Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Stemless Hemiarthroplasty of the Shoulder Using the SMR® System: Summary of Six-Year Experience and Surgical Technique [Hemiartroplastika ramenního kloubu SMR® typu Stemless: operační technika a souhrn šestiletých zkušeností]

D. Pokorný, P. Fulín, J. Heřt, J. Walder, J. Štefan, A. Sosna

. 2022 ; 89 (6) : 395-405. [pub] -

Language English Country Czech Republic

Document type Journal Article

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY In the last number of years, the anatomic hemiarthoplasty has gradually been pushed out of clinical practice by modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs. This is due to the clear excellent functional results of RSAs in a wide spectrum of indication criteria. Nevertheless, RSAs have several possible complications that cannot occur in an anatomic hemiarthroplasty. In anatomic hemiarthoplasty, the importance of correct indication criteria and observing correct operative technique including soft tissue reconstruction is much more important than in RSA. Furthermore, there is a clear recent trend of increased use of humeral components fixed only in the proximal metaphyseal cancellous bone. Our aim was to summarise our six-year experience with the SMR® Stemless (LimaCorporate, Italy) system which is one of the most modern ones. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty cases of SMR® Stemless anatomic shoulder hemiarthroplasty performed between 2016 and 2021 were included in the study. All patients were followed up prospectively. The function was evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up. We evaluated the range of active elevation, classic Constant Score (CS) and pain level according to the visual analogue scale (VAS). Statistical evaluation was performed by using basic statistical methods and the statistical significance of the results was assessed with a paired t-test. Level of statistical significance was set at p= 0.01. RESULTS The mean follow-up in our cohort was 3.01 years (range 0.32-5.69, Median 2.82, SD 1.56) All cases were indicated for surgery due to primary osteoarthritis with a limitation of movement and pain. The mean postoperative CS was 85.7 (range 70-96, Median 86, SD 6.83). The mean active elevation postoperatively was 143° (range 100-170°, Median 150°, SD 20.76). Mean postoperative pain according to VAS was 1.05 (range 0-4, Median 1, SD 1.02). The mean preoperative elevation was 60.5° (range 30-100°, Median 65°, SD 18.83). After surgery the mean elevation increased to 143° (range 100-170°, Median 150°, SD 20.76). Statistical evaluation showed a statistically significant increase in the CS (41.7 preoperatively to 85.7 postoperatively), range of active elevation (60.5° preoperatively to 143° postoperatively) and a statistically significant decrease in pain (VAS 6.95 preoperatively to 1.05 postoperatively). We observed no cases of failure or loosening of the implant. A statistically significant increase in post-operative range of motion was demonstrated. DISCUSSION Most modern shoulder arthroplasty designs now include implants allowing for proximal humerus metaphyseal fixation in hemiarthroplasty and even RSA designs. The advantage of metaphyseal fixation without the use of a longer stem is clear. Notably, treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures is simpler, extraction of the implant for any reason is easier and the preoperative anatomic position of the humeral head can be respected. As with any anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, the functional result is dependent on correct indication criteria, precise surgical technique, correct humeral head position and soft tissue reconstruction - primarily the rotator cuff. CONCLUSIONS Between 2016 and 2021, we performed 20 SMR® stemless shoulder hemiarthroplasties for primary osteoarthritis. The mean follow up was 3 years. The shoulder function improved significantly post-operatively in all patients. There were no cases of implant loosening or failure. Radiographic evaluation showed no implant loosening or change in implant position in the humeral metaphysis. Key words: shoulder joint replacement, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, SMR, stemless, total shoulder arthroplasty, shoulder hemiarthroplasty, EPOCA, wear.

Hemiartroplastika ramenního kloubu SMR® typu Stemless: operační technika a souhrn šestiletých zkušeností

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23000915
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230504085253.0
007      
ta
008      
230307s2022 xr ad f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$2 doi $a 10.55095/achot2022/064
035    __
$a (PubMed)36594686
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Pokorný, David, $u Department of Orthopaedics, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic $d 1968- $7 jn20001103568
245    10
$a Stemless Hemiarthroplasty of the Shoulder Using the SMR® System: Summary of Six-Year Experience and Surgical Technique / $c D. Pokorný, P. Fulín, J. Heřt, J. Walder, J. Štefan, A. Sosna
246    31
$a Hemiartroplastika ramenního kloubu SMR® typu Stemless: operační technika a souhrn šestiletých zkušeností
520    9_
$a PURPOSE OF THE STUDY In the last number of years, the anatomic hemiarthoplasty has gradually been pushed out of clinical practice by modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs. This is due to the clear excellent functional results of RSAs in a wide spectrum of indication criteria. Nevertheless, RSAs have several possible complications that cannot occur in an anatomic hemiarthroplasty. In anatomic hemiarthoplasty, the importance of correct indication criteria and observing correct operative technique including soft tissue reconstruction is much more important than in RSA. Furthermore, there is a clear recent trend of increased use of humeral components fixed only in the proximal metaphyseal cancellous bone. Our aim was to summarise our six-year experience with the SMR® Stemless (LimaCorporate, Italy) system which is one of the most modern ones. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty cases of SMR® Stemless anatomic shoulder hemiarthroplasty performed between 2016 and 2021 were included in the study. All patients were followed up prospectively. The function was evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up. We evaluated the range of active elevation, classic Constant Score (CS) and pain level according to the visual analogue scale (VAS). Statistical evaluation was performed by using basic statistical methods and the statistical significance of the results was assessed with a paired t-test. Level of statistical significance was set at p= 0.01. RESULTS The mean follow-up in our cohort was 3.01 years (range 0.32-5.69, Median 2.82, SD 1.56) All cases were indicated for surgery due to primary osteoarthritis with a limitation of movement and pain. The mean postoperative CS was 85.7 (range 70-96, Median 86, SD 6.83). The mean active elevation postoperatively was 143° (range 100-170°, Median 150°, SD 20.76). Mean postoperative pain according to VAS was 1.05 (range 0-4, Median 1, SD 1.02). The mean preoperative elevation was 60.5° (range 30-100°, Median 65°, SD 18.83). After surgery the mean elevation increased to 143° (range 100-170°, Median 150°, SD 20.76). Statistical evaluation showed a statistically significant increase in the CS (41.7 preoperatively to 85.7 postoperatively), range of active elevation (60.5° preoperatively to 143° postoperatively) and a statistically significant decrease in pain (VAS 6.95 preoperatively to 1.05 postoperatively). We observed no cases of failure or loosening of the implant. A statistically significant increase in post-operative range of motion was demonstrated. DISCUSSION Most modern shoulder arthroplasty designs now include implants allowing for proximal humerus metaphyseal fixation in hemiarthroplasty and even RSA designs. The advantage of metaphyseal fixation without the use of a longer stem is clear. Notably, treatment of periprosthetic humeral fractures is simpler, extraction of the implant for any reason is easier and the preoperative anatomic position of the humeral head can be respected. As with any anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, the functional result is dependent on correct indication criteria, precise surgical technique, correct humeral head position and soft tissue reconstruction - primarily the rotator cuff. CONCLUSIONS Between 2016 and 2021, we performed 20 SMR® stemless shoulder hemiarthroplasties for primary osteoarthritis. The mean follow up was 3 years. The shoulder function improved significantly post-operatively in all patients. There were no cases of implant loosening or failure. Radiographic evaluation showed no implant loosening or change in implant position in the humeral metaphysis. Key words: shoulder joint replacement, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, SMR, stemless, total shoulder arthroplasty, shoulder hemiarthroplasty, EPOCA, wear.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a rameno $7 D012782
650    12
$a hemiartroplastika $x škodlivé účinky $7 D062785
650    12
$a ramenní kloub $x chirurgie $7 D012785
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    12
$a artroplastika ramenního kloubu $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D000072228
650    _2
$a hlavice humeru $7 D058430
650    _2
$a pooperační bolest $x etiologie $7 D010149
650    12
$a osteoartróza $x chirurgie $7 D010003
650    _2
$a rozsah kloubních pohybů $7 D016059
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Fulín, Petr $u Department of Orthopaedics, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic $7 xx0231618
700    1_
$a Heřt, Jan, $u Department of Orthopaedics, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic $d 1989- $7 xx0256941
700    1_
$a Walder, Jakub $u Department of Orthopaedics, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic $7 xx0301071
700    1_
$a Štefan, Jan $u Department of Orthopaedics, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic $7 xx0246287
700    1_
$a Sosna, Antonín, $u Department of Orthopaedics, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic $d 1943- $7 jn20000710566
773    0_
$w MED00011021 $t Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca $x 0001-5415 $g Roč. 89, č. 6 (2022), s. 395-405
856    41
$u https://achot.cz/pdfs/ach/2022/06/01.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 8 $c 507 $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230307 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230504085249 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1928418 $s 1187110
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2022 $b 89 $c 6 $d 395-405 $e - $i 0001-5415 $m Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $n Acta chir. orthop. traumatol. Čechoslovaca $x MED00011021
LZP    __
$b NLK198 $a Pubmed-20230307

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...