Monoblock and modular total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis.
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.
Mileti
J
J
Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Sperling
J W
JW
Cofield
R H
RH
Harrington
J R
JR
Hoskin
T L
TL
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019643:Arthroplasty, Replacement / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007595:Joint Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010003:Osteoarthritis / Q000601:surgery*; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D011859:Radiography; D012785:Shoulder Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D016896:Treatment Outcome