Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Geometrical analysis of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a radiological study of seventy TESS total shoulder prostheses

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of a stemless shoulder prosthesis to restore shoulder anatomy in relation to premorbid anatomy.

Methods

This prospective study was performed between May 2007 and December 2013. The inclusion criteria were patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) who had undergone stemless total anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Radiographic measurements were done on anteroposterior X-ray views of the glenohumeral joint.

Results

Sixty-nine patients (70 shoulders) were included in the study. The mean difference between premorbid centre of rotation (COR) and post-operative COR was 1 ± 2 mm (range −3 to 5.8 mm). The mean difference between premorbid humeral head height (HH) and post-operative HH was −1 ± 3 mm (range −9.7 to 8.5 mm). The mean difference between premorbid neck-shaft angle (NSA) and post-operative NSA was −3 ± 12° (range −26 to 20°).

Conclusions

Stemless implants could be of help to reconstruct the shoulder anatomy. This study shows that there are some challenges to be addressed when attempting to ensure optimal implant positioning. The critical step is to determine the correct level of bone cut to avoid varus or valgus humeral head inclination and ensure correct head size.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Walch G, Boileau P (1999) Prosthetic adaptability: a new concept for shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8(5):443–51

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K (2000) Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A(11):1594–602

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mileti J, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Harrington JR, Hoskin TL (2005) Monoblock and modular total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 87(4):496–500. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.87b4.15558

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Churchill RS (2014) Stemless shoulder arthroplasty: current status. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(9):1409–14. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Huguet D, DeClercq G, Rio B, Teissier J, Zipoli B, TESS Group (2010) Results of a new stemless shoulder prosthesis: radiologic proof of maintained fixation and stability after a minimum of three years' follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(6):847–52. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kadum B, Mafi N, Norberg S, Sayed-Noor AS (2011) Results of the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS): a single-centre study of 56 consecutive patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(12):1623–9. doi:10.1007/s00402-011-1368-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alolabi B, Youderian AR, Napolitano L, Szerlip BW, Evans PJ, Nowinski RJ et al (2014) Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(11):1740–6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Youderian AR, Ricchetti ET, Drews M, Iannotti JP (2014) Determination of humeral head size in anatomic shoulder replacement for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(7):955–63. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mackenzie DB (1993) The antero-superior exposure for total shoulder replacement. Orthop Traumatol 2:690–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Robertson DD, Yamaguchi K (2002) Geometric analysis of selected press fit prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement. J Orthop Res 20(2):192–7. doi:10.1016/s0736-0266 (01) 00111-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harryman DT, Sidles JA, Harris SL, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA (1995) The effect of articular conformity and the size of the humeral head component on laxity and motion after glenohumeral arthroplasty. A study in cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(4):555–63

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Takase K, Imakiire A, Burkhead WZ Jr (2002) Radiographic study of the anatomic relationships of the greater tuberosity. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(6):557–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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):175–83. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2007.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postacchini R (2009) Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: how much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(3):366–70. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.01.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pearl ML (2005) Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):99S–104S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G (2005) Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):111S–121S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sassoon A, Schoch B, Rhee P, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2013) The role of eccentric and offset humeral head variations in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(7):886–93. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.09.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kadum B, Mukka S, Englund E, Sayed-Noor A, Sjödén G (2014) Clinical and radiological outcome of the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS®) reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective comparative non-randomised study. Int Orthop 38(5):1001–6. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2277-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Atoun E, Van Tongel A, Hous N, Narvani A, Relwani J, Abraham R, Levy O (2014) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a short metaphyseal humeral stem. Int Orthop 38(6):1213–8. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2328-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Terrier A, Ramondetti S, Merlini F, Pioletti DD, Farron A (2010) Biomechanical consequences of humeral component malpositioning after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 19(8):1184–90. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Irlenbusch U, End S, Kilic M (2011) Differences in reconstruction of the anatomy with modern adjustable compared to second-generation shoulder prosthesis. Int Orthop 35(5):705–11. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1084-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Pearl ML, Kurutz S (1999) Geometric analysis of commonly used prosthetic systems for proximal humeral replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(5):660–71

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S (1992) The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74(4):491–500

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Jacob HA, Gerber C (2004) Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction, An in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(3):575–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Boileau P, Walch G (1997) The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 79(5):857–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jeong J, Bryan J, Iannotti JP (2009) Effect of a variable prosthetic neck-shaft angle and the surgical technique on replication of normal humeral anatomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(8):1932–41. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Horneij E, Holmström E, Hemborg B, Isberg PE, Ekdahl C (2002) Interrater reliability and between-days repeatability of eight physical performance tests. Adv Physiother 4:146–60. doi:10.1080/14038190260501596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rheault W, Albright B, Beyers C, Franta M, Johnson A, Skowronek M, Dougherty J (1992) Intertester reliability of the cervical range of motion device. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 15(3):147–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lindell O, Eriksson L, Strender L-E (2007) The reliability of a 10-test package for patients with prolonged back and neck pain: could an examiner without formal medical education be used without loss of quality? A methodological study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:31. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-8-31

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kadum B, Sayed-Noor AS, Perisynakis N, Baea S, Sjödén G (2015) Radiologic assessment of glenohumeral relationship: reliability and reproducibility of lateral humeral offset. Surg Radiol Anat [Epub ahead of print]

  31. Rozing PM, Obermann WR (1999) Osteometry of the glenohumeral joint. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 8(5):438–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Raymond Pollock Ph.D., MPH, for the linguistic review.

Disclaimer

No one of the authors, or any member of their family, has received financial support related to the subject of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences (Orthopaedics-Sundsvall), Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Bakir Kadum, Mats Wadsten, Arkan Sayed-Noor & Göran Sjödén

  2. Orthopaedic department, Derby Hospital, Derby, UK

    Hamid Hassany

Authors
  1. Bakir Kadum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamid Hassany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mats Wadsten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Arkan Sayed-Noor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Göran Sjödén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bakir Kadum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kadum, B., Hassany, H., Wadsten, M. et al. Geometrical analysis of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a radiological study of seventy TESS total shoulder prostheses. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 751–758 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2935-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2935-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation