Stemless Shoulder Arthroplasty in Treating Severe Deformity
Shoulder arthroplasty has undergone rapid evolution with significant advancements in design, materials, indications, and technique. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty offers many potential advantages including greater versatility in matching native anatomy, bone preservation, and less difficult revision surgery. Stemless implants also provide the theoretical advantage of decreased surgical times and less blood loss. These advantages may offer particular benefits in the setting of severe deformity. The currently available short- to midterm results are promising, but more research is needed to determine long-term survivability of the implant. Stemless reverse arthroplasty is also available, and the limited reported outcomes appear similar to the stemmed reverse implants. However, there may be a higher failure rate, and the specific indications and risks for failure have not been identified.
KeywordsShoulder Arthroplasty Stemless Humerus
- 9.Huguet D, Declercq G, Rio B, Teissier J, Zipoli B, TESS Group. 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. 2010;19(6):847–52.Google Scholar
- 11.Athwal GS. Spare the canal: stemless shoulder arthroplasty is finally here: commentary on an article by R. Sean Churchill, MD, et al.: “clinical and radiographic outcomes of the simpliciti canal-sparing shoulder arthroplasty system. A prospective two-year multicenter study”. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(7):e28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Beck S, Beck V, Wegner A, Dudda M, Patsalis T, Jäger M. Long-term survivorship of stemless anatomical shoulder replacement. Int Orthop (SICOT). 2018.Google Scholar
- 20.Uschok S, Magosch P, Moe M, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. 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. 2017;26(2):225–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar