title: Mid-term survivorship analysis of a shoulder replacement with a keeled glenoid and a modern cementing technique.
abstract: We have investigated the mid-term outcome of total shoulder replacement using a keeled cemented glenoid component and a modern cementing technique with regard to the causes of failure and loosening of the components. Between 1997 and 2003 we performed 96 total shoulder replacements on 88 patients, 24 men and 64 women with a mean age of 69.7 years (31 to 82). The minimum follow-up was five years and at the time of review 87 shoulders (77 patients) were examined at a mean follow-up of 89.1 months (60 to 127). Cumulative survival curves were generated with re-operations (accomplished and planned), survivorship of the proshesis, loosening of the glenoid (defined as tilt > 5 degrees or subsidence > 5 mm), the presence of radiolucent lines and a Constant score of < 30 as the endpoints. There were two re-operations not involving revision of the implants and the survival rate of the prosthesis was 100.0% for the follow-up period, with an absolute Constant score of > 30 as the endpoint the survival rate was 98%. Radiological glenoid loosening was 9% after five years, and 33% after nine years. There was an incidence of 8% of radiolucent lines in more than three of six zones in the immediate post-operative period, of 37.0% after the first year which increased to 87.0% after nine years. There was no correlation between the score of Boileau and the total Constant score at the latest follow-up, but there was correlation between glenoid loosening and pain (p = 0.001). We found that total shoulder replacement had an excellent mid-term survivorship and clinical outcome. The surgical and cementing techniques were related to the decrease in radiolucent lines around the glenoid compared with earlier studies. One concern, however, was the fact that radiolucent lines increased over time and there was a rate of glenoid loosening of 9% after five years and 33% after nine years. This suggests that the design of the glenoid component, and the implantation and cementing techniques may need further improvement.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Dresden, Fetcherstrasse 74, Dresden 01307, Dresden, Germany. Philip.Kasten@uniklinikumdresden.de
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Kasten
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Pape
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Raiss
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Bruckner
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Rickert
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Zeifang
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Loew
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019643:Arthroplasty, Replacement / Q000379:methods*; D002484:Cementation / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010003:Osteoarthritis / Q000601:surgery; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D011859:Radiography; D012086:Reoperation; D012785:Shoulder Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D016019:Survival Analysis; D016896:Treatment Outcome