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 91-B, Issue 1, 75-81.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.21094  
Copyright © 2009 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow View responses
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
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cil, A.
Right arrow Articles by Cofield, R. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cil, A.
Right arrow Articles by Cofield, R. H.

Revision of the humeral component for aseptic loosening in arthroplasty of the shoulder

A. Cil, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon1; C. J. H. Veillette, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon1; J. Sanchez-Sotelo, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon1; J. W. Sperling, MD, MBA, Orthopaedic Surgeon1; C. Schleck, BS, Biostatistics1; and R. H. Cofield, MD, Orthopaedic Surgeon1

1 Department of Orthopaedics Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr R. H. Cofield; e-mail: cofield.robert{at}mayo.edu

Between 1976 and 2004, 38 revision arthroplasties (35 patients) were performed for aseptic loosening of the humeral component. The mean interval from primary arthroplasty to revision was 7.1 years (0.4 to 16.6). A total of 35 shoulders (32 patients) were available for review at a mean follow-up of seven years (2 to 19.3).

Pre-operatively, 34 patients (97%) had moderate or severe pain; at final follow-up, 29 (83%) had no or only mild pain (p < 0.0001). The mean active abduction improved from 88° to 107° (p < 0.01); and the mean external rotation from 37° to 46° (p = 0.27). Excellent or satisfactory results were achieved in 25 patients (71%) according to the modified Neer rating system. Humeral components were cemented in 29, with ingrowth implants used in nine cases. There were 19 of standard length and 17 were longer (two were custom replacements and are not included). Bone grafting was required for defects in 11 humeri. Only two glenoid components were left unrevised. Intra-operative complications included cement extrusion in eight cases, fracture of the shaft of the humerus is two and of the tuberosity in four. There were four re-operations, one for recurrent humeral loosening, with 89% survival free of re-operations at ten years.

Revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the humeral component provides reliable pain relief and modest improvement of movement, although there is a substantial risk of intra-operative complications. Revision to a total shoulder replacement gives better results than to a hemiarthroplasty.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
H. M. Betts, R. Abu-Rajab, T. Nunn, and A. J. Brooksbank
Total shoulder replacement in rheumatoid disease: A 16- TO 23-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
J Bone Joint Surg Br, September 1, 2009; 91-B(9): 1197 - 1200.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Revision of the humeral stem: why use a stem at all?
David M Ricketts, et al.
J Bone Joint Surg Br Online, 13 Jan 2009 [Full text]

(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