Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 7 | Pages 1292 - 1300
1 Jul 2021
Märtens N Heinze M Awiszus F Bertrand J Lohmann CH Berth A

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results, long-term survival, and complication rates of stemless shoulder prosthesis with stemmed anatomical shoulder prostheses for treatment of osteoarthritis and to analyze radiological bone changes around the implants during follow-up.

Methods

A total of 161 patients treated with either a stemmed or a stemless shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 118 months (102 to 158). The Constant score (CS), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and active range of motion (ROM) were recorded. Radiological analysis for bone adaptations was performed by plain radiographs. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was calculated and complications were noted.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1609 - 1617
1 Dec 2018
Malhas AM Granville-Chapman J Robinson PM Brookes-Fazakerley S Walton M Monga P Bale S Trail I

Aims

We present our experience of using a metal-backed prosthesis and autologous bone graft to treat gross glenoid bone deficiency.

Patients and Methods

A prospective cohort study of the first 45 shoulder arthroplasties using the SMR Axioma Trabecular Titanium (TT) metal-backed glenoid with autologous bone graft. Between May 2013 and December 2014, 45 shoulder arthroplasties were carried out in 44 patients with a mean age of 64 years (35 to 89). The indications were 23 complex primary arthroplasties, 12 to revise a hemiarthroplasty or resurfacing, five for aseptic loosening of the glenoid, and five for infection.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 4 | Pages 504 - 511
1 Apr 2016
Ajami S Blunn GW Lambert S Alexander S Foxall Smith M Coathup MJ

Aims

To assess the extent of osteointegration in two designs of shoulder resurfacing implants. Bony integration to the Copeland cylindrical central stem design and the Epoca RH conical-crown design were compared.

Patients and Methods

Implants retrieved from six patients in each group were pair-matched. Mean time to revision surgery of Copeland implants was 37 months (standard deviation (sd) 23; 14 to 72) and Epoca RH 38 months (sd 28; 12 to 84). The mean age of patients investigated was 66 years (sd 4; 59 to 71) and 58 years (sd 17; 31 to 73) in the Copeland and Epoca RH groups respectively. None of these implants were revised for loosening.