Two-year follow-up of the SMR stemless platform shoulder system: a multicenter, prospective clinical study.

Background: The use of stemless shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis has grown substantially over the past decades. The goal of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of the Lima SMR stemless anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: Seventy-three implants in 73 patients (61 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties [aTSAs] and 12 reverse shoulder arthroplasties [RSAs]) were analyzed with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The average age in the aTSA group was 65.8 ± 8.7 and 78.3 ± 4.8 in the RSA group. Primary osteoarthritis was the indication in most cases (aTSA 93.7%, RSA 67%). Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 4, 12, and 24 months postoperatively using the Constant score, the ASES, Oxford Shoulder Score, EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels questionnaire, range of motion scores, and radiographically. Statistical significance was evaluated using the paired t-test (P < .5). Results: At 2-year follow-up, the overall average Constant score significantly improved from 40.0 ± 16.7 to 80.9 ± 21.4 (P < .001). Improvement of the ASES (from 31.7 ± 15.6 to 82.5 ± 19.4) and Oxford Shoulder Score (from 19.1 ± 7.4 to 41.9 ± 7.9) was also significant (P < .001). In the aTSA group, all range of motion scores improved significantly (P < .001). In the RSA group, all range of motion scores improved but only active forward flexion and external rotation in abduction improved significantly (P < .05). Most patients were satisfied or completely satisfied at 24 months (aTSA 93.9%, RSA 100%). Two humeral implants in the RSA configuration showed loosening on the first postoperative day related to excessive forces exerted on the shoulder, both requiring revision to a stemmed implant. In the aTSA group, no signs of radiolucencies, osteolysis, gradual loosening, or migration of the components were seen at the final follow-up. In the RSA group, one case had radiolucent lines with subsidence of the humeral core at 12 months, which had not progressed at 24 months and was asymptomatic. All other RSA cases showed no radiolucent lines, migration, scapular notching, or osteolysis. Three anatomic implants were converted with retention of the glenoid baseplate and humeral core to a reverse arthroplasty due to atraumatic cuff failure (N = 2) and traumatic cuff failure (N = 1). After these procedures, patients were satisfied with their results. There were no other complications. Conclusion: The 2-year results presented in this study show good functional and radiological outcomes using the SMR stemless system.

Long-term results of the uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty (Global Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis).

BACKGROUND: Treatment with uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty has proved to be viable for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis at short- and mid-term follow-up. This study was essential to determine whether those outcomes will endure. This study presents the long-term results of the Global Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis (CAP) uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA). METHODS: All patients with a diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis and an intact and clinically sufficient rotator cuff who underwent uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty between 2007 and 2009 were included. The data of all patients who completed the 10-year follow-up assessments were used for analysis. The visual analog scale pain score, Dutch version of the Simple Shoulder Test score, Constant score, Short Form 12 scores, and physical examination findings were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively on an annual basis. All complications and revisions were documented. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening, luxation or subluxation, migration, and glenoid erosion. RESULTS: Of 48 shoulders, 23 (48%, 18 women and 5 men) were available for the 10-year follow-up assessments and their data were used for analysis. The main reasons for dropout were revision (27%) and death (10%). The mean follow-up period of the remaining patients was 10.9 years (range, 9-13 years). The visual analog scale pain score (from 6.5 ± 2.1 to 0.7 ± 1.6, P < .001), Simple Shoulder Test (Dutch version) score (from 22% ± 22% to 79% ± 22%, P < .001), Constant score (from 40 ± 29 to 70 ± 8, P < .001), and Short Form 12 physical score (from 36 ± 7 to 41 ± 12, P = .001) improved significantly compared with preoperative scores. Revision surgery was performed in 13 of the initial 48 shoulders (27%). Most revisions were seen within 7 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Two revisions have been performed in the mid-term to long term because of increased functional outcome scores and the absence of signs of loosening. Nevertheless, the high overall revision rate of 27% between short- and long-term follow-up reflects the need to limit the use of uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty relies solely on cementless metaphyseal fixation and is designed to avoid stem-related problem such as intraoperative fractures, loosening, stress shielding or stress-risers for periprosthetic fractures.Many designs are currently on the market, although only six anatomic and two reverse arthroplasty designs have results published with a minimum of two-year follow-up.Compared to stemmed designs, clinical outcome is equally good using stemless designs in the short and medium-term follow-up, which is also the case for overall complication and revision rates.Intraoperative fracture rate is lower in stemless compared to stemmed designs, most likely due to the absence of intramedullary preparation and of the implantation of a stem.Radiologic abnormalities around the humeral implant are less frequent compared to stemmed implants, possibly related to the closer resemblance to native anatomy.Between stemless implants, several significant differences were found in terms of clinical outcome, complication and revision rates, although the level of evidence is low with high study heterogeneity; therefore, firm conclusions could not be drawn.There is a need for well-designed long-term randomized trials with sufficient power in order to assess the superiority of stemless over conventional arthroplasty, and of one design over another. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:35-49. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200067.

A Comparison of Robotically Assisted Microsurgery versus Manual Microsurgery in Challenging Situations.

BACKGROUND: Microsurgery can be challenging secondary to orientation of the vessels, accessibility, or depth of the wound. Robotically assisted microsurgery reduces tremors and improves visualization and may improve the quality of anastomosis compared with traditional microsurgery. The purpose of this study was to compare robotically assisted microsurgery to traditional microsurgery in technically challenging situations with respect to time of anastomosis, quality of anastomosis, and Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills. METHODS: Two investigators with no prior surgery or microsurgery experience performed 160 anastomoses on artificial microvessels after undergoing standardized traditional and robotically assisted microsurgery courses. Five different exposure groups were created with depths of 0, 10, and 20 cm and sidewall angles of 20 and 30 degrees. A comparison of 80 manual with 80 robotically assisted microsurgery anastomoses in different exposure groups was undertaken. The modified Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scoring system, duration per anastomosis, and a subjective comfort scale were evaluated. RESULTS: In the most difficult exposure, Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores were similar in both groups (p = 0.98), the duration was higher in the manual group (p = 0.004), and the subjective comfort rating was higher in the robotically assisted microsurgery group (p < 0.001). In the easiest (0-cm depth, flat) exposure, Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores were higher in the manual group (p = 0.018) and the duration was longer in the robotically assisted microsurgery group (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Manual surgery was superior to robotically assisted microsurgery in technically easy exposures. In difficult exposures (greater depth and lower sidewall angles), however, robotically assisted microsurgery had a shorter surgery time and a higher comfort rating, with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills scores similar to those assessing traditional microsurgery. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.