Evaluation of prostheses in shoulder arthroplasty : methods for assessment of outcome

Today, the shoulder joint is the third most commonly replaced joint after the hip and knee joints and the incidence is increasing. In Sweden, 1863 primary Shoulder Arthroplasties and 195 revisions were performed in 2017. The most common diagnoses are Osteoarthritis and irreparable tears of the rotator cuff, with or without arthropathy, often referred to as cuff tear arthropathy. Different Shoulder Arthroplasty (SA) concepts include anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), hemiarthroplasty (HSA) and reversed shoulder arthroplasty, but also humeral head resurfacing (HHR) and stemless arthroplasties. All concepts offer pain relief, improvement of function and in quality of life for the different diagnoses. Unfortunately, there are sometimes complications after SA. They involve periprosthetic joint infection, humeral and glenoid fractures, stress shielding, loosening of the glenoid and humeral component but also glenoid erosion and cuff rupture. Some of these complications are most common within 1 year after operation, some after several years, both may lead to a revision. This, together with the fact that new designs of implants and methods of fixation of SA continues to develop, stresses the importance of continuous monitoring of implant survival and follow-up.

The overall aim of this thesis was to describe clinical examples of different methods to assess the outcome after Shoulder Arthroplasty. The most common methods are clinical examination, radiographic assessment, Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM), National Joint registries, where revisions are an important outcome, but also Clinical Trials. All of these methods are used in one or more of the 4 papers in this thesis and shows the complexity of the topic and the practical work. In paper I we used Radio Stereometric Analysis (RSA) in an experimental set-up and concluded that marker-free RSA can be used for a humeral head resurfacing arthroplasty. In paper II we used data from the Swedish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (SSAR) with PROM and revisions to conclude that age is the only factor that affects revision when comparing HSA and HHR. Paper III is a long-time follow-up of a randomized controlled study where we used radiological assessment, PROM and revisions. The conclusion was that both TSA and HSA develop severe radiological changes 10 year after primary operation. Paper IV is a prospective RSA cohort study where we also evaluated PROM and revisions. The conclusion is that HHR seems to obtain a secure fixation in the humerus, after an initial migration. But also that the prostheses shows continuous glenoid wear.

The main conclusion of this thesis is that patient’s operated with SA needs continuous monitoring and several methods may be used to evaluate the outcome.

List of scientific papers

I. Measurement of migration of a humeral head resurfacing prosthesis using radiostereometry without implant marking. Olof Sköldenberg, Magnus Ödquist. Acta Orthopaedica. 82:2, 193-197.
https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566133

II. Lower age increases the risk of revision for stemmed and resurfacing shoulder hemi arthroplasty. Magnus Ödquist, Kristofer Hallberg, Hans Rahme, Björn Salomonsson & Aldana Rosso. Acta Orthopaedica. 89:1, 3-9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1411081

III. Hemi- versus Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A 22 year follow-up of implant survival with a 10 year systematic radiological assessment of a prospective randomized controlled study. Magnus Ödquist, Carina Grönhagen, Hassan Abbaszadegan, Ulf Lillkrona and Björn Salomonsson. [Manuscript]

IV. Glenoid Wear and migration pattern of a humeral head resurfacing implant - A prospective study using Radio Stereometric Analysis. Magnus Ödquist, Olof Sköldenberg, Hassan Abbaszadegan and Björn Salomonsson. [Manuscript]