Advertisement

Keeled or Pegged Polyethylene Glenoid Components

  • Mehmet Çetinkaya
  • Mustafa Özer
  • Ulunay Kanatlı
Chapter

Abstract

The glenoid baseplate survival is of paramount importance for the outcome of anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty procedures. Various prosthetic designs have been described and experienced to decrease the failure rates and improve patients’ satisfaction. Most of the orthopaedic surgeons have a great eagerness to implant and advocate the success of uncemented prosthetic components in arthroplasty procedures to avoid complications of cementing and troubles during the revision procedures. However, higher rates of failure were almost always reported for metal-backed glenoid components in the literature. Studies in the literature have consistently reported unsatisfactory results following implantation of uncemented metal-backed glenoid components. The most common complication of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is the failure of the polyethylene glenoid component which accounts for the majority of the deleterious outcomes and manifests clinically by pain, loss of function, and presence of a clunking noise. High rates of radiolucency at the bone-cement interface were previously reported numbers of times in the literature. However, this fact does not always show up clinically as symptomatic loosening during the postoperative follow-ups. This chapter aimed to compare the mostly implanted materials named pegged and keeled glenoid components to provide a guide to the shoulder surgeons in decision-making for TSA procedures.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Friedman R, LaBerge M, Dooley R, et al. Finite element modeling of the glenoid component: effect of design parameters on stress distribution. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992;1:261–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boileau P, Avidor C, Krishnan SG, et al. Cemented polyethylene versus uncemented metal-backed glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):351–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin SD, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Uncemented glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(6):1284–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nyffeler RW, Meyer D, Sheikh R, et al. The effect of cementing technique on structural fixation of pegged glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(1):106–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fox TJ, Cil A, Sperling JW, et al. Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):859–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrett WP, Franklin JL, Jackins SE, et al. Total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(6):865–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(4):603–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bohsali KI, Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(10):2279–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matsen FA 3rd, Bicknell RT, Lippitt SB. Shoulder arthroplasty: the socket perspective. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5 Suppl):S241–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matsen FA 3rd, Clinton J, Lynch J, et al. Glenoid component failure in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(4):885–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Throckmorton TW, Zarkadas PC, Sperling JW, et al. Pegged versus keeled glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(5):726–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Strauss EJ, Roche C, Flurin PH, et al. The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(5):819–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Davies JP, Burke DW, O'Connor DO, et al. Comparison of the fatigue characteristics of centrifuged and uncentrifuged Simplex P bone cement. J Orthop Res. 1987;5(3):366–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lacroix D, Murphy LA, Prendergast PJ. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of glenoid replacement prostheses: a comparison of keeled and pegged anchorage systems. J Biomech Eng. 2000;122(4):430–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neer CS 2nd, Watson KC, Stanton FJ. Recent experience in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(3):319–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cofield RH. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(6):899–906.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brenner BC, Ferlic DC, Clayton ML, et al. Survivorship of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(9):1289–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hawkins RJ, Bell RH, Jallay B. Total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;242:188–94.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;307:47–69.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodosky MW, Bigliani LU. Indications for glenoid resurfacing in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(3):231–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karduna AR, Williams GR, Williams JL, et al. Glenohumeral joint translations before and after total shoulder arthroplasty. A study in cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(8):1166–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McPherson EJ, Friedman RJ, An YH, et al. Anthropometric study of normal glenohumeral relationships. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(2):105–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lazarus MD, Jensen KL, Southworth C, et al. The radiographic evaluation of keeled and pegged glenoid component insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(7):1174–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Churchill RS, Boorman RS, Fehringer EV, et al. Glenoid cementing may generate sufficient heat to endanger the surrounding bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;419:76–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jean K. Glenoid or not glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(4):387–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giori NJ, Beaupre GS, Carter DR. The influence of fixation peg design on the shear stability of prosthetic implants. J Orthop Res. 1990;8(6):892–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Collins D, Tencer A, Sidles J, et al. Edge displacement and deformation of glenoid components in response to eccentric loading. The effect of preparation of the glenoid bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(4):501–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, et al. The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(4):491–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Severt R, Thomas BJ, Tsenter MJ, et al. The influence of conformity and constraint on translational forces and frictional torque in total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;292:151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wirth MA, Basamania C, Rockwood CA Jr. Fixation of glenoid component: keel vs pegs. Operative Tech Orthop. 1994;4:218–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wirth MA, Seltzer DG, Senes HR, et al. An analysis of failed humeral head and total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Trans. 1994;5(18):977–8.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Franklin JL, Barrett WP, Jackins SE, et al. Glenoid loosening in total shoulder arthroplasty. Association with rotator cuff deficiency. J Arthroplasty. 1988;3(1):39–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Trail IA, Nuttall D. The results of shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(8):1121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gartsman GM, Elkousy HA, Warnock KM, et al. Radiographic comparison of pegged and keeled glenoid components. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):252–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roche C, Angibaud L, Flurin PH, et al. Glenoid loosening in response to dynamic multi-axis eccentric loading: a comparison between keeled and pegged designs with an equivalent radial mismatch. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2006;63(3–4):88–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nuttall D, Haines JF, Trail II. A study of the micromovement of pegged and keeled glenoid components compared using radiostereometric analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S65–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rahme H, Mattsson P, Wikblad L, et al. Stability of cemented in-line pegged glenoid compared with keeled glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(8):1965–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Edwards TB, Labriola JE, Stanley RJ, et al. Radiographic comparison of pegged and keeled glenoid components using modern cementing techniques: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):251–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Barwood S, Setter KJ, Blaine TA, et al. The incidence of early radiolucencies about a pegged glenoid component using cement pressurization. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(5):703–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Raiss P, Pape G, Kleinschmidt K, et al. Bone cement penetration pattern and primary stability testing in keeled and pegged glenoid components. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):723–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Murphy LA, Prendergast PJ, Resch H. Structural analysis of an offset-keel design glenoid component compared with a center-keel design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(6):568–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Orr TE, Carter DR, Schurman DJ. Stress analyses of glenoid component designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;232:217–24.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Churchill RS. Trends in glenoid component design in unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2 Suppl):S41–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wirth MA, Korvick DL, Basamania CJ, et al. Radiologic, mechanical, and histologic evaluation of 2 glenoid prosthesis designs in a canine model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(2):140–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Churchill RS, Zellmer C, Zimmers HJ, et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of a partially cemented glenoid implant: five-year minimum follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1091–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    De Wilde L, Dayerizadeh N, De Neve F, et al. Fully uncemented glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(10):e1–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McLendon PB, Schoch BS, Sperling JW, et al. Survival of the pegged glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty: part II. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26:1469–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Papadonikolakis A, Neradilek MB, Matsen FA 3rd. Failure of the glenoid component in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of the English-language literature between 2006 and 2012. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(24):2205–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Walch G, Young AA, Boileau P, et al. Patterns of loosening of polyethylene keeled glenoid components after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(2):145–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vavken P, Sadoghi P, von Keudell A, et al. Rates of radiolucency and loosening after total shoulder arthroplasty with pegged or keeled glenoid components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(3):215–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Havig MT, Kumar A, Carpenter W, et al. Assessment of radiolucent lines about the glenoid. An in vitro radiographic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(3):428–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kelleher IM, Cofield RH, Becker DA, et al. Fluoroscopically positioned radiographs of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992;1(6):306–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Armstrong AD, Lewis GS. Design evolution of the glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. JBJS Rev. 2013;1(2):1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet Çetinkaya
    • 1
  • Mustafa Özer
    • 2
  • Ulunay Kanatlı
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Mengucek Gazi Training and Research HospitalErzincan UniversityErzincanTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Meram Faculty of MedicineNecmettin Erbakan UniversityKonyaTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumatologyGazi University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations