Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 87-B, Issue 4, 496-500.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B4.15558  
Copyright © 2005 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow FrenchSpanishGermanItalianRomanianPolishRussianCzech
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mileti, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hoskin, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mileti, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hoskin, T. L.

Monoblock and modular total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis

J. Mileti, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon; J. W. Sperling, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon; R. H. Cofield, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon; J. R. Harrington, MA, Biostatistician; and T. L. Hoskin, MS, Biostatistician

Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr J. W. Sperling; e-mail: sperling.john{at}mayo.edu

There are theoretical and practical advantages to modular rather than monoblock designs of prostheses for shoulder arthroplasty, but there are no reported studies which specifically compare the clinical and radiological results of their use. We have compared the results of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using both types of implant. The monoblock design was used between 1992 and 1995 and the modular design after 1995. Both had cemented all-polyethylene glenoids, the monoblock with matched and the modular with mismatched radii of curvature. There were 34 consecutive shoulders in each group with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years in the first and 5.2 years in the second.

There were no significant differences in improvement of pain scores, active elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, patient satisfaction, or the Neer ratings between the two groups. Two of 28 glenoid components in the first group and six of 30 in the second met the criteria for being radiologically at risk for loosening (p = 0.25). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome or radiological changes between the first- and second-generation designs of implant for shoulder arthroplasty.






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General