for osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with an intact rotator cuff were included. Metal and ceramic humeral head prostheses were matched within separate TSA and HA groups using propensity scores based on 12 and 11 characteristics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to first revision and the secondary outcome was non-revision reoperation.Aims
Methods
