Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stability
Background: Shoulder arthroplasty humeral stem design has evolved to include various shapes, coatings, lengths, sizes, and fixation methods. While necessary to accommodate patient anatomy characteristics, this creates a surgical paradox of choice. The relationship between the surgeon’s selection of...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2023-11-01
|
| Series: | JSES International |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638323001718 |
| _version_ | 1827781710892236800 |
|---|---|
| author | Jacob M. Reeves, PhD Gregory W. Spangenberg, BESc Josie A. Elwell, PhD Ben Stewart, BSID Tom Vanasse, MSE Chris Roche, MSE, MBA Kenneth J. Faber, MD, FRCSC G. Daniel G. Langohr, PhD |
| author_facet | Jacob M. Reeves, PhD Gregory W. Spangenberg, BESc Josie A. Elwell, PhD Ben Stewart, BSID Tom Vanasse, MSE Chris Roche, MSE, MBA Kenneth J. Faber, MD, FRCSC G. Daniel G. Langohr, PhD |
| author_sort | Jacob M. Reeves, PhD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Shoulder arthroplasty humeral stem design has evolved to include various shapes, coatings, lengths, sizes, and fixation methods. While necessary to accommodate patient anatomy characteristics, this creates a surgical paradox of choice. The relationship between the surgeon’s selection of short-stem implant size and construct stiffness, resistance to subsidence and micromotion has not been assessed. Methods: Eight paired cadaveric humeri were reconstructed with surgeon-selected (SS) and 2-mm diametrically larger (SS+2) short-stemmed press-fit implants. Each reconstruction was subjected to 2000 cycles of 90° forward flexion loading, and stem subsidence and micromotion were measured using optical tracking. Compressive stiffness of the stem-bone reconstruction was then assessed by applying a load in-line with the stem axis that resulted in 5 mm of stem subsidence. Results: Increasing stem size by 2 mm resulted in the construct stiffness more than doubling compared to SS stems (−741 ± 243 N/mm vs. −334 ± 120 N/mm; P = .003; power = 0.971). These larger stems also subsided significantly less than their SS counterparts (SS: 1.2 ± 0.6 mm; SS+2: 0.5 ± 0.5 mm; P = .029; power = 0.66), though there were no significant changes in micromotion (SS: 169 ± 59 μm; SS+2: 187 ± 52 μm; P = .506; power = 0.094). Conclusions: The results of this study highlight the importance of proper short-stem sizing, as a relatively small 2 mm increase in diametral size was observed to significantly impact construct stiffness, which could increase the risk of stress shielding and implant loosening. Future work should focus on developing tools that objectively quantify bone quality and aid surgeons in selecting the appropriate size short-stem humeral implants for a particular patient. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T15:22:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e950dc5aa9834f80addab697291d5424 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2666-6383 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T15:22:39Z |
| publishDate | 2023-11-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | JSES International |
| spelling | doaj.art-e950dc5aa9834f80addab697291d54242023-10-28T05:09:49ZengElsevierJSES International2666-63832023-11-017624452453Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stabilityJacob M. Reeves, PhD0Gregory W. Spangenberg, BESc1Josie A. Elwell, PhD2Ben Stewart, BSID3Tom Vanasse, MSE4Chris Roche, MSE, MBA5Kenneth J. Faber, MD, FRCSC6G. Daniel G. Langohr, PhD7Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada; The Roth | McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, London, ON, CanadaDepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada; The Roth | McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, London, ON, CanadaExactech, Inc., Gainesville, FL, USAExactech, Inc., Gainesville, FL, USAExactech, Inc., Gainesville, FL, USAExactech, Inc., Gainesville, FL, USADepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada; The Roth | McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, London, ON, CanadaDepartment of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada; The Roth | McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, London, ON, Canada; Corresponding author: G. Daniel G. Langohr, PhD, Lawson Health Research Institute, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, Ontario N6A 4L6, Canada.Background: Shoulder arthroplasty humeral stem design has evolved to include various shapes, coatings, lengths, sizes, and fixation methods. While necessary to accommodate patient anatomy characteristics, this creates a surgical paradox of choice. The relationship between the surgeon’s selection of short-stem implant size and construct stiffness, resistance to subsidence and micromotion has not been assessed. Methods: Eight paired cadaveric humeri were reconstructed with surgeon-selected (SS) and 2-mm diametrically larger (SS+2) short-stemmed press-fit implants. Each reconstruction was subjected to 2000 cycles of 90° forward flexion loading, and stem subsidence and micromotion were measured using optical tracking. Compressive stiffness of the stem-bone reconstruction was then assessed by applying a load in-line with the stem axis that resulted in 5 mm of stem subsidence. Results: Increasing stem size by 2 mm resulted in the construct stiffness more than doubling compared to SS stems (−741 ± 243 N/mm vs. −334 ± 120 N/mm; P = .003; power = 0.971). These larger stems also subsided significantly less than their SS counterparts (SS: 1.2 ± 0.6 mm; SS+2: 0.5 ± 0.5 mm; P = .029; power = 0.66), though there were no significant changes in micromotion (SS: 169 ± 59 μm; SS+2: 187 ± 52 μm; P = .506; power = 0.094). Conclusions: The results of this study highlight the importance of proper short-stem sizing, as a relatively small 2 mm increase in diametral size was observed to significantly impact construct stiffness, which could increase the risk of stress shielding and implant loosening. Future work should focus on developing tools that objectively quantify bone quality and aid surgeons in selecting the appropriate size short-stem humeral implants for a particular patient.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638323001718Shoulder arthroplastyStem stabilityMicromotionSubsidenceConstruct stiffnessShort stem |
| spellingShingle | Jacob M. Reeves, PhD Gregory W. Spangenberg, BESc Josie A. Elwell, PhD Ben Stewart, BSID Tom Vanasse, MSE Chris Roche, MSE, MBA Kenneth J. Faber, MD, FRCSC G. Daniel G. Langohr, PhD Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stability JSES International Shoulder arthroplasty Stem stability Micromotion Subsidence Construct stiffness Short stem |
| title | Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stability |
| title_full | Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stability |
| title_fullStr | Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stability |
| title_full_unstemmed | Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stability |
| title_short | Implications of humeral short-stem diametral sizing on implant stability |
| title_sort | implications of humeral short stem diametral sizing on implant stability |
| topic | Shoulder arthroplasty Stem stability Micromotion Subsidence Construct stiffness Short stem |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638323001718 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jacobmreevesphd implicationsofhumeralshortstemdiametralsizingonimplantstability AT gregorywspangenbergbesc implicationsofhumeralshortstemdiametralsizingonimplantstability AT josieaelwellphd implicationsofhumeralshortstemdiametralsizingonimplantstability AT benstewartbsid implicationsofhumeralshortstemdiametralsizingonimplantstability AT tomvanassemse implicationsofhumeralshortstemdiametralsizingonimplantstability AT chrisrochemsemba implicationsofhumeralshortstemdiametralsizingonimplantstability AT kennethjfabermdfrcsc implicationsofhumeralshortstemdiametralsizingonimplantstability AT gdanielglangohrphd implicationsofhumeralshortstemdiametralsizingonimplantstability |