Results and limitations of humeral head resurfacing: 105 cases at a mean follow-up of 5 years

Soudy, K.; Szymanski, C.; Lalanne, Clément; Bourgault, C.; Thiounn, Alexis; Cotten, Anne; Maynou, C.

doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2016.12.015

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Multiple definitions of overstuffing following RHA have been used in the literature including a medial deviation of the center of rotation [ 3 ], increased LGHO [ 19 , 20 ], and improper implant size [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 21 , 28 ], but little data exist on the reliability of these measurements. A recent study by Kadum et al investigated intra- and inter-observer agreement between four observers measuring LGHO on both computed tomography (CT) images and radiographs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) was developed to restore normal anatomy, and with a bone-preserving design and short operation time, it has often been preferred for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis [ 4 , 10 , 26 , 27 ]. Some studies have reported good functional outcome and a low rate of revision [ 14 – 16 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 31 ], while others report a poor functional outcome and a high risk of revision [ 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 17 , 24 ]. This has led to concerns that RHA may not adequately restore humeral anatomy [ 19 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies evaluating the restoration of glenohumeral joint anatomy following RHA have been conflicting. Some report that RHA restores humeral head anatomy [ 9 , 18 , 30 ] while others report increased lateral glenohumeral offset (LGHO) [ 14 , 17 – 20 , 28 ], displacement of the center of rotation [ 3 ], increased humeral head size [ 27 ], and a tendency to place the implant in varus [ 14 , 18 ]. Despite a lack of a clear definition, the term overstuffing has also been widely used in the literature as a possible cause of persistent pain or a poor functional outcome following RHA [ 1 – 3 , 6 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 25 – 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Low inter-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing of glenohumeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty based on plain radiographs

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn a clinical setting, a visual evaluation of post-implant radiographs is often used to assess the restoration of glenohumeral joint anatomy after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and is a part of the decision-making process, in combination with other parameters, when evaluating patients with inferior clinical results. However, the reliability of this method of visual evaluation has not been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the inter- and intra-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing, implant positioning, and size following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty using plain standardized radiographs.MethodsSix experienced shoulder surgeons independently classified implant inclination, size of the implant and if the joint seemed overstuffed, in 219 cases of post-implant radiographs. All cases were classified twice 3 weeks apart. Only radiographs with an anterior-posterior projection with a freely visible joint space were used. Non-weighted Cohen’s kappa values were calculated for each coder pair and the mean used as an estimate of the overall inter-observer agreement.ResultsThe overall inter-observer agreement for implant size (kappa, 0.48 and 0.41) and inclination angle was moderate in both rounds (kappa, 0.46 and 0.44), but only a fair agreement was found concerning the evaluation for stuffing of the joint (kappa, 0.24 and 0.28). Intra-observer agreement for implant size and stuffing ranged from fair to substantial while the agreement for inclination was moderate to substantial.ConclusionsOur results indicate that a visual evaluation of plain radiographs may be inadequate to evaluate overstuffing, implant positioning, and size following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty using plain standardized radiographs. Future studies may contribute to elucidate whether reliability increases if consensus on clear definitions and standardized methods of evaluation is made.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low inter-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing of glenohumeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty based on plain radiographs

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21 sólo 28 de las 50 prótesis evaluadas tenían un tamaño apropiado y este sobredimensionamiento puede condicionar un desgaste progresivo de la glena, como se ha publicado en varios trabajos. 21,22,23 La tasa de afl ojamiento parece mayor que con las prótesis con vástago 18,24,25 y el riesgo de fractura del cuello o el colapso de la cabeza humeral serían posibles complicaciones añadidas como ocurre en la resuperfi cialización de la cadera. 25,26 Utilizamos la escala de Constant normalizada para valorar la función obteniendo un valor promedio de 73 puntos.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Prótesis de recubrimiento en húmero proximal: ¿Cuál es la indicación hoy en día?

Sánchez-Hernández

Jiménez

Kiimetoglou

et al. 2018

Acta Ortopédica Mexicana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although Rai et al reported a revision rate of 4%, Levy et al reported a rate of 5-6% after 5-10 years[13]. Alizadehkhaiyat et al reported a revision rate > 20% at a mean follow-up of 4 years[14], whereas Soudy et al[15] reported a revision rate (surface replacement to reverse shoulder arthroplasty) of 17.5% (18/105 patients) after a mean follow-up of 43.6 months; the total revision rate was 23% (24/105 patients). Data from the Danish Shoulder Register show a cumulative revision rate of 14% for resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and only 2% for stemmed hemiarthroplasty after a mean of 5 years[16].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mid-and Long-term Survival and Patient-reported Outcomes of Humeral Surface Replacement in 135 Shoulders

Mussawy

Strahl

Wenk

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate patient-reported clinical outcomes, prosthesis survival, and causes of revision of cemented humeral surface replacement (Durom-Cup) in a large population. Methods: Between 1997 and 2015, 266 patients underwent 279 implantations of Durom-Cup. Overall, 81 patients died, 39 patients were lost to follow-up, and 21 patients were excluded according to pre-defined exclusion criteria, and dementia; this left 125 patients (135 shoulders) with a mean follow-up of 8.0 years (range, 1–20 years). To report long-term follow-up a subgroup of 51 patients with a minimum follow-up of 9 years and a mean follow-up of 12.4 years (range, 9–20 years) was evaluated. The mean age at the time of surgery was 65.8 years (range, 25–91 years). Results: The indications were primary osteoarthritis (52%) and rheumatoid arthritis (48%). Patient satisfaction at final follow-up was as follows: very satisfied, 59.2%; satisfied, 29.2%; and not satisfied, 11.6%. On a visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 10, the mean pain on weight-bearing was 2.4 (range, 0–10). Overall, 55.4% were able to perform leisure activities without major limitations. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were significantly younger than patients with primary osteoarthritis at the time of surgery (mean difference, 11.5 years, p < 0.001). The overall survival rates (prosthesis without revision surgery) of the Durom-Cup were 94.0 ± 5.0% at 5 years, 90.8 ± 9.86% at 10 years, and 90.8 ± 17.1% at 15 years. However, 9 shoulders (6.7%) required revision arthroplasty after a mean 4.3 years (range, 0.5–9 years).Conclusions: These data demonstrated a relatively low revision rate of the Durom-Cup and high satisfaction levels, suggesting an acceptable quality of life post-surgery.

show abstract

Results and limitations of humeral head resurfacing: 105 cases at a mean follow-up of 5 years

Abstract: IV, retrospective study.

Cited by 26 publications

References 25 publications

Low inter-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing of glenohumeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty based on plain radiographs

Low inter-observer agreement among experienced shoulder surgeons assessing overstuffing of glenohumeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty based on plain radiographs

Prótesis de recubrimiento en húmero proximal: ¿Cuál es la indicación hoy en día?

Mid-and Long-term Survival and Patient-reported Outcomes of Humeral Surface Replacement in 135 Shoulders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About