Cementless versus cemented glenoid components in conventional total shoulder joint arthroplasty: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Richard S. Page, Vishal Pai, Kevin Eng, Gregory Bain, Stephen Graves, Michelle Lorimer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Glenoid loosening is a common mode of failure after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Newer cementless glenoid components have been introduced to promote biological fixation with the aim to decrease glenoid loosening. Limited data are available comparing revision rates between cemented and cementless glenoid fixation in TSA. The study aim was to compare the revision rates of cemented and cementless design glenoid components used in conventional TSA performed for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis. The secondary aim was to compare various subclasses of glenoid components. Methods: Data were obtained between April 16, 2004, and December 31, 2016, from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Within the study period, 10,805 primary conventional TSAs were identified. The analysis was undertaken for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis, which represented 95.8% of all conventional TSA procedures. Results: At 5 years, in patients with primary TSA procedures, those with cemented glenoids had a lower revision rate than those with cementless glenoids: 3.7% versus 17.9% (hazard ratio for entire period, 4.77). The most common revision diagnosis for primary conventional TSA with cementless glenoid fixation was rotator cuff insufficiency (4.4% for cementless vs 0.4% for cemented), instability and/or dislocation (3.8% for cementless vs 0.8% for cemented), and loosening and/or lysis (1.1% for cementless vs 1.1% for cemented). Conclusions: Cementless glenoid components in conventional TSA had a significantly higher revision rate than cemented glenoid components. The loosening rates between cemented and cementless glenoid components were similar. Glenoid design and fixation are important considerations when selecting a prosthesis for TSA.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1859-1865
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume27
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2018

Keywords

  • arthroplasty
  • glenoid cavity
  • joint registry
  • Level III
  • osteoarthritis
  • replacement
  • Retrospective Cohort Design
  • revision rate
  • Shoulder joint
  • Treatment Study

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

@article{dac7661a4490428487486125d0476fb6,
title = "Cementless versus cemented glenoid components in conventional total shoulder joint arthroplasty: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry",
abstract = "Background: Glenoid loosening is a common mode of failure after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Newer cementless glenoid components have been introduced to promote biological fixation with the aim to decrease glenoid loosening. Limited data are available comparing revision rates between cemented and cementless glenoid fixation in TSA. The study aim was to compare the revision rates of cemented and cementless design glenoid components used in conventional TSA performed for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis. The secondary aim was to compare various subclasses of glenoid components. Methods: Data were obtained between April 16, 2004, and December 31, 2016, from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Within the study period, 10,805 primary conventional TSAs were identified. The analysis was undertaken for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis, which represented 95.8{\%} of all conventional TSA procedures. Results: At 5 years, in patients with primary TSA procedures, those with cemented glenoids had a lower revision rate than those with cementless glenoids: 3.7{\%} versus 17.9{\%} (hazard ratio for entire period, 4.77). The most common revision diagnosis for primary conventional TSA with cementless glenoid fixation was rotator cuff insufficiency (4.4{\%} for cementless vs 0.4{\%} for cemented), instability and/or dislocation (3.8{\%} for cementless vs 0.8{\%} for cemented), and loosening and/or lysis (1.1{\%} for cementless vs 1.1{\%} for cemented). Conclusions: Cementless glenoid components in conventional TSA had a significantly higher revision rate than cemented glenoid components. The loosening rates between cemented and cementless glenoid components were similar. Glenoid design and fixation are important considerations when selecting a prosthesis for TSA.",
keywords = "arthroplasty, glenoid cavity, joint registry, Level III, osteoarthritis, replacement, Retrospective Cohort Design, revision rate, Shoulder joint, Treatment Study",
author = "Page, {Richard S.} and Vishal Pai and Kevin Eng and Gregory Bain and Stephen Graves and Michelle Lorimer",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.017",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "1859--1865",
journal = "Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery",
issn = "1058-2746",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "10",

}

Cementless versus cemented glenoid components in conventional total shoulder joint arthroplasty : analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. / Page, Richard S.; Pai, Vishal; Eng, Kevin; Bain, Gregory; Graves, Stephen; Lorimer, Michelle.

In: Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Vol. 27, No. 10, 01.10.2018, p. 1859-1865.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cementless versus cemented glenoid components in conventional total shoulder joint arthroplasty

T2 - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

AU - Page, Richard S.

AU - Pai, Vishal

AU - Eng, Kevin

AU - Bain, Gregory

AU - Graves, Stephen

AU - Lorimer, Michelle

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - Background: Glenoid loosening is a common mode of failure after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Newer cementless glenoid components have been introduced to promote biological fixation with the aim to decrease glenoid loosening. Limited data are available comparing revision rates between cemented and cementless glenoid fixation in TSA. The study aim was to compare the revision rates of cemented and cementless design glenoid components used in conventional TSA performed for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis. The secondary aim was to compare various subclasses of glenoid components. Methods: Data were obtained between April 16, 2004, and December 31, 2016, from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Within the study period, 10,805 primary conventional TSAs were identified. The analysis was undertaken for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis, which represented 95.8% of all conventional TSA procedures. Results: At 5 years, in patients with primary TSA procedures, those with cemented glenoids had a lower revision rate than those with cementless glenoids: 3.7% versus 17.9% (hazard ratio for entire period, 4.77). The most common revision diagnosis for primary conventional TSA with cementless glenoid fixation was rotator cuff insufficiency (4.4% for cementless vs 0.4% for cemented), instability and/or dislocation (3.8% for cementless vs 0.8% for cemented), and loosening and/or lysis (1.1% for cementless vs 1.1% for cemented). Conclusions: Cementless glenoid components in conventional TSA had a significantly higher revision rate than cemented glenoid components. The loosening rates between cemented and cementless glenoid components were similar. Glenoid design and fixation are important considerations when selecting a prosthesis for TSA.

AB - Background: Glenoid loosening is a common mode of failure after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Newer cementless glenoid components have been introduced to promote biological fixation with the aim to decrease glenoid loosening. Limited data are available comparing revision rates between cemented and cementless glenoid fixation in TSA. The study aim was to compare the revision rates of cemented and cementless design glenoid components used in conventional TSA performed for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis. The secondary aim was to compare various subclasses of glenoid components. Methods: Data were obtained between April 16, 2004, and December 31, 2016, from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Within the study period, 10,805 primary conventional TSAs were identified. The analysis was undertaken for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis, which represented 95.8% of all conventional TSA procedures. Results: At 5 years, in patients with primary TSA procedures, those with cemented glenoids had a lower revision rate than those with cementless glenoids: 3.7% versus 17.9% (hazard ratio for entire period, 4.77). The most common revision diagnosis for primary conventional TSA with cementless glenoid fixation was rotator cuff insufficiency (4.4% for cementless vs 0.4% for cemented), instability and/or dislocation (3.8% for cementless vs 0.8% for cemented), and loosening and/or lysis (1.1% for cementless vs 1.1% for cemented). Conclusions: Cementless glenoid components in conventional TSA had a significantly higher revision rate than cemented glenoid components. The loosening rates between cemented and cementless glenoid components were similar. Glenoid design and fixation are important considerations when selecting a prosthesis for TSA.

KW - arthroplasty

KW - glenoid cavity

KW - joint registry

KW - Level III

KW - osteoarthritis

KW - replacement

KW - Retrospective Cohort Design

KW - revision rate

KW - Shoulder joint

KW - Treatment Study

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046625946&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.017

DO - 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.017

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 1859

EP - 1865

JO - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

JF - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

SN - 1058-2746

IS - 10

ER -