Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Precision of novel radiological methods in relation to resurfacing humeral head implants: assessment by radiostereometric analysis, DXA, and geometrical analysis

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Resurfacing humeral head implants (RHHI) are used to preserve bone stock and restore normal anatomy in the osteoarthritic shoulder joint. The purpose of this study was: (1) to describe the use of novel radiological methods in relation to evaluation of RHHI; (2) to estimate the precision of these methods; and (3) to present preliminary clinical and radiological results at 6 months follow-up after Copeland and Global Cap RHHI.

Methods

Twenty-one patients (10 females) at a mean age of 64 (39–82) years and with shoulder osteoarthritis were randomized to a Copeland (n = 11) or Global C.A.P (n = 10) RHHI. Migration of the RHHI was analyzed with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and bone mineral density (BMD) was measured with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The length of gleno-humeral offset (LGHO) was measured on radiographs. The patients were followed clinically with questionnaires.

Results

Precision of the radiological methods was high for the LGHO and acceptable for RSA and for DXA. At 6 months, shoulder function had improved significantly for both RHHI groups. LGHO increased significantly for the Copeland RHHI and was slightly reduced for the Global C.A.P. RHHI. The implant migration and BMD change around the implant from baseline until 6 months follow-up was comparable for both RHHI.

Conclusion

Radiostereometric analysis and DXA can be used for evaluation of RHHI, but expectedly with a lower precision as compared to standards of TKA or THA. Geometric analysis of the prosthetic shoulder is precise. We interpret that the early radiological and clinical results of the two RHHI are comparable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Norris TR, Iannotti JP (2002) Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Should Elbow Surg 11:130–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gordiev K, Seitz WH Jr (2004) Surface arthroplasty in shoulder arthritis. Semin Arthroplast 15:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bechtold JE, Kubic V, Soballe K (2002) Bone ingrowth in the presence of particulate polyethylene. Synergy between interface motion and particulate polyethylene in periprosthetic tissue response. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:915–919

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Therbo M, Lund B, Jensen KE, Schroder HM (2008) Effect of bioactive coating of the tibial component on migration pattern in uncemented total knee arthroplasty: a randomized RSA study of 14 knees presented according to new RSA-guidelines. J Orthop Traumatol 9:63–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Henricson A, Linder L, Nilsson KG (2008) A trabecular metal tibial component in total knee replacement in patients younger than 60 years: a two-year radiostereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1585–1593

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lerch M, von dH-T, Windhagen H, Behrens BA, Wefstaedt P, Stukenborg-Colsman CM (2012) Bone remodelling around the Metha short stem in total hip arthroplasty: a prospective dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry study. Int Orthop. 36:533–538

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stukenborg-Colsman CM, von dH-T, Windhagen H, Bouguecha A, Wefstaedt P, Lerch M (2012) Bone remodelling around a cementless straight THA stem: a prospective dual-energy X-Ray absorptiometry study. Hip Int. 22:166–171

    Google Scholar 

  8. van Lenthe GH, Willems MM, Verdonschot N, de Waal Malefijt MC, Huiskes R (2002) Stemmed femoral knee prostheses: effects of prosthetic design and fixation on bone loss. Acta Orthop Scand 73:630–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van Jonbergen HP, Koster K, Labey L, Innocenti B, van KA (2010) Distal femoral bone mineral density decreases following patellofemoral arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up study of 14 patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Quental C, Folgado J, Fernandes PR, Monteiro J (2012) Bone remodelling analysis of the humerus after a shoulder arthroplasty. Med Eng Phys [Epub ahead of print]

  11. Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lo IK, Griffin S, Kirkley A (2001) 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. Osteoarthr Cartil 9:771–778

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lehtinen JT, Belt EA, Kauppi MJ, Kaarela K, Kuusela PP, Kautiainen HJ, Lehto MU (2001) Bone destruction, upward migration, and medialisation of rheumatoid shoulder: a 15 year follow up study. Ann Rheum Dis 60:322–326

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Dainty K (2003) Scoring systems for the functional assessment of the shoulder. Arthroscopy 19:1109–1120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thomas SR, Sforza G, Levy O, Copeland SA (2005) Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy. J Should Elbow Surg 14:186–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, Stoel BC, Rozing PM, Reiber JH (2003) A new model-based RSA method validated using CAD models and models from reversed engineering. J Biomech 36:873–882

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Valstar ER, Gill R, Ryd L, Flivik G, Borlin N, Karrholm J (2005) Guidelines for standardization of radiostereometry (RSA) of implants. Acta Orthop 76:563–572

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pritchett JW (2011) Long-term results and patient satisfaction after shoulder resurfacing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20(5):771–777

    Google Scholar 

  20. Skoldenberg O, Odquist M (2011) Measurement of migration of a humeral head resurfacing prosthesis using radiostereometry without implant marking: an experimental study. Acta Orthop 82:193–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stilling M, Soballe K, Larsen K, Andersen NT, Rahbek O (2010) Knee flexion influences periprosthetic BMD measurement in the tibia. Suggestions for a reproducible clinical scan protocol. Acta Orthop 81:463–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ryd L, Albrektsson BE, Carlsson L, Dansgard F, Herberts P, Lindstrand A, Regner L, Toksvig-Larsen S (1995) Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis as a predictor of mechanical loosening of knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:377–383

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Li MG, Nilsson KG (2001) No relationship between postoperative changes in bone density at the proximal tibia and the migration of the tibial component 2 years after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16:893–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lonner JH, Klotz M, Levitz C, Lotke PA (2001) Changes in bone density after cemented total knee arthroplasty: influence of stem design. J Arthroplasty 16:107–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study has been financially supported by the Danish Rheumatism Association, the Aase and Ejnar Danielsen Foundation, the AP Møller Foundation, the Danish Medical Association, Protesekompagniet Denmark and Biomet Denmark.

Conflict of interest

None of the participants have any economic association with the providers of the economic support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Silkeborg Regional Hospital, Silkeborg, Denmark

    Thomas Klebe

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage-Hansens Gade 2, Building 10 A, Office 13, 8000, Aarhus, Denmark

    Maiken Stilling, Inger Mechlenburg & Kjeld Soballe

  3. Department of Radiology, Holstebro Regional Hospital, Holstebro, Denmark

    Anders Amstrup

Authors
  1. Maiken Stilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inger Mechlenburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anders Amstrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kjeld Soballe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Klebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Inger Mechlenburg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stilling, M., Mechlenburg, I., Amstrup, A. et al. Precision of novel radiological methods in relation to resurfacing humeral head implants: assessment by radiostereometric analysis, DXA, and geometrical analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132, 1521–1530 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1580-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1580-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation