Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. At the completion of the wear test, the total thickness of the cartilage had significantly decreased in both the ceramic and metal groups, by 27% (p = 0.019) and 29% (p = 0.008), respectively. However, the differences between the two were not significant (p = 0.606) and the patterns of wear in the specimens were unpredictable. No significant correlation was found between cartilage wear and various factors, including age, sex, the size of the humeral head, joint mismatch, the thickness of the native cartilage, and the surface roughness (all p > 0.05). Conclusion. Although ceramic has better tribological properties than metal, we did not find evidence that its use in hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in patients with healthy cartilage is a better alternative than conventional metal humeral heads. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1273–1283

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. A total of 4,799 TSAs (3,578 metal, 1,221 ceramic) and 1,363 HAs (1,020 metal, 343 ceramic) were included. The rate of revision was higher for metal compared with ceramic TSA, hazard ratio (HR) 3.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 6.58). At eight years, prosthesis survival for ceramic TSA was 98.7% (95% CI 97.3 to 99.4) compared with 96.4% (95% CI 95.2 to 97.3) for metal TSA. The majority of revision TSAs were for cuff insufficiency or instability/dislocation. There was no significant difference in the revision rate for ceramic compared with metal head HA (HR 1.33 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.34)). For ceramic HA, eight-year prosthetic survival was 92.8% (95% CI 86.9 to 96.1), compared with 91.6% (95% CI 89.3 to 93.5) for metal HA. The majority of revision HAs were for cuff failure. Conclusion. The rate of all-cause revision was higher following metal compared with ceramic humeral head TSA in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff. There was no difference in the revision rate for HA according to bearing surface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):482–491