Glenoid or not glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis.
review · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 23412243.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1007/s00590-012-1117-6.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The optimal choice for the treatment of end-stage primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis remains controversial, with alternatives including total shoulder replacement (TSR) and humeral head replacement (HHR). The objective of this review is to analyze the effect of TSR compared with HHR on rates of pain relief, range of motion, patient satisfaction and revision surgery in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Compared with HHR, TSR provided significantly greater pain relief, gain in forward elevation, and gain in external rotation and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, TSR required significantly less revision surgery glenoid component loosening than patients undergoing HHR (progression of osteoarthritis changes with subchondral sclerosis, joint space narrowing and glenoid subsidence). A convex-back pegged glenoid component with a modern instrumented cement pressurization technique achieves risk of loosening. For 10 years, a high interest regarding new designs of un-cemented metal back glenoid components has developed with promising results, because they allow glenoid bone graft in case of glenoid erosion or dysplasia and a one-stage glenoid bone reconstruction in case of revision surgery.
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement
- Cementation
- Orthopedic Fixation Devices
- Osteoarthritis
- Prosthesis Failure
- Shoulder Joint
Anatomy
- shoulder