title: Trabecular metal™ shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Shoulder arthroplasty is one of the options for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical and radiographic results of the trabecular metal shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures.
  
  
  METHODS
  Fifty-one consecutive patients with complex proximal humeral fractures who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasties with the trabecular metal™ prosthesis were enrolled in this study. At the final follow-up appointment, 42 of the patients (82.4% of the total patients enrolled) were available for both clinical and radiographic evaluation. There were 28 women and 14 men with a mean age of 65.4 ± 10.7 years. The dominant arm was involved in 30 of the cases. According to Neer's classification, there were seven three-part fractures, 27 four-part fractures and eight head-splitting fractures. Additionally, there were 37 hemiarthroplasties and five total shoulder arthroplasties.
  
  
  RESULTS
  After a mean follow-up of 37.0 ± 8.4 months (range 24-52 months), the average ranges of motion were: 38.6 ± 15.0° for external rotation, L3 level for internal rotation and 132.3 ± 36.0° for forward elevation. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, visual analogue scale and University of California, Los Angeles scores were 82.1 ± 14.1, 0.4 ± 1.1 and 28.8 ± 5.1, respectively. The post-operative radiographs exhibited an anatomically attached greater tuberosity in 39 of the 42 shoulders. Of the three patients with greater tuberosity complications, as displayed by their radiographs, two were observed with malpositioned tuberosities, while the other greater tuberosity was resorbed. Proximal migration of the prosthesis was observed in all three shoulders with greater tuberosity complications and in two shoulders with an anatomically attached greater tuberosity. No neurovascular injury, infection or prosthetic loosening was identified during the final follow-up appointments.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Satisfactory results can be expected with the trabecular metal shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures. The post-operative radiographs demonstrated an anatomically healed greater tuberosity in 93 % of the patients at a minimum follow-up time of two years.
authors: Shoulder Service, Beijing Ji Shui Tan Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
authors: Fenglong
authors: F
authors: Li
authors: Chunyan
authors: C
authors: Jiang
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D019643:Arthroplasty, Replacement / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D006811:Humerus / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery; D015994:Incidence; D007595:Joint Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008670:Metals; D008875:Middle Aged; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D016459:Prosthesis-Related Infections / Q000453:epidemiology; D011859:Radiography; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology; D012784:Shoulder Fractures / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D012785:Shoulder Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000502:physiology / Q000601:surgery; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D008670:Metals
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970 Sep;52(6):1090-103
references: 5455340
references: Acta Orthop Belg. 2005 Aug;71(4):388-95
references: 16184991
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jul-Aug;10(4):299-308
references: 11517358
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Oct;(307):27-36
references: 7924043
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Oct;(179):116-28
references: 6617003
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr;17(2):189-96
references: 18234528
references: J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Mar;17(3):181-8; discussion 188-9
references: 12621257
references: Injury. 2001 Jun;32(5):363-72
references: 11382420
references: Orthopedics. 2005 Jul;28(7):662-70
references: 16119281
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jul;91(7):1578-86
references: 19571079
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Jul;85(7):1215-23
references: 12851345
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Apr;74(4):491-500
references: 1583043
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Mar;86(2):217-9
references: 15046436
references: Orthop Clin North Am. 2008 Oct;39(4):441-50, vi
references: 18803974
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988 Aug;70(4):561-5
references: 3403598
references: J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Nov-Dec;21(10 Suppl):S1-133
references: 18277234
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Mar-Apr;17(2):210-5
references: 17931895
references: Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:403-16
references: 15116630
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 Nov-Dec;7(6):586-90
references: 9883418
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Nov;90(11):1407-13
references: 18978256
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003 Nov-Dec;12(6):569-77
references: 14671521
references: Acta Orthop Belg. 2009 Aug;75(4):445-51
references: 19774809
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Mar-Apr;18(2):216-9
references: 19101174
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Mar;86(3):575-80
references: 14996885
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;11(5):428-30
references: 12378160
references: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct;11(5):401-12
references: 12378157
references: Eur Spine J. 2010 Mar;19(3):464-73
references: 19763634