Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prospective study of double-eccentric hemi shoulder arthroplasty in different aetiologies: midterm results

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This prospective study aimed to analyse the effect of a newly developed double-eccentric adjustable stemmed prosthesis on reconstruction of the osseous anatomy, range of motion, strength and pain relief. A total of 91 consecutive hemiprostheses were evaluated preoperatively and three, six, 12, 24 and 48 months postoperatively (mean±SD 46.2 ± 10.9 months) by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Constant scores as well as radiological assessment. Clinical evaluations showed an increase in Constant score from 21.9 to 64.8 points and in ASES score from 24.9 to 77.9 points after two years. The results depend mainly on the underlying pathology. The best results were observed for primary osteoarthritis and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. All heads were eccentrically positioned. Specific stem-related complications were not observed. Because of the eccentric positioning of all heads it is reasonable to use adjustable shaft prostheses. The clinical results are comparable to data in the literature. Additional study provided a better or comparable clinical outcome and a low revision rate, when compared with other modern adjustable implants in the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aldinger PR, Raiss P, Rickert M, Loew M (2010) Complications in shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 485 cases. Int Orthop 34:517–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Boileau P, Chuinard C, Le Huec JC, Walch G, Trojani C (2006) Proximal humerus fracture sequelae: impact of a new radiographic classification on arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442:121–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Büchler P, Farron A (2004) Benefits of an anatomical reconstruction of the humeral head during shoulder arthroplasty: a finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19(1):16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Edwards TB, Kadakia NR, Boulahia A, Kempf JF, Boileau P, Némoz C, Walch G (2003) 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Favre P, Moor B, Snedeker JG, Gerber C (2008) Influence of component positioning on impingement in conventional total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23(2):175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Godenèche A, Boileau P, Favard L, Le Huec JC, Lévigne C, Nové-Josserand L, Walch G, Edwards TB (2002) Prosthetic replacement in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the shoulder: early results of 268 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(1):11–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Habermeyer P, Engel G (2004) Shoulder endoprosthetics in osteoarthritis (in German). Oper Orthop Traumatol 16:339–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Haines JF, Trail IA, Nuttall D, Birch A, Barrow A (2006) The results of arthroplasty in osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(4):496–501

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT (2002) Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(4):331–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Iannotti JP, Norris TR (2003) Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(2):251–258

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Irlenbusch U, End S, Kilic M (2010) Differences in reconstruction of the anatomy with modern adjustable compared with second-generation shoulder prosthesis. Int Orthop (Epub ahead of print)

  12. Irlenbusch U, Forke L, Fuhrmann U, Gebhardt K, Rott O (2010) Establishing the differential indication for anatomical and reversed shoulder endoprostheses in rheumatoid arthritis (in German). Z Rheumatol 69:240–249

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Irlenbusch U, Fuhrmann U, Gebhardt K, Rott O (2008) Differential indication of anatomic and reversed shoulder prostheses in fracture sequelae (in German). Z Orthop Unfall 146:478–485

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mansat P, Huser L, Mansat M, Bellumore Y, Rongières M, Bonnevialle P (2005) Shoulder arthroplasty for atraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head: nineteen shoulders followed up for a mean of seven years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(2):114–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mansat P, Mansat M, Bellumore Y, Rongières M, Bonnevialle P (2002) Mid-term results of shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis (in French). Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 88(6):544–552

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Matsen FA, Antoniou J, Rozencwaig R, Campbell B, Smith KL (2000) Correlates with comfort and function after total shoulder arthroplasty for degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9(6):465–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Matsoukis J, Tabib W, Guiffault P, Mandelbaum A, Walch G, Némoz C, Edwards TB (2003) Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with a prior anterior shoulder dislocation. Results of a multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(8):1417–1424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Neer CS, Watson KC, Stanton FJ (1982) Recent experience in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(3):319–337

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Norris TR, Iannotti JP (2002) Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(2):130–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nyffeler WR, Sheikh R, Jacob HAC, Gerber C (2004) Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction. An in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86(3):575–580

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Orfaly RM, Rockwood CA, Esenyel CZ, Wirth MA (2003) A prospective functional outcome study of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12(3):214–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postachini R (2009) Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: how much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:366–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM (2004) Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13(6):604–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Topolski MS, Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2006) Revision shoulder arthroplasty with positive intraoperative cultures: the value of preoperative studies and intraoperative histology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(4):402–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Walch G, Boileau P (2004) Revision shoulder arthroplasty: lessons learned. In: Boileau P (ed) Shoulder arthroscopy and arthroplasty. Current Concepts. Nice Shoulder Course 2004. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier, pp 417–424

    Google Scholar 

  26. Walch G, Boileau P (1999) Prosthetic adaptability: a new concept for shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8(5):443–451

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Woodruff MJ, Cohen AP, Bradley JG (2003) Arthroplasty of the shoulder in rheumatoid arthritis with rotator cuff dysfunction. Int Orthop 27(1):7–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank D. Pfluger for statistical analysis and P. Münger for revising the English manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The independent statistical analysis was supported by Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland. UI received consultant payments from Mathys.

Ethics standard

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee, St. Gallen, Switzerland, the Institutional Review Board of the Marienstift Arnstadt, Germany and the Ethics Committee of the Town of Vienna, Austria. All patients were informed preoperatively and provided their consent to participate in this study on a consent form.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marienstift Arnstadt, Orthopaedic Surgery, Wachsenburgallee 12, 99310, Arnstadt, Germany

    Ulrich Irlenbusch & Katja Gebhardt

  2. Rosenberg Clinic, Orthopaedic Surgery, Heiden, Switzerland

    Georges Blatter

  3. Park Clinic, Orthopaedic Surgery, Leipzig, Germany

    Geza Pap

  4. Otto-Wagner-Spital, Orthopaedic Surgery, Vienna, Austria

    Peter Zenz

Authors
  1. Ulrich Irlenbusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Georges Blatter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Katja Gebhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geza Pap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Zenz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Irlenbusch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Irlenbusch, U., Blatter, G., Gebhardt, K. et al. Prospective study of double-eccentric hemi shoulder arthroplasty in different aetiologies: midterm results. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 1015–1023 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1119-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1119-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation