Clinical and radiological outcomes of a stemless reverse shoulder implant: a two-year follow-up in 56 patients.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of stemless anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, many studies have been published on anatomic implants. For reverse stemless implants, however, there are only a few clinical follow-up studies available. The current clinical case series aims to present clinical and radiological outcomes of a new stemless reverse prosthesis system (Lima Shoulder Modular Replacement stemless). METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the outcome of 56 stemless total shoulder arthroplasties in 56 patients with a mean age of 61.2 years (46-76 years) at the time of implantation at a minimum follow-up of 24 months (range 24-41 months). All patients were physically and radiologically examined. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by using the Constant-Murley Score and the Subjective Shoulder Value. RESULTS: The mean Subjective Shoulder Value was 84.27% at the latest follow-up. Significant improvements from preoperative to latest follow-up were documented for Constant-Murley Score (34.9 pts to 74.43 pts, P < .001) and active range of motion (abduction 72° to 130°, flexion 36° to 138°, and external rotation 16°to 28°). There was one complete loosening of the humeral component without reoperation. Radiolucency lines were observed in anteroposterior or axial radiographs at the humeral component in 23% of the cases, most of them in anteroposterior view at the calcar region. Radiolucency line findings did not affect clinical outcomes. Major complications or revisions did not occur so far. CONCLUSION: At short-term follow-up, stemless reverse shoulder systems show comparable clinical and radiological outcomes compared to stemmed reverse implants in the literature.

Clinical and radiologic results after anatomic stemless shoulder prosthesis: a minimum 4-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of stemless anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, few midterm functional and radiographic results have been published. This article presents results of the Arthrex Eclipse prosthesis with a mean follow-up of 70 months. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the outcome of 53 arthroplasties in 51 patients with a mean age of 65 years at the time of implantation with a minimum follow-up of 48 months. All patients were physically and radiologically examined, and the results documented by Constant-Murley and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores. RESULTS: Significant improvements from preoperative to last follow-up were documented in the Constant-Murley score (53.8%-83.5%, P < .001) and active range of motion (abduction 84°-108°, flexion 98°-125°, and external rotation 19°-41°). There was no significant difference between total and hemiarthroplasty. The mean DASH score was 28.3 points (95% confidence interval 20.1-35.2). Lowering of bone mineral density was observed in anteroposterior radiographs at the humeral component in 24.5% and at the glenoid component in 33.3%. The rate of complications was 15.7%. CONCLUSION: This study finds improvements in functional, radiographic, and subjective midterm results comparable to other accessible data for stemless and stemmed arthroplasty.

Revision of a Stemless Anatomic Implant into a Stemless Reverse Implant.

INTRODUCTION: Stemless anatomic implants are the growing standard for solving osteoarthritis of the shoulder. If there are secondary rotator cuff insufficiency and the need to revise the implant into a reverse total shoulder, there is usually the option to revise it into a stemmed implant with losing the benefits of stemless implants. There are only a few stemless reverse implants available on the market. Usually, they are recommended as primary implants, but not for revision surgery. Case Report. A 61-year-old male with an indwelling anatomic stemless TESS (Total Evolutive Shoulder System, Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, USA) implant presented in our clinic with growing pain and loss of range of motion. The TESS was implanted in 2007 as a hemishoulder arthroplasty. The X-ray was showing a stable implanted corolla with clearly growing protrusion of the glenoid. Because of the clinical presentation and the ultrasound investigation that showed only remnants of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus left, we decided that it is necessary to revise the stable implant in a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. As the TESS was not designed to be convertible, it was clear that it has to be explanted. Due to the young age of the patient, we proposed an "off-label" change to a stemless reverse implant, e.g., the LIMA SMR stemless reverse prosthesis. A revision was possible without much bone loss, so the stemless reverse implant could be used. The clinical and radiological 2-year follow-up showed a good result. CONCLUSION: Stemless implants are well known for anatomic implants, rarely for reverse implants, and seldom used for revision into reverse stemless. This case report shows that it is possible to revise a stemless anatomic implant with a stemless reverse, as long as the rules for implantation are applicable.