Functional midterm follow-up comparison of stemless total shoulder prostheses versus conventional stemmed anatomic shoulder prostheses using a 3D-motion-analysis

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the functional midterm outcome of stemless shoulder prostheses with standard anatomical stemmed shoulder prostheses and to show that the STEMLESS results are comparable to the STEMMED with respect to active maximum range of shoulder motion (ROM) and Constant score (CS). Methods: Seventeen patients underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) in 25 shoulder joints. Stemless TSA was performed in 12 shoulder joints (group STEMLESS), third-generation stemmed TSA in 13 shoulder joints (group STEMMED). Functional results were documented using the CS. 3D-motion-analysis using the Heidelberg upper extremity model (HUX) was conducted to measure active maximum (ROM). Results: The group STEMLESS achieved a CS of 67.9 (SD 12.0) points and the group STEMMED of 70.2 (SD 5.8 points) without significant difference between the groups (p = 0.925). The maximum ROM of the group STEMLESS, ascertained by 3-D-motion-analysis, was in forward flexion 125.5° (SD 17.2°), in extension 49.4° (SD 13.8°), in abduction 126.2° (SD 28.5°) and in external rotation 40.3° (SD 13.9°). The maximum ROM of the group STEMMED, also ascertained by 3-D-motion analysis, was in forward flexion 135.0° (SD 16.8°), in extension 47.2° (SD 11.5°), in abduction 136.3° (SD 24.2°) and in external rotation 40.1° (SD 12.2°). The maximum ROM of the STEMLESS group was lower in forward flexion and abduction, higher in extension and almost identical in external rotation. But there was no significant difference (forward flexion p = 0.174, extension p = 0.470, abduction p = 0.345, external rotation p = 0.978). Conclusion: Both types of shoulder prostheses achieve a similar and good active ROM and similar results in CS. Trial registration: DRKS00013166, retrospectively registered, 11.10.201

Are there differences between stemless and conventional stemmed shoulder prostheses in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis?

Background: Conventional stemmed anatomical shoulder prostheses are widely used in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The stemless shoulder prosthesis, in contrast, is a new concept, and fewer outcome studies are available. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate the early functional outcome and postoperative proprioception of a stemless prosthesis in comparison with a standard stemmed anatomic shoulder prosthesis. Methods: Twelve patients (mean age 68.3 years [SD ± 5.4]; 5 female, 7 male) with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis of the shoulder were enrolled, who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a stemless total shoulder prosthesis, Total Evolution Shoulder System (TESS®; Biomed, France). The control group consisted of twelve (age and gender matched) patients (mean age 67.8 years; [SD ± 7.1]; 9 female, 3 male), getting a TSA with a standard anatomic stemmed prosthesis, Aequalis® Shoulder (Tournier, Lyon, France). Patients were examined the day before and six months after surgery. The pre- and postoperative Constant Score (CS) was evaluated and proprioception was measured in a 3D video motion analysis study using an active angle-reproduction (AAR) test. Results: Comparing the postoperative CS, there was no significant difference between the groups treated with the TESS® prosthesis (48.0 ± 13.8 points) and the Aequalis® prosthesis (49.3 ± 8.6 points; p = 0.792). There was no significant difference in postoperative proprioception between the TESS® group (7.2° [SD ± 2.8]) and the Aequalis® group(8.7° [SD ± 2.7]; p = 0.196), either. Comparison of in the results of CS and AAR test pre- and postoperatively showed no significant differences between the groups. Discussion: In patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, treated with TSA, the functional and the proprioceptive outcome is comparable between a stemless and a standard stemmed anatomic shoulder prosthesis at early followup. Conclusion: Further follow-up is necessary regarding the long-term performance of this prosthesis. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials DRKS 00007528. Registered 17 November 201