TY - JOUR
T1 - One and two-year clinical outcomes for a polyethylene glenoid with a fluted peg
T2 - one thousand two hundred seventy individual patients from eleven centers
AU - Matsen, Frederick A.
AU - Iannotti, Joseph P.
AU - Churchill, R. Sean
AU - De Wilde, Lieven
AU - Edwards, T. Bradley
AU - Evans, Matthew C.
AU - Fehringer, Edward V.
AU - Groh, Gordon I.
AU - Kelly, James D.
AU - Kilian, Christopher M.
AU - Merolla, Giovanni
AU - Norris, Tom R.
AU - Porcellini, Giuseppe
AU - Spencer, Edwin E.
AU - Vidil, Anne
AU - Wirth, Michael A.
AU - Russ, Stacy M.
AU - Neradilek, Moni
AU - Somerson, Jeremy S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, SICOT aisbl.
PY - 2019/2/14
Y1 - 2019/2/14
N2 - Purpose: Clinical shoulder science lacks a benchmark against which the early clinical value of new glenoid components can be compared; such a benchmark may be derived from a multicenter study of patients receiving an established, internationally used design of glenoid component. Methods: We obtained data from 11 centers on 1270 patients having total shoulder arthroplasty using an all-polyethylene component with a fluted central peg. We analyzed individual patient outcomes at 1 and 2 years after surgery. We compared the improvement for each patient to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and calculated each patient’s improvement as a percent of maximal possible improvement (MPI). Results: The preoperative scores improved from SST 3 ± 2, ASES 37 ± 15, Constant score 36 ± 16, and Penn score 30 ± 19 to SST 10 ± 2, ASES 90 ± 12, Constant 76 ± 13, and Penn 80 ± 24 (p < 0.001 for each). A high percentage of patients improved by more than the MCID (SST 96%, ASES 98%, Constant 94%, Penn 93%) and obtained improvement of at least 30% of the MPI (SST 95%, ASES 98%, Constant 91%, Penn 87%). The clinical outcomes realized with this glenoid design were not worse for the 41% of shoulders with preoperative type B glenoids or for the 30% of shoulders with more than 15 degrees of glenoid retroversion. Conclusions: Individual patients from 11 international practices having total shoulder arthroplasty using a basic glenoid component design obtained highly significant clinical outcomes, providing a benchmark against which the early outcomes of new designs can be compared to determine whether they provide increased clinical value.
AB - Purpose: Clinical shoulder science lacks a benchmark against which the early clinical value of new glenoid components can be compared; such a benchmark may be derived from a multicenter study of patients receiving an established, internationally used design of glenoid component. Methods: We obtained data from 11 centers on 1270 patients having total shoulder arthroplasty using an all-polyethylene component with a fluted central peg. We analyzed individual patient outcomes at 1 and 2 years after surgery. We compared the improvement for each patient to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and calculated each patient’s improvement as a percent of maximal possible improvement (MPI). Results: The preoperative scores improved from SST 3 ± 2, ASES 37 ± 15, Constant score 36 ± 16, and Penn score 30 ± 19 to SST 10 ± 2, ASES 90 ± 12, Constant 76 ± 13, and Penn 80 ± 24 (p < 0.001 for each). A high percentage of patients improved by more than the MCID (SST 96%, ASES 98%, Constant 94%, Penn 93%) and obtained improvement of at least 30% of the MPI (SST 95%, ASES 98%, Constant 91%, Penn 87%). The clinical outcomes realized with this glenoid design were not worse for the 41% of shoulders with preoperative type B glenoids or for the 30% of shoulders with more than 15 degrees of glenoid retroversion. Conclusions: Individual patients from 11 international practices having total shoulder arthroplasty using a basic glenoid component design obtained highly significant clinical outcomes, providing a benchmark against which the early outcomes of new designs can be compared to determine whether they provide increased clinical value.
KW - All-polyethylene
KW - Clinical outcomes
KW - Glenoid
KW - Ingrowth
KW - Minimal clinically important difference
KW - Peg
KW - Percentage of maximal possible improvement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058020861&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85058020861&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00264-018-4213-3
DO - 10.1007/s00264-018-4213-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 30511283
AN - SCOPUS:85058020861
SN - 0341-2695
VL - 43
SP - 367
EP - 378
JO - International Orthopaedics
JF - International Orthopaedics
IS - 2
ER -