Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. 1,209 cases from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry, 2006-2010

Jeppe V Rasmussen, Anne Polk, Stig Brorson, Anne Kathrine Sørensen, Bo S Olsen, Jeppe V Rasmussen, Anne Polk, Stig Brorson, Anne Kathrine Sørensen, Bo S Olsen

Abstract

Purpose: We used patient-reported outcome and risk of revision to compare hemiarthroplasty (HA) with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) with resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Patients and methods: We included all patients reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) between January 2006 and December 2010. 1,209 arthroplasties in 1,109 patients were eligible. Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS) was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 1 year postoperatively. For simplicity of presentation, the raw scores were converted to a percentage of the maximum score. Revision rates were calculated by checking reported revisions to the DSR until December 2011. WOOS and risk of revision were adjusted for age, sex, previous surgery, and type of osteoarthritis.

Results: There were 113 TSAs and 1096 HAs (837 RHAs and 259 SHAs). Patients treated with TSA generally had a better WOOS, exceeding the predefined minimal clinically important difference, at 1 year (mean difference 10, p < 0.001). RHA had a better WOOS than SHA (mean difference 5, p = 0.02), but the difference did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference. There were no statistically significant differences in revision rate or in adjusted risk of revision between any of the groups.

Interpretation: Our results are in accordance with the results from other national shoulder registries and the results published in systematic reviews favoring TSA in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Nonetheless, this registry study had certain limitations and the results should be interpreted carefully.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Implants used from January 2006 through December 2010.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
The unadjusted cumulative revision rate for hemiarthroplasty (grey) and total shoulder arthroplasty (red) showing no significant difference between arthroplasty designs (p = 1.0, Kaplan-Meier method).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
The unadjusted cumulative revision rate of stemmed hemiarthroplasty (blue) and resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (green) showing no difference between arthroplasty designs (p = 0.9, Kaplan-Meier method).

References

    1. Al-Hadithy N, Domos P, Sewell MD, Naleem A, Papanna MC, Pandit R. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder for osteoarthritis: results of fifty Mark III Copeland prosthesis from an independent center with four-year mean follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(12):1776–81.
    1. Australian Joint Replacement Registry Demographics and outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty 2012. Annual report from the Australian Joint Replacement Registry. . Date last accessed 17 April 2013.
    1. Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS. Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2008;90(1):110–7.
    1. Bishop JY, Flatow EL. Humeral head replacement versus total shoulder arthroplasty: clinical outcomes–a review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg (1 Suppl S) 2005;14:141S–6S.
    1. Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman GM, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2005;87(9):1947–56.
    1. Edwards TB, Kadakia NR, Boulahia A, Kempf JF, Boileau P, Nemoz C, Walch G. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(3):207–13.
    1. Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O. Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty: 1,825 shoulder arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(1):83–91.
    1. Fevang BT, Lygre SH, Bertelsen G, Skredderstuen A, Havelin LI, Furnes O. Pain and function in eight hundred and fifty nine patients comparing shoulder hemiprostheses, resurfacing prostheses, reversed total and conventional total prostheses. Int Orthop. 2013;37(1):59–66.
    1. Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Shoulder arthroplasty with or without resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2000;82(1):26–34.
    1. Haines JF, Trail IA, Nuttall D, Birch A, Barrow A. The results of arthroplasty in osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2006;88(4):496–501.
    1. Hammond G, Tibone JE, McGarry MH, Jun BJ, Lee TQ. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic humeral head resurfacing and hemiarthroplasty in functional glenohumeral positions. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2012;94(1):68–76.
    1. Jonsson E, Egund N, Kelly I, Rydholm U, Lidgren L. Cup arthroplasty of the rheumatoid shoulder. Acta Orthop Scand. 1986;57(6):542–6.
    1. Levy O, Copeland SA. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder. 5- to 10-year results with the Copeland mark-2 prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2001;83(2):213–21.
    1. Levy O, Copeland SA. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (Copeland CSRA) for osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(3):266–71.
    1. Lie SA, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI, Gjessing HK, Vollset SE. Dependency issues in survival analyses of 55,782 primary hip replacements from 47,355 patients. Stat Med. 2004;23(20):3227–40.
    1. Lo IK, Griffin S, Kirkley A. The development of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9(8):771–8.
    1. Lo IK, Litchfield RB, Griffin S, Faber K, Patterson SD, Kirkley A. Quality-of-life outcome following hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2005;87(10):2178–85.
    1. Mansat P, Coutie AS, Bonnevialle N, Rongieres M, Mansat M, Bonnevialle P. Resurfacing humeral prosthesis: do we really reconstruct the anatomy? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(5):612–9.
    1. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12.
    1. New Zealand National Joint Registry Annual report from the New Zealand National Joint Registry. Date last accessed 17 April 2013.
    1. Norris TR, Iannotti JP. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(2):130–5.
    1. Parsons IM, Millett PJ, Warner JJ. Glenoid wear after shoulder hemiarthroplasty: quantitative radiographic analysis. Clin Orthop. 2004;421:120–5.
    1. Polk A, Rasmussen JV, Brorson S, Olsen BS. Reliability of patient-reported functional outcome in a joint replacement registry. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(1):12–7.
    1. Pritchett JW. Long-term results and patient satisfaction after shoulder resurfacing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):771–7.
    1. Radnay CS, Setter KJ, Chambers L, Levine WN, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS. Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(4):396–402.
    1. Ranstam J, Karrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Makela K, Espehaug B, Pedersen AB, Mehnert F, Furnes O. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data. I. Introduction and background. Acta Orthop. 2011;82(3):253–7.
    1. Rasmussen JV, Jakobsen J, Brorson S, Olsen BS. The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry: clinical outcome and short-term survival of 2,137 primary shoulder replacements. Acta Orthop. 2012a;83(2):171–3.
    1. Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Fevang BT, Furnes O, Skytta ET, Rahme H, Salomonsson B, Mohammed KD, Page RS, Carr AJ. A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012b;21(10):1328–35.
    1. Rasmussen JV, Jakobsen J, Olsen BS, Brorson S. Translation and validation of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index - the Danish version. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2013;4:49–54.
    1. Robertsson O, Ranstam J. No bias of ignored bilaterality when analysing the revision risk of knee prostheses: analysis of a population based sample of 44,590 patients with 55,298 knee prostheses from the national Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:1.
    1. Sandow MJ, David H, Bentall SJ. Hemiarthroplasty vs total shoulder replacement for rotator cuff intact osteoarthritis: how do they fare after a decade? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):877–85.
    1. Schwarzer G, Schumacher M, Maurer TB, Ochsner PE. Statistical analysis of failure times in total joint replacement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(10):997–1003.
    1. Singh JA, Sperling J, Buchbinder R, McMaken K. Surgery for shoulder osteoarthritis: a Cochrane systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(4):598–605.
    1. Singh JA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Risk factors for revision surgery after humeral head replacement: 1,431 shoulders over 3 decades. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(8):1039–44.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever