Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With a Nonspherical Humeral Head and Inlay Glenoid in Elite Weight Lifters: A Prospective Case Series.

Sercan Yalcin, Michael Scarcella, Joshua Everhart, Linsen Samuel, Anthony Miniaci
Author Information
  1. Sercan Yalcin: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
  2. Michael Scarcella: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
  3. Joshua Everhart: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
  4. Linsen Samuel: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
  5. Anthony Miniaci: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Weight lifting after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) can place significant stresses on implants that could lead to instability, loosening, and increased wear. A TSA system with nonspherical humeral head resurfacing and inlay glenoid-which improves the biomechanics and thus reduces instability, wear, and potential loosening-may be able to tolerate repetitive loads from weight lifting.
PURPOSE: To determine clinical and radiographic outcomes after TSA in weight lifters.
STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 16 weight lifters (mean ± SD age, 57.2 ± 7.8 years; 15 male) undergoing primary anatomic TSA (n = 17 shoulders, 1 staged bilateral) with nonspherical humeral head resurfacing and inlay glenoid replacement for glenohumeral osteoarthritis between February 2015 and February 2019. Exclusion criteria were rotator cuff deficiency, revision TSA, post-traumatic arthritis, and inflammatory arthritis. Outcome measures included the rate of return to weight lifting, results of patient-reported outcome measures (Penn Shoulder Score, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, and 12-Item Veterans RAND Health Survey), radiographic outcomes, and complication rate.
RESULTS: Follow-up was obtained on all patients at a mean of 38 months (range, 14-63 months). All patients returned to competitive weight lifting at 15.6 ± 6.9 weeks. Compared to the preoperative weight lifting level, at last follow-up patients reported performance at the following level: lighter weight, 1 (6%); same weight, 8 (50%); heavier weight, 7 (44%). Preoperative eccentric posterior glenoid wear was common (71% Walch B2 classification; 12/17), but posterior humeral subluxation improved at follow-up according to the Walch index (mean, 55.5% preoperative vs 48.5% postoperative; < .001) and contact point ratio (mean, 63.9% preoperative vs 50.1% postoperative; < .001). Pre- to postoperative improvements were seen in Penn Shoulder Score (44.3 vs 82.6; < .001), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (50.6 vs 91.1; < .001), and 12-Item Veterans RAND Health Survey physical component score but not mental component score. No signs of radiographic loosening were detected in follow-up images, nor were there any postoperative instability episodes or revision surgeries.
CONCLUSION: There were substantial improvements in shoulder function and a high rate of return to weight lifting after TSA with a nonspherical humeral head resurfacing and inlay glenoid component. Radiographically, the humeral head centralized on the glenoid after surgery, and there was no evidence of component loosening at a mean 38-month follow-up.

Keywords

References

  1. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct;14(5):471-9 [PMID: 16194737]
  2. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Mar;20(2):281-9 [PMID: 21051242]
  3. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):1860-7 [PMID: 25758376]
  4. Qual Life Res. 2009 Feb;18(1):43-52 [PMID: 19051059]
  5. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Jul-Aug;18(4):505-10 [PMID: 19481961]
  6. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;43(6):1513-7 [PMID: 25790836]
  7. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Aug;84(8):1349-53 [PMID: 12177264]
  8. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 May;30(5):1068-1077 [PMID: 32791097]
  9. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Mar 9;44(6):1417-1422 [PMID: 26960913]
  10. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Nov;22(11):1589-98 [PMID: 24007651]
  11. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Nov-Dec;18(6):892-6 [PMID: 19282204]
  12. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Aug 2;99(15):1291-1304 [PMID: 28763415]
  13. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Sep-Oct;16(5):574-8 [PMID: 17531512]
  14. Sports Health. 2015 Jan;7(1):87-9 [PMID: 25553218]
  15. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Feb;43(2):423-7 [PMID: 25406301]
  16. Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jun;45(7):1664-1669 [PMID: 28319426]
  17. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Nov;21(11):1526-33 [PMID: 22445158]
  18. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Apr;88(4):496-501 [PMID: 16567785]
  19. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998 Jul-Aug;7(4):362-7 [PMID: 9752645]
  20. JSES Open Access. 2019 Sep 13;3(3):145-153 [PMID: 31709354]
  21. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998;117(4-5):252-5 [PMID: 9581254]
  22. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Nov;475(11):2726-2739 [PMID: 28681354]
  23. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Dec 21;93(24):2249-54 [PMID: 22258770]
  24. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Apr;46(5):1251-1257 [PMID: 28719752]
  25. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Mar;472(3):894-902 [PMID: 24136806]
  26. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Oct;22(10):1423-32 [PMID: 23510747]
  27. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jul;26(7):1113-1120 [PMID: 28359697]
  28. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Apr;21(4):554-60 [PMID: 21393018]
  29. Am J Sports Med. 2010 May;38(5):903-11 [PMID: 20335509]
  30. J Arthroplasty. 1999 Sep;14(6):756-60 [PMID: 10512449]
  31. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Oct 16;6(10):2325967118800666 [PMID: 30349839]
  32. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Jun;88(6):1301-7 [PMID: 16757764]
  33. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):683-90 [PMID: 18029202]
  34. Int Orthop. 2017 Feb;41(2):375-384 [PMID: 27761628]
  35. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Jul 05;6(7):2325967118782672 [PMID: 30046628]
  36. Am J Sports Med. 2010 Oct;38(10):2097-105 [PMID: 20616374]
  37. Orthopedics. 2019 Sep 1;42(5):276-284 [PMID: 31269217]
  38. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Feb;85(2):251-8 [PMID: 12571302]
  39. World J Orthop. 2016 Sep 18;7(9):519-26 [PMID: 27672564]
  40. Am J Sports Med. 2015 Nov;43(11):2816-21 [PMID: 26316610]
  41. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006 Mar;36(3):138-51 [PMID: 16596890]
  42. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 May;21(5):675-84 [PMID: 21719312]
  43. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016 Mar;9(1):30-9 [PMID: 26879083]
  44. Am J Sports Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):1577-81 [PMID: 18539951]
  45. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Jan;26(1):100-112 [PMID: 28409200]
  46. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Mar;64(3):319-37 [PMID: 7061549]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0weightliftingTSAhumeralheadmeanresurfacingglenoid6follow-upvspostoperative<001componentshoulderinstabilitylooseningwearnonsphericalinlayradiographicoutcomes±1ratereturnShoulderpatientspreoperativeWeighttotalarthroplastyliftersCaseevidence7815Februaryrevisionarthritismeasurespatient-reportedPennScoreKerlan-JobeOrthopaedicClinic12-ItemVeteransRANDHealthSurveymonthsposteriorWalch5%50improvementsscoreBACKGROUND:canplacesignificantstressesimplantsleadincreasedsystemglenoid-whichimprovesbiomechanicsthusreducespotentialloosening-mayabletoleraterepetitiveloadsPURPOSE:determineclinicalSTUDYDESIGN:seriesLevel4METHODS:prospectivelyenrolled16SDage572yearsmaleundergoingprimaryanatomicn=17shouldersstagedbilateralreplacementglenohumeralosteoarthritis20152019Exclusioncriteriarotatorcuffdeficiencypost-traumaticinflammatoryOutcomeincludedresultsoutcomecomplicationRESULTS:Follow-upobtained38range14-63returnedcompetitive9weeksComparedlevellastreportedperformancefollowinglevel:lighter6%50%heavier44%Preoperativeeccentriccommon71%B2classification12/17subluxationimprovedaccordingindex5548contactpointratio639%1%Pre-seen4438291physicalmentalsignsdetectedimagesepisodessurgeriesCONCLUSION:substantialfunctionhighRadiographicallycentralizedsurgery38-monthClinicalRadiographicOutcomesTotalArthroplastyNonsphericalHumeralHeadInlayGlenoidEliteLifters:ProspectiveSeriessport

Similar Articles

Cited By