Cemented vs. press-fit humeral stems: a matched cohort analysis at a mean follow-up of 10 years

被引:0
|
作者
Li, Troy [1 ]
Duey, Akiro H. [1 ]
V. Patel, Akshar [1 ]
White, Christopher A. [1 ]
Levy, Kenneth H. [1 ]
Ranson, William A. [1 ]
Cirino, Carl M. [1 ]
Shukla, Dave [1 ]
Parsons, Bradford O. [1 ]
Flatow, Evan L. [1 ]
Cagle, Paul J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Icahn Sch Med Mt Sinai, Dept Orthoped Surg, New York, NY USA
关键词
Replacement arthroplasty; shoulder; fixation technique; press-fit; cemented; humeral stem; long-term outcomes; TOTAL SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY; RADIOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT; FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES; COMPONENTS; OSTEOARTHRITIS; FIXATION; COMPLICATIONS; REPLACEMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jse.2023.11.029
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Although cementation of humeral stems has long been considered the gold standard for anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), cementless, or press-fit, fixation offers a relatively cheaper and less demanding alternative, particularly in the setting of a revision procedure. However, this approach has been accompanied by concerns of implant loosening and high rates of radiolucency. In the present study, we performed a propensity-matched comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes between cemented and cementless fixation techniques for aTSA. We hypothesized that cemented fixation of the humeral component would have significantly better implant survival while providing comparable functional outcomes at final follow-up. Methods: This study was a retrospective comparison of 50 shoulders undergoing aTSA: 25 using cemented humeral fixation vs. 25 using press-fit humeral fixation. Patients in the 2 groups were propensity matched according to age, sex, and preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score. Primary outcome measures included range of motion (ROM) (forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation), patient-reported outcomes (ASES, Simple Shoulder Test [SST], visual analog scale [VAS]), and implant survival. Results: At baseline, the 2 fixation groups were similar in regard to age, sex, body mass index, preoperative ASES score, and surgical indication. Mean follow-up was 11.7 +/- 4.95 years in the cemented cohort and 9.13 +/- 3.77 years in the press-fit cohort ( P = .045). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements postoperatively in all included ROM and patient-reported outcomes. However, press-fit patients reported significantly better VAS, ASES, and SST scores. Mean VAS pain score was 1.1 +/- 1.8 in press-fit patients and 3.2 +/- 3.0 in cemented patients ( P = .005). The mean ASES score was 87.7 +/- 12.4 in press-fit patients and 69.5 +/- 22.7 in cemented patients ( P = .002). Lastly, the mean SST score was 9.8 +/- 3.1 in press-fit patients and 7.7 +/- 3.7 in cemented patients ( P = .040). Both fixation techniques provided lasting implant survivorship with only a single revision operation in each of the cohorts. Conclusion: Herein, we provide a propensity-matched, long-term comparison of patients receiving anatomic shoulder arthroplasty stratified according to humeral stem fixation technique. The results of this analysis illustrate that both types of humeral fixation techniques yield durable and significant improvements in shoulder function with similar rates of survival at 10 years of follow-up. Level of evidence: Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study (c) 2024 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. All rights are reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1755 / 1761
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Press-fit vs. cemented humeral stem fixation for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: functional outcomes at a mean follow-up of 9.5 years
    Mazaleyrat, Matthieu
    Favard, Luc
    Garaud, Pascal
    Boileau, Pascal
    Berhouet, Julien
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2021, 30 (01) : 72 - 79
  • [2] A propensity matched cohort analysis: Cemented vs press fit humeral stem fixation in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty
    Iyer, Amogh I.
    Dopirak, Ryan M.
    Barry, Louis W.
    Brej, Benjamin L.
    V. Patel, Akshar
    Katayama, Erryk
    Cvetanovich, Gregory L.
    Bishop, Julie Y.
    Rauck, Ryan C.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2025, 68 : 109 - 113
  • [3] Do the humeral radiographic changes at 5-year follow-up affect the clinical outcomes of press-fit humeral stems in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasties?
    Garcia-Fernandez, Carlos
    Lopiz, Yaiza
    Garriguez-Perez, Daniel
    Arvinius, Camilla
    Ponz, Virginia
    Echevarria, Marta
    Garrido, Ana
    Marco, Fernando
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND TRAUMATOLOGY, 2024, 34 (04) : 1851 - 1863
  • [4] Cemented humeral stem versus press-fit humeral stem in total shoulder arthroplasty A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Uy, M.
    Wang, J.
    Horner, N. S.
    Bedi, A.
    Leroux, T.
    Alolabi, B.
    Khan, M.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2019, 101B (09) : 1107 - 1114
  • [5] Patella Strength Characteristics in Cemented vs Press-fit Implants: A Biomechanical Analysis of Initial Stability
    Patel, Akshar H.
    Wilder, J. Heath
    Weldy, John M.
    Ross, Bailey J.
    Kim, Nathaniel E.
    Wang, Hao
    Sanchez, Fernando L.
    Sherman, William F.
    ARTHROPLASTY TODAY, 2022, 14 : 140 - 147
  • [6] Humeral osteolysis after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using cemented or cementless stems comparative retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 9 years
    Mazaleyrat, Matthieu
    Favard, Luc
    Boileau, Pascal
    Berhouet, Julien
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2021, 107 (04)
  • [7] Radiographic evaluation of short-stem press-fit total shoulder arthroplasty: short-term follow-up
    Casagrande, Danielle J.
    Parks, Di L.
    Torngren, Travis
    Schrumpf, Mark A.
    Harmsen, Samuel M.
    Norris, Tom R.
    Kelly, James D., II
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2016, 25 (07) : 1163 - 1169
  • [8] Loose-fit vs. press-fit stems and risk for surgical reintervention following radial head arthroplasty: a US-based cohort study of 1575 patients
    Zeltser, David W.
    Royse, Kathryn E.
    Prentice, Heather A.
    Reyes, Chelsea
    Paxton, Elizabeth W.
    Navarro, Ronald A.
    Foroohar, Abtin
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2025, 34 (02) : 516 - 524
  • [9] Results and limitations of humeral head resurfacing: 105 cases at a mean follow-up of 5 years
    Soudy, K.
    Szymanski, C.
    Lalanne, C.
    Bourgault, C.
    Thiounn, A.
    Cotten, A.
    Maynou, C.
    ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2017, 103 (03) : 415 - 420
  • [10] Humeral Resurfacing Arthroplasty: Clinical, Functional and Radiological Assessment at a Mean Follow-Up of 11 Years
    Giannotti, Stefano
    Troiano, Elisa
    Saviori, Marco
    Orlandi, Nicholas Crippa
    Greco, Tommaso
    Perisano, Carlo
    Colasanti, Giovanni Battista
    Mondanelli, Nicola
    PROSTHESIS, 2023, 5 (04): : 1312 - 1321