Articles   |    
Shoulder Arthroplasty with or without Resurfacing of the Glenoid in Patients Who Have Osteoarthritis*
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the Texas Orthopedic Hospital, Houston
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2000 Jan 01;82(1):26-34
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case


Background: The indications for resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis of the shoulder are not clearly defined; some investigators routinely perform hemiarthroplasty whereas others perform total shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods: Forty-seven patients (fifty-one shoulders) who were scheduled to have a shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of degenerative osteoarthritis were randomly assigned, according to a random-numbers table, to one of two groups: replacement of the humeral head with resurfacing of the glenoid with a polyethylene component with cement (total shoulder arthroplasty [twenty-seven shoulders]) or replacement of the humeral head without resurfacing of the glenoid (hemiarthroplasty [twenty-four shoulders]). All patients received the same type of humeral component, and all operations were performed by or under the direct supervision of the same surgeon. The patients were followed for a mean of thirty-five months (range, twenty-four to seventy-two months) postoperatively. Evaluation was performed with use of the scoring systems of the University of California at Los Angeles and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.

Results: No difference was observed between the preoperative scores for the two groups of patients. Postoperatively, the mean scores with use of the University of California at Los Angeles system and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons system were 23.2 points (range, 10 to 31 points) and 65.2 points (range, 15 to 94 points), respectively, after hemiarthroplasty and 27.4 points (range, 9 to 34 points) and 77.3 points (range, 3 to 100 points), respectively, after total shoulder arthroplasty. With the numbers available for study, no significant difference was found between the two operative groups with respect to the postoperative score. (Thirty-five subjects per group would be needed, assuming an effect size of 0.60 and a power of 0.80.) Total shoulder arthroplasty provided significantly greater pain relief (p = 0.002) and internal rotation (p = 0.003) than hemiarthroplasty did. Total shoulder arthroplasty also provided superior results in the specific areas of patient satisfaction, function, and strength, although none of these differences were found to be significant, with the numbers available.

Total shoulder arthroplasty was associated with increased cost ($1177), operative time (thirty-five minutes), and blood loss (150 milliliters) per patient compared with hemiarthroplasty. To date, none of the total shoulder arthroplasties in the study group have been revised. Hemiarthroplasty yielded equivalent results for elevation and external rotation. Three of the twenty-five patients who had had a hemiarthroplasty needed a subsequent operation for resurfacing of the glenoid. The mean cost for the revision operations was $15,998.

Conclusions: Total shoulder arthroplasty provided superior pain relief compared with hemiarthroplasty in patients who had glenohumeral osteoarthritis, but it was associated with an increased cost of $1177 per patient.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org


    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    Louisiana - Ochsner Health System
    Georgia - Choice Care Occupational Medicine & Orthopaedics
    IL - Hinsdale Orthopaedics
    OH - OhioHealth Research and Innovation Institute (OHRI)