High revision rate of metal-backed glenoid component and impact on the overall revision rate of stemless total shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort study from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.41014Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Osteoarthrosis, ShoulderAbstract
Background and purpose: There is controversy regarding the results of stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) used for osteoarthritis. Therefore, we aimed to compare revision rates of stemmed and stemless TSA and to examine the impact of metal-backed glenoid components.
Methods: We included all patients reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Register from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2022 with an anatomical TSA used for osteoarthritis. Primary outcome was revision (removal or exchange of components) for any reason.
Results: 3,338 arthroplasties were included. The hazard ratio for revision of stemless TSA adjusted for age and sex was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21–2.78) with stemmed TSA as reference. When excluding all arthroplasties with a metal-backed glenoid component, the adjusted hazard ratio for revision of stemless TSA was 1.37 (CI 0.85–2.20). For the Eclipse stemless TSA system, the adjusted hazard ratio for revision of a metal-backed glenoid component was 8.75 (CI 2.40–31.9) with stemless Eclipse with an all-polyethylene glenoid component as reference.
Conclusion: We showed that the risk of revision of stemless TSAs was increased and that it was related to their combination with metal-backed glenoid components.
Downloads
References
Baumgarten K M. Is stemless total shoulder arthroplasty indicated in elderly patients? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2023; 32(2): 260-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.08.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.08.003
Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman G M, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(9): 1947-56. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02854. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02854
Singh J A, Sperling J, Buchbinder R, McMaken K. Surgery for shoulder osteoarthritis: a Cochrane systematic review. J Rheumatol 2011; 38(4): 598-605. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.101008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.101008
Wright T W, Flurin P-H, Crosby L, Struk A M, Zuckerman J D. Total shoulder arthroplasty outcome for treatment of osteoarthritis: a multicenter study using a contemporary implant. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2015 44(11): 523-6.
Rasmussen J V, Amundsen A, Sørensen A K B, Klausen T W, Jakobsen J, Jensen S L, et al. Increased use of total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and improved patient-reported outcome in Denmark, 2006–2015: a nationwide cohort study from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 2019; 90(5): 489-94. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1633759. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1633759
Rasmussen J V, Harjula J, Arverud E D, Hole R, Jensen S L, Brorson S, et al. The short-term survival of total stemless shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis is comparable to that of total stemmed shoulder arthroplasty: a Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28(8): 1578-86. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.01.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.01.010
Berth A, Pap G. Stemless shoulder prosthesis versus conventional anatomic shoulder prosthesis in patients with osteoarthritis: a comparison of the functional outcome after a minimum of two years follow-up. J Orthop Traumatol 2013 r; 14(1): 31-7. doi: 10.1007/s10195-012-0216-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-012-0216-9
Nixon R A, Dang K H, Haberli J E, O’Donnell E A. Surgical time and outcomes of stemmed versus stemless total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022; 31(6S): S83-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.01.129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.01.129
Malcherczyk D, Abdelmoula A, Heyse T J, Peterlein C D, Greene B, El-Zayat B F. Bleeding in primary shoulder arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138(3): 317-23. doi: 10.1007/s00402-017-2851-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2851-3
Teissier J, Teissier P. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2023; 109(1S): 103460. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103460
Looney A M, Day J, Johnson J L, Johnston P S. Outcomes between stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2022; 6(11): e22.00077. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00077. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-22-00077
Gill D R J, Corfield S, Harries D, Page R S. A comparison of revision rates for stemmed and stemless primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty with all polyethylene glenoid components: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2023; S1058-2746(23)00536-0. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.06.025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.06.025
Zhou Y, Frampton C, Hirner M. Medium-term results of stemless, short, and conventional stem humeral components in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a New Zealand Joint Registry study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2023; 32(5): 1001-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.10.029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.10.029
Issa Z, Brorson S, Rasmussen J V. Short-term survival and patient-reported outcome of total stemless shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis are similar to that of stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty: a study from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. JSES Int 2022; 6(5): 781-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.05.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2022.05.013
Dansk Skulderalloplastik Register (DSR) Årsrapport 2022. Regionernes Kliniske Kvalitetsudviklingsprogram (RKKP); 2023. P. 1-116. Available from: https://www.sundhed.dk/content/cms/3/4703_dsr_arsrapport_2022_offentliggjort.pdf
Rasmussen J V, Polk A, Brorson S, Sorensen A K, Olsen B S. Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis: 1,209 cases from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 2014; 85(2): 117-22. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.893497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.893497
Robertsson O, Ranstam J. No bias of ignored bilaterality when analysing the revision risk of knee prostheses: analysis of a population based sample of 44,590 patients with 55,298 knee prostheses from the national Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003; 4: 1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-4-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-4-1
Lie S A, Engesaeter L B, Havelin L I, Gjessing H K, Vollset S E. Dependency issues in survival analyses of 55,782 primary hip replacements from 47,355 patients. Stat Med 2004; 23(20): 3227-40. doi: 10.1002/sim.1905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1905
Ranstam J, Kärrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Mäkelä K, Espehaug B, Pedersen A B, et al. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data, I: Introduction and background. Acta Orthop 2011; 82(3): 253-7. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.588862. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.588862
Ranstam J, Robertsson O. The Cox model is better than the Fine and Gray model when estimating relative revision risks from arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 2017; 88(6): 578-80. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1361130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1361130
Lie S A, Fenstad A M, Lygre S H L, Kroken G, Dybvik E, Gjertsen J-E, et al. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression are preferable for the analysis of time to revision of joint arthroplasty: thirty-one years of follow-up for cemented and uncemented THAs inserted from 1987 to 2000 in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. JB JS Open Access 2022; 7(1): e21.00108. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00108
Ouchi Y, Rakugi H, Arai H, Akishita M, Ito H, Toba K, et al. Redefining the elderly as aged 75 years and older: proposal from the Joint Committee of Japan Gerontological Society and the Japan Geriatrics Society. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17(7): 1045-7. doi: 10.1111/ggi.13118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13118
Ranstam J, Kärrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Mäkelä K, Espehaug B, Pedersen A B, et al. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data, II: Guidelines. Acta Orthop 2011; 82(3): 258-67. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.588863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.588863
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 Elbow Surg 2017; 26(2): 225-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.001
Upfill-Brown A, Satariano N, Feeley B. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty: review of short and medium-term results. JSES Open Access 2019; 3(3): 154-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.07.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2019.07.008
Noschajew E, Rittenschober F, Kindermann H, Ortmaier R. Clinical and radiologic outcomes after anatomical total shoulder replacement using a modular metal-backed glenoid after a mean follow-up of 5.7 years. J Clin Med 2022; 11(20): 6107. doi: 10.3390/jcm11206107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11206107
Magosch P, Lichtenberg S, Tauber M, Martetschläger F, Habermeyer P. Prospective midterm results of a new convertible glenoid component in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141(5): 717-24. doi: 10.1007/s00402-020-03454-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03454-y
Romeo A A, Erickson B J, Costouros J, Long N, Klassen J, Araghi A, et al. Eclipse stemless shoulder prosthesis vs. Univers II shoulder prosthesis: a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29(11): 2200-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.07.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.07.004
Page R S, Pai V, Eng K, Bain G, Graves S, Lorimer M. Cementless versus cemented glenoid components in conventional total shoulder joint arthroplasty: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27(10): 1859-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.017
Sharplin P K, Frampton C M A, Hirner M. Cemented vs. uncemented glenoid fixation in total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a New Zealand Joint Registry study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29(10): 2097-103. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.008
Chalmers P N, Gupta A K, Rahman Z, Bruce B, Romeo A A, Nicholson G P. Predictors of early complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(4): 856-60. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.002
Mahony G T, Werner B C, Chang B, Grawe B M, Taylor S A, Craig E V, et al. Risk factors for failing to achieve improvement after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27(6): 968-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.018
Gillam M H, Salter A, Ryan P, Graves S E. Different competing risks models applied to data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Acta Orthop 2011; 82(5): 513-20. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.618918. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.618918
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Marc R K Nyring, Bo S Olsen, Steen L Jensen, Jeppe V Rasmussen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
