This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Levy, O. Articles by Copeland, S. PubMed Articles by Levy, O. Articles by Copeland, S.

A COMPARISON OF PAIN, STRENGTH, RANGE OF MOTION, AND FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME AFTER HEMIARTHROPLASTY AND TOTAL SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY WITH COPELAND SURFACE REPLACEMENT ARTHROPLASTY (CSRA)

Reading Shoulder Unit, Royal Berkshire Hospital, Reading, UK

Considerable controversy remains in the literature as to whether hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is the better treatment option for patients with shoulder arthritis. Several cohort studies have compared the outcomes of stemmed hemiarthroplasty with those of stemmed TSA and had inconsistent conclusions as to which procedure is best. However, these studies suggest that stemmed TSA provided better functional outcome. 340 CSRA cases were performed between 1987–2003, 218 Hemiarthroplasty – Humeral Surface Arthroplasty (HSA) and 122 TSA. There was very little difference in the functional outcome and pain in patients with and without a glenoid implant early, as well as, later after surgery. Mean post-operative Constant score for TSA was 85.0% (59.8 points) and for HSA patients 86.8% (62.3 points) with no statistically significant differences (t-test, p=0.4821). A highly significant difference between the overall proportions of revised cases was observed, with (21/122) 17.2% and (6/218) 2.8% of TSA and HSA cases revised, respectively (p< 0.0001). Further, HSA prostheses survive significantly longer than TSA prostheses. The difference between the survival curves was highly significant, both in the earlier post-operative period (Wilcoxon’s test, p=0.0053) as well as the later on (Log-rank test, p=0.0028). Long-term survival of total joint replacement is related to polyethylene wear debris, and therefore its use should be avoided if possible. The difference between our series and those with stemmed prostheses may be due to the fact that with surface replacement the normal anatomy for each patient can be mimicked better than with the stemmed prostheses and there is substantially less place for error as in stem positioning, head sizing or wrong version that may lead to glenoid erosion and less favourable result. Our current practice is and we suggest performing Copeland humeral surface replacement without insertion of glenoid prosthesis.

The abstracts were prepared by Cormac Kelly. Correspondence should be addressed to The Secretary, British Elbow and Shoulder Society, Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE