International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1327–1330 | Cite as

Long-term survivorship of stemless anatomical shoulder replacement

  • Sascha Beck
  • Verena Beck
  • Alexander Wegner
  • Marcel Dudda
  • Theodor Patsalis
  • Marcus Jäger
Original Paper



Like in many other joints, current shoulder replacement designs aim at bone preservation. According to the literature available, stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) compares favourably with stemmed designs in terms of function and survivorship of the implant. However, long-term results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty are still missing. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate long-term results of stemless anatomical TSA.


Between 2006 and 2009, 51 shoulders in 46 patients were resurfaced using the Biomet Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS). Thirty-one shoulders in 26 patients who were aged 66.7 ± 10.0 (range 34–82) years were available for review at a mean follow-up of 94.7 ± 11.3 (76–124) months.


The implant survival rate was 93.5% at eight years. The overall revision rate of the TESS implant was 9.7%. Radiolucent lines were found on the glenoid side of the TESS arthroplasty in 90.9% of the cases. All stemless humeral corolla implants showed solid fixation at follow-up. Clinical scores significantly improved at long-term follow-up (VAS from 8.1 ± 0.9 to 1.0 ± 1.2, p < 0.001; Quick-DASH from 67.9 ± 13.5 to 18.7 ± 16.5, p < 0.001 and Constant score from 14.7 ± 6.1 to 68.8 ± 13.2, p < 0.001).


Stemless TSA has stood the test of time at eight years in terms of clinical scores, radiographic loosening, complication rates and implant survivorship.


TESS Stemless TSA Shoulder arthroplasty Long-term follow-up Survivorship 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Maier MW, Lauer S, Klotz MC, Bulhoff M, Spranz D, Zeifang F (2015) Are there differences between stemless and conventional stemmed shoulder prostheses in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:275. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Uschok S, Magosch P, Moe M, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P (2016) Is the stemless humeral head replacement clinically and radiographically a secure equivalent to standard stem humeral head replacement in the long-term follow-up? A prospective randomized trial. J Shoulder Elb Surg.
  3. 3.
    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):1623–1629. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A (1999) Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplast 14(6):756–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huguet D, DeClercq G, Rio B, Teissier J, Zipoli B, Group T (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 Elb Surg 19(6):847–852. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berth A, Pap G (2013) Stemless shoulder prosthesis versus conventional anatomic shoulder prosthesis in patients with osteoarthritis: a comparison of the functional outcome after a minimum of two years follow-up. J Orthop Traumatol 14(1):31–37. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Favard L, Katz D, Colmar M, Benkalfate T, Thomazeau H, Emily S (2012) Total shoulder arthroplasty—arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathies: results and complications after a minimum follow-up of 8 years according to the type of arthroplasty and etiology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(4 Suppl):S41–S47. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gazielly DF, Scarlat MM, Verborgt O (2015) Long-term survival of the glenoid components in total shoulder replacement for arthritis. Int Orthop 39(2):285–289. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C (2006) Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elb Surg 15(1):19–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aldinger PR, Raiss P, Rickert M, Loew M (2010) Complications in shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 485 cases. Int Orthop 34(4):517–524. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH (2010) Survivorship of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19(1):143–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lazarus MD, Jensen KL, Southworth C, Matsen FA 3rd (2002) The radiographic evaluation of keeled and pegged glenoid component insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(7):1174–1182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cofield RH, Edgerton BC (1990) Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect 39:449–462PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bartelt R, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH (2011) Shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty-five years or younger with osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20(1):123–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 Elb Surg 13(6):604–613. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma SurgeryUniversity Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Shoulder, Elbow, Hand and Foot SurgerySt. Josef HospitalWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations