What is it about?
The design of shoulder replacements influences how implants interface with host bone surfaces. This paper describes and compares the behaviour of two designs of surface replacement implants for the shoulder. Resurfacing replacements having a central peg or stem may not survive as favourably as those with alternative fixation strategies. Surgical implantation technique may have a large role in the establishment of a durable implant-bone interface.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
1. The majority of current resurfacing shoulder replacement designs are predicated on the original design, and therefore may not have favourable survival rates in the medium term; 2. The technique of implantation is important: variations in surgical accuracy may explain some of the related failure of implant-bone integration
Perspectives
Resurfacing replacement has advantages over replacement in which the entire humeral articular segment is removed, from the perspective of later revision, and often leading to a more accurate replication of proximal humeral anatomy for the restoration of optimal shoulder biomechanics. It is a difficult operation to achieve accurately. Failure to appreciate this may lead to inaccurate implantation and would appear to lead to early implant failure.
Mr Simon M Lambert
University College London Hospital, London, UK
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Histological evaluation of two designs of shoulder surface replacement implants, The Bone & Joint Journal, April 2016, Bone & Joint,
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.98b4.36600.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
