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 6, 757-761.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B6.22060  
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 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 PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nuttall, D.
Right arrow Articles by Trail, I. A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nuttall, D.
Right arrow Articles by Trail, I. A.

The effect of the offset humeral head on the micromovement of pegged glenoid components

A COMPARATIVE STUDY USING RADIOSTEREOMETRIC ANALYSIS

D. Nuttall, PhD, Research Fellow1; J. F. Haines, FRCS, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon1; and I. A. Trail, FRCS, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon1

1 Hand and Upper Limb Research Unit, Wrightington Hospital, Hall Lane, Appley Bridge, Wigan WN6 9EP, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr D. Nuttall; e-mail: uplimb_dn{at}hotmail.com

In a prospective study between 2000 and 2005, 22 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder had a total shoulder arthroplasty with a standard five-pegged glenoid component, 12 with non-offset humeral head and ten with offset humeral head components. Over a period of 24 months the relative movement of the glenoid component with respect to the scapula was measured using radiostereometric analysis.

Nine glenoids needed reaming for erosion. There was a significant increase in rotation about all three axes with time (p < 0.001), the largest occurring about the longitudinal axis (anteversion-retroversion), with mean values of 3.8° and 1.9° for the non-offset and offset humeral head eroded subgroups, respectively. There was also a significant difference in rotation about the anteversion-retroversion axis (p = 0.01) and the varus-valgus (p < 0.001) z-axis between the two groups. The offset humeral head group reached a plateau at early follow-up with rotation about the z-axis, whereas the mean of the non-offset humeral head group at 24 months was three times greater than that of the offset group accounting for the highly significant difference between them.






(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