HSS Journal ®

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 213–217 | Cite as

Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Utilizing Mini-Stem Humeral Components: Technique and Short-Term Results

  • Patrick W. Jost
  • Joshua S. DinesEmail author
  • Matthew H. Griffith
  • Michael Angel
  • David W. Altchek
  • David M. Dines
Original Article



Throughout the field of orthopedic surgery, there has been a trend toward using smaller incisions and implants that preserve as much normal anatomy as possible. The use of bone sparing technology, such as partial and full surface replacements of the humeral head, while attractive in younger patients, does not allow the best exposure for proper glenoid replacement. Additionally, there are other situations when the use of surface replacements is contraindicated. There are also patients with an existing total elbow replacement or a humeral malunion or deformity in which a traditional long-stem component would not fit. For these reasons, a mini-stem humeral component for total shoulder arthroplasty was developed.

In this study, we hypothesized that total shoulder replacement using the mini-stem humeral component could provide low complication rates and good to excellent results, as measured by postoperative Constant–Murley and UCLA shoulder scores at minimum 2 years postoperatively.

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective review of the first 49 mini-stem shoulder replacements (47 patients) for primary osteoarthritis. There were 26 male and 23 female patients. UCLA Shoulder Score and Constant Murley Scores were obtained on all patients at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively (average 29 months; range 24–43 months). Radiographs were interpreted by a musculoskeletal radiologist. Intraoperative blood loss was documented as was postoperative pain using a visual analog pain scale.


Patients experienced over 90% good to excellent results at minimum 2 year follow up. ROM improved significantly in all parameters. Postoperative UCLA scores at final follow up averaged 27.5 while Constant–Murley scores averaged 91. Small lucent lines (<1 mm) were noted in 11 patients. Five of 49 stems were placed in varus but the postoperative result was not affected in any of these patients. One patient suffered an acute subscapularis rupture that required repair.


This is the first report to document the efficacy of mini-stemmed humeral components used during total shoulder arthroplasty. Our study group showed good to excellent results as well as improvement in range of motion at minimum 2-year follow-up. The results presented in this study are comparable to previous outcomes achieved with conventional length humeral components, and suggest that mini-stem humeral components are an effective option for total shoulder arthroplasty.


total shoulder arthroplasty osteoarthritis mini stem humeral component 


  1. 1.
    Boileau P, Walch G, Noel E, Liotard JP. Neer’s Shoulder Prosthesis: results according to etiology. Rev Rheum Ed Fr. 61:607–618, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cofield RH. Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with the Neer Prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 66A:899–906, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deshmukh AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Long-term Survivorship, functional outcome and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 14(5):471–79, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edwards TB, Kadakia NR, Boulahia A, et al. A Comparison of Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Primary Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: Results of a Multicenter Study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 12(3): 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gartsman GM, Russel JA, Gaenslen E. Modular Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 6:333–339, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Shoulder Arthroplasty with or without Resurfacing of the Glenoid in Patients who have osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg. 82A(1):26–34, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy O, Copeland S. Cementless Surface Replacement Arthroplasty (Copeland CSRA) for Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 13(3):266–271, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mansat P, Mansat M, Bellumore Y, et al. Mid-Term results of Shoulder Arthroplasty for Primary Osteoarthritis. Rev Chir Orthop reparatrice Appar Mot. 88(6):544–552, 2002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Neer CS II, Watson KC, Stanton FJ. Recent Experiences in Total Shoulder Replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 64A:319–337, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orfaly RM, Rockwood CA Jr, Esenyel C, Wirth MA. A Prospective Functional Outcome Study of Shoulder Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis with an intact Rotator Cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 12(3):214–221. 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomas SR, Wilson AJ, Chambler A, et al. Outcome of Copeland Surface Replacement Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 14(5):485–491, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with the Neer Prosthesis: Long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 6(6):495–505, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walch G, Boileau P. Prosthetic Adaptability : A new concept in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 8:443–451, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick W. Jost
    • 1
  • Joshua S. Dines
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew H. Griffith
    • 1
  • Michael Angel
    • 1
  • David W. Altchek
    • 1
  • David M. Dines
    • 1
  1. 1.Hospital for Special Surgery New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations