
==== Front
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
1633-8065
1432-1068
Springer Paris Paris

38809422
4010
10.1007/s00590-024-04010-9
Original Article
Long-term survival of resurfacing humeral hemiarthroplasty
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8905-7761
Miettinen Simo S. A. simo.miettinen@pshyvinvointialue.fi

12
Liu Yang 2
Kröger Heikki 12
1 https://ror.org/00fqdfs68 grid.410705.7 0000 0004 0628 207X Department of Orthopaedics, Traumatology and Hand Surgery, Kuopio University Hospital, P.O. Box 1777, 70211 Kuopio, Finland
2 https://ror.org/00cyydd11 grid.9668.1 0000 0001 0726 2490 Kuopio Musculoskeletal Research Unit (KMRU), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Yliopistonranta 1, 70210 Kuopio, Finland
29 5 2024
29 5 2024
2024
34 6 29252932
3 4 2024
22 5 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Introduction

The indication for shoulder resurfacing arthroplasty is controversial, and survival of these implants is somewhat inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term survivorship of resurfacing humeral head implants (RHHIs) and determine risk factors for complications and revisions.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cohort study consisted of 275 cases and two types of RHHIs. The survival rate was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression for risk factor analysis. Demographic factors were studied, and the change in the humerus centre of rotation (COR) was measured.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 8.7 years (SD 2.7 months, range 2.8–15.9 years). The mean age of the patients was 67.6 years (SD 9.6, range 33.5–84.9). Ten-year cumulative RHHI survival was 94.1%. The cumulative estimate without any complication was 98.9% at 5 years, 80.0% at 10 years and at 15 years it was 61.5%. The most common complication was persistent pain in 13.8% of the RHHIs. The risk factors for complications and revisions were implant type, preoperative conditions and change of COR > 5 mm.

Conclusions

RRHIs showed excellent long-term survival, but many complications were found. The most common complication was persistent pain, which seemed to be caused by a change of COR and was more related to one type of implant.

Keywords

Shoulder replacement
Shoulder hemiarthroplasty
Arthroplasty
Shoulder
Survival
Complications
University of Eastern Finland (including Kuopio University Hospital)Open access funding provided by University of Eastern Finland (including Kuopio University Hospital).

issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Shoulder arthroplasty is performed on a shoulder joint where cartilage destruction following osteoarthritis (OA), avascular necrosis (ANV), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or post-traumatic injury has progressed to an advanced stage, causing pain and limitation of movement [1]. There are four types of implant systems for shoulder arthroplasty. A resurfacing humeral head implant (RHHI) is designed to replace the damaged joint surfaces and restore normal anatomy with minimal resection of bone [1]. In the 1990s and 2000s, the RHHI gained popularity as studies showed good functional results with low complication and revision rates [2–9]. Currently, the most popular shoulder implant systems are total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) [1, 5, 8]. The fourth type of implant is hemiarthroplasty (HA), which is mainly used to treat a fragmented proximal humerus fracture [10].

Treating shoulder arthritis in young active patients remains challenging [2, 9, 11–13]. The experience of shoulder arthroplasty with stemmed implants in young patients has shown worse results than in older patients, with a high percentage of unsatisfactory results and revision surgeries [8, 9, 11–13]. The superiority of TSA in terms of return to sports, function and patient satisfaction over RHHI and HA has been demonstrated in patients with glenohumeral arthritis. Still, some surgeons may prefer them in high-demand athletes and labourers [13]. The most common causes of RHHI revision are inflammation, periprosthetic fractures, luxation and instability, component detachment and damage to the rotator cuff [2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12]. RHHI revision is often a demanding and costly procedure, with the outcome often somewhat unsatisfactory, especially in young patients [8, 9]. As RHHI differs in many aspects from stemmed shoulder prosthesis, it has some advantages, which are preserved bone stock as bone resection is minimal, short operation time, less stress shielding, a low prevalence of humeral periprosthetic fractures, ease of stem removal at revision and humeral head placement independent from the anatomic axis [7–9]. In addition, RHHIs have been associated with low complication rates [3–5, 7–9]. Moreover, if the RHHI fails, revision surgery can be easily achieved by a revision to a stemless reverse prosthesis, as the bone stock has been maintained, no cement or stem must be exposed and removed, and no loss of length will be encountered [8, 10]. However, bone stock alterations are common after TSA and complicate revision surgery, which may affect the revision threshold level.

The purpose of the present study was (1) to analyse RHHI survivorship at a minimum follow-up of 5 years, (2) to determine complications and revision rates and (3) to evaluate risk factors for complications and revisions.

Materials and methods

Setting, participants and implants

This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive cases performed at a single institution. This study consisted of patients who received primary RHHIs between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2015. A minimum of 5 years of follow-up was set. The end of follow-up was either 31 December 2020, upon the patient’s death or the date of revision due to any reason. A total of 275 cases (257 patients; 18 bilateral procedures) were evaluated, and 158 of 275 cases (58%) were women. None of the hospital’s RHHI patients were excluded from this study.

Data were retrieved from the hospital medical records, including demographic data [gender, age, operating side, indication for operation and past medical conditions or medications that may affect prognosis (e.g. rheumatism, osteoporosis/-penia, long-term cortisone use, heavy alcohol use, smoking), body mass index (BMI)]. Shoulder post-operative range of motion in flexion and abduction were given in medical records at the 3-month follow-up. However, unfortunately, in most cases, preoperative range of motion and especially post-operative internal and external rotation were reported incompletely, so they were not evaluated. Complications and revisions were evaluated.

Implant description, surgical technique and follow-up

Two types of cementless resurfacing implants were studied (Fig. 1). Epoca (Synthes, Paoli, Pennsylvania, USA) is a Neer-3 type anatomical humeral head resurfacing implant. Copeland (Biomet Inc., Warsaw, Indiana, USA) is a resurfacing implant with porous hydroxyapatite coating for cementless fixation.Fig. 1 Postoperative radiographs of the Epoca A and Copeland B humeral head resurfacing arthroplasties

Preoperative evaluation included anteroposterior radiographs. Four experienced consultant orthopaedic surgeons performed these operations during the study period. The resurfacing procedure was performed with both general and regional anaesthesia. The patient was placed in a supine, beach-chair position, and the deltopectoral approach was used. The rotator cuff was assessed, and if it was intact or deficiency was repairable (partial small tear), an RHHI was performed. The rotator interval was identified, and the subscapular tendon was incised longitudinally and detached. The humeral head was dislocated anteriorly. The anatomical neck of the humerus was defined, and the neck-shaft angle was identified. All osteophytes were removed, and the humeral shaper was applied to the centre of the head. The humeral drill guide was positioned in the centre of the head and parallel to the neck, adjusting automatically for retroversion and inclination. The humeral head was measured and then reamed over the drill guide. The trial humeral cap was set, and the range of movement was confirmed. If the trial component was correct in size, it was removed, and the final implant was hammered to a prepared humeral head. The subscapularis was re-attached to its insertion, and if a partial rotator cuff tear was noticed, it was repaired with transosseous sutures.

After the RHHI, patients followed a routine rehabilitation protocol with supervised physiotherapy. Patients were routinely followed clinically and radiologically 12 weeks after the procedure and, if needed, 6 or 12 months after the procedure. If problems occurred, extra clinical and radiological follow-up was set, e.g. in case of persistent pain.

Radiographic measurements

Anteroposterior (AP) radiograph measurements were performed to estimate the correct size and position of the implant. For this evaluation, the centre of rotation (COR) was measured by placing a circle on the "true" AP radiograph using three preserved bone landmarks: The lateral cortex of the greater tubercle, medial calcar at the inflection point where calcar meets the articular surface, and the medial edge of the greater tubercle medial of the footprint of the supraspinatus tendon. A second circle, the implant-matched circle, was placed to fit the curvature of the prosthetic humeral head. The COR was identified from each circle, and the distance between the CORs was calculated in millimetres (Fig. 2) [14, 15]. Previously, it has been shown that a COR change greater than 5 mm correlates to clinical failure due to overstuffing and that the COR is a reliable radiologic measurement [14, 15].Fig. 2 Measurement of the difference of the centre of rotation A, where the “true” centre of rotation dot is coloured black and implant-matched dot is coloured grey

Outcome measures

The outcomes of this study were (1) to analyse RHHI survivorship, (2) to determine complications and revision rates and (3) to evaluate risk factors for complications and revisions.

Statistical analysis

Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests were used to study post-operative cumulative survival, and competing risk analysis was performed where death was set as a competing outcome factor for revision. Continuous variables are presented as means (ranges), whereas categorical variables are presented as absolute frequencies and percentages. Comparison of continuous data was carried out using a Mann–Whitney U test. For categorical data, a Chi-square test was used. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the most common risk factors for revision (age, age > 65 years, gender, implant, COR, disease affecting bone strength, BMI). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA. Ver 27.0, IBM).

Results

Patients and demographics

The mean follow-up time was 8.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 2.7 months, range 2.8–15.9 years]. The mean age of the patients was 67.6 years (SD 9.6, range 33.5–84.9). The mean BMI was 29.1 (SD 5.6, range 17.7–54.9). Demographic preoperative characteristics of the patients are given in more detail in Table 1. The mean 3-month post-operative range of abduction angle was 109° (SD 33.5, range 30–180), and the mean flexion angle was 116° (SD 33.3, range 40–180). The mean COR was 3.6 mm (SD 3.0, range 0.0–17.0). A change in the COR > 5 mm was found in 67 of 275 (24%) RHHIs.Table 1 Patient characteristics

	n (%)	
Implant*		
 Copeland	145 (53)	
 Epoca	130 (47)	
Age > 65 years		
 Yes	161 (59)	
 No	114 (41)	
Operation side		
 Right	149 (54)	
 Left	126 (46)	
Operation diagnosis		
 Primary osteoarthritis	242 (88)	
 Post-traumatic osteoarthritis	22 (8)	
 Rheumatoid arthritis	11 (4)	
Conditions affecting bone strength and ambulatory status		
 None	223 (81)	
 Osteopenia/-porosis	17 (6)	
 Rheumatoid arthritis	31 (11)	
 Heavy use of alcohol	1 (0)	
 Smoking	3 (1)	
*The Mann–Whitney U test and a Chi-square test were applied to compare demographic factors between the implants. None of the statistical tests reached significance

Complications and revisions

A total of 46 of 275 (16.7%) complications occurred, and a total of 11 of 275 (4.0%) revisions were performed (Table 2). The cumulative estimate without any complication after the RHHI was 98.9% at 5 years, 80.0% at 10 years and at 15 years it was 61.5% (SE 0.3, CI 95% 13.0–14.2) (Fig. 3). Of the RHHIs, 52 of 257 (20%) patients died during follow-up at different time points, which was considered in competing risk survival analyses. The cumulative estimate without revision after an RHHI was 98.5% at 5 years and 94.1% at 10 and 15 years (SE 0.2, CI 95% 15.1–15.7) (Fig. 3). In all revision cases, revision was performed with RSA.Table 2 Complications and revisions

	n (%)	
Any complication		
 No	229 (83.3)	
 Yes	46 (16.7)	
  Persistent pain	38 (13.8)	
  Periprosthetic fracture	6 (2.2)	
  Implant loosening	1 (0.3)	
  Nerve damage	1 (0.3)	
Revision		
 No	264 (96.0)	
 Yes	11 (4.0)	
  Persistent pain	8 (2.9)	
  Periprosthetic fracture	2 (0.7)	
  Implant loosening	1 (0.4)	

Fig. 3 Kaplan–Meier survival analysis for time. Competing risk analysis was performed where death was set as a competing outcome factor for revision. The cumulative estimate without any complication (black dotted line) after RHHI was 98.9% at 5 years, 80.0% at 10 years and at 15 years it was 61.5% (SE 0.3, CI 95% 13.0–14.2). The cumulative estimate without revision (grey solid line) after RHHI was 98.5% at 5 years and 94.1% at 10 years and at 15 years (SE 0.2, CI 95% 15.1–15.7)

Risk factor analysis

The Cox regression analysis (Table 3) showed that the Copeland implant was a risk factor for complications and revision. If the patient had any conditions affecting bone strength and ambulatory status, it was a risk factor for complications but not for revision. A change of the COR > 5 mm was a risk factor for complications and revision.Table 3 Cox regression analysis for complication and revision risk factors

	Complication	Revision	
Univariate	Multivariate	Univariate	Multivariate	
HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value	HR	95% CI	p-value	
Age	1.0	0.98–1.03	0.780				0.98	0.92–1.04	0.450				
  < 75 years	ref						ref						
  ≥ 75 years	1.14	0.63–2.03	0.670				0.86	0.27–2.80	0.800				
Gender													
 Female	ref						ref						
 Male		0.63–2.02	0.700				1.77	0.51–6.12	0.370				
Implant													
 Epoca	ref						ref						
 Copeland	0.42	0.23–0.78	0.006	0.47	0.25–0.91	0.024	0.15	0.03–0.77	0.023	0.17	0.03–0.93	0.040	
Operation indication†													
 Osteoarthritis	ref												
 Post-traumatic arthritis	0.37	0.08–1.61	0.180										
 Rheumatoides arthritis	0.39	0.12–1.32	0.130										
BMI	1.03	0.98–1.08	0.300				1.06	0.98–1.15	0.130				
Conditions affecting bone strength and ambulatory status*	0.49	0.25–0.94	0.033	0.51	0.27–0.99	0.046	0.56	0.15–2.03	0.380				
Change of centre of rotation > 5 mm	0.91	0.83–1.00	0.046	0.94	0.85–1.03	0.200	0.84	0.73–0.98	0.023	0.90	0.76–1.06	0.200	
CI Confidence interval, BMI Body mass index

†Only 1 revision in other group than primary osteoarthritis so Cox regression was not able use for revision risk factor analysis

*None of the single condition reached statistical significance

Discussion

The present study showed good long-term results with a cumulative survival of 94.1% at 10 and 15 years after cementless RHHI. In the literature, the results of humeral surface replacement arthroplasty and other shoulder arthroplasties are inconsistent due to different study protocols, operation indications, implants, threshold levels for revision and endpoints. The recent Cochrane review included 20 randomised studies of any type of shoulder replacement, and the conclusion was that it remains uncertain which type or technique of shoulder replacement surgery is most effective in different situations [16]. In a previous study with similar cementless RHHI implants, short-term survival was much worse than in our study, as Maier et al. reported their revision rate as high as 24% after 2.7 years [17]. In contrast to those results, Levy et al. reported no revision after 4.4 years of follow-up, and Al-Hadithy et al. reported a revision rate of 2% after 4.2 years [3, 18]. In the mid-term follow-up studies, reported revision rates varied from 16 to 17% [19, 20]. In the long-term follow-up studies, Geervliet et al. reported a revision rate of 23% at 9 years, and Gadea et al. reported a 10-year prosthesis survival of 88.1% [15, 21]. In our study, there would have been more revisions if RSA had been an option during the early years of the study period. The change in the number of revisions in this study was seen during the latter study period when RSA became available in our clinic.

Many complications (16.7%) occurred in this study, most of which were persistent pain. Similar results have been shown in a recent long-term study where the overall complication rate was 15.4%, and the two main complications were pain due to glenoid erosion and stiffness [21]. The two reasons for the pain were related to RHHI positioning and overstuffing [17, 20, 22]. Moreover, pain after an RHHI has been a problem, especially with the Copeland implant, as overstuffing seems to cause pain due to the implant design [22]. In our study, the Copeland implant was also a risk factor for complications and revision. However, the number of revisions in our study was too small for sound implant-based comparison.

A change in the COR from its anatomical location causes problems. Positioning of the RHHI related to the top of the greater tuberosity is fundamental to avoid impingement of the greater tuberosity under the acromion if it is placed too low or overstuffing the cuff tendons with limited range of motion if it is placed too proud [17]. Our study agrees that increased COR is a risk factor for revision by causing joint pain and stiffness typically referred to as glenoid erosion, impingement or overstuffing [17, 19, 21].

The indication for RHHI has been shown to affect the risk of complications and survival [21]. In the case of primary OA, studies have shown that TSA produces better outcomes for pain, mobility and revision rates compared to RHHI [23, 24]. In the case of RA-indicated RHHI, a study by Sterling et al. showed that long-term pain relief was better after TSA than after hemiarthroplasty, and TSA had a lower risk for revision surgery [25]. In our study, the indication for RHHI was not a risk factor for revision. Implant survival is crucial, especially in younger patients, and a previous study showed that TSA is superior compared to RHHI in patients under 50 years [11]. In this study, the patient’s age was not a risk factor for revision. However, conditions affecting bone strength and ambulatory status are risk factors for complications but not for revision. The probable reason for this finding is that patients with complications might have poor glenoid bone quality, causing glenoid erosion, and the rotator cuff might be degenerative. However, as these patients were not suitable for RSA revision for multiple reasons, these are risk factors only for complications and not for revision in this current study. Gender or BMI were not risk factors for complications or revision in this study.

The current study has several limitations. Due to the retrospective study design, no patient-reported outcome measurements were available. The options for RHHI revisions were minimal during the early study period due to the lack of TSA and RSA options. This may have resulted in too low a revision rate during the early study period. On the other hand, in the latter study period, when RSA became an option, the patients who would have benefited from revision were in too poor condition for another surgery. There was no radiological analysis in the axial plane, hence limiting the evaluation of the resurfacing. The use of 3-D computed tomography would be more reproducible than plain radiography assessment [26]. In addition, we did not consider the radiographic data at baseline, and glenoid cavity morphology was not analysed.

Conclusion

RRHIs showed excellent long-term survival, but many complications were found. The most common complication was persistent pain. The lack of good revision options for these patients limited the number of revisions, especially in the 2000s. In the 2010s, these problematic patients were mostly too fragile for RSA revision, which probably explains the excellent implant survival in this study.

Acknowledgements

We thank Tuomas Selander (MSc), Kuopio university hospital, for helping with statistical analysis.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by SM. Data were harvested and collected by YL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SM, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Eastern Finland (including Kuopio University Hospital).

Data availability

Not available due to data protection reasons.

Declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study protocol and evaluation of patient medical records were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the hospital (87/2020).

Ethics statements

This study was approved by the institutional review board of our institution. The requirement for informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study. After approval, the patient’s medical records and radiologic data were retrospectively evaluated. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Wiater JM Fabing MH Shoulder arthroplasty: prosthetic options and indications J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009 17 415 425 10.5435/00124635-200907000-00002 19571297
Wiater JM, Fabing MH (2009) Shoulder arthroplasty: prosthetic options and indications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:415–425. 10.5435/00124635-200907000-0000219571297 10.5435/00124635-200907000-00002
2. Levy O Tsvieli O Merchant J Young L Trimarchi A Dattani R Abraham R Copeland SA Narvani A Atoun E Surface replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathy in patients aged younger than fifty years: results after a minimum ten-year follow-up J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015 24 1049 1060 10.1016/j.jse.2014.11.035 25601383
Levy O, Tsvieli O, Merchant J, Young L, Trimarchi A, Dattani R, Abraham R, Copeland SA, Narvani A, Atoun E (2015) Surface replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathy in patients aged younger than fifty years: results after a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24:1049–1060. 10.1016/j.jse.2014.11.03525601383 10.1016/j.jse.2014.11.035
3. Levy O Copeland SA Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (Copeland CSRA) for osteoarthritis of the shoulder J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004 13 266 271 10.1016/j.jse.2004.01.005 15111895
Levy O, Copeland SA (2004) Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (Copeland CSRA) for osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13:266–271. 10.1016/j.jse.2004.01.00515111895 10.1016/j.jse.2004.01.005
4. Levy O Funk L Sforza G Copeland SA Copeland surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder in rheumatoid arthritis J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004 86 512 518 10.2106/00004623-200403000-00008 14996876
Levy O, Funk L, Sforza G, Copeland SA (2004) Copeland surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:512–518. 10.2106/00004623-200403000-0000814996876 10.2106/00004623-200403000-00008
5. Longo UG Papalia R Castagna A De Salvatore S Guerra E Piergentili I Denaro V Shoulder replacement: an epidemiological nationwide study from 2009 to 2019 BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022 23 1 889 10.1186/s12891-022-05849-x 36180858
Longo UG, Papalia R, Castagna A, De Salvatore S, Guerra E, Piergentili I, Denaro V (2022) Shoulder replacement: an epidemiological nationwide study from 2009 to 2019. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23(1):889. 10.1186/s12891-022-05849-x36180858 10.1186/s12891-022-05849-x
6. Pritchett JW Long-term results and patient satisfaction after shoulder resurfacing J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011 20 771 777 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.014 21106400
Pritchett JW (2011) Long-term results and patient satisfaction after shoulder resurfacing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:771–777. 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.01421106400 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.014
7. Burgess DL McGrath MS Bonutti PM Marker DR Delanois RE Mont MA Shoulder resurfacing J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009 91 1228 12238 10.2106/JBJS.H.01082 19411474
Burgess DL, McGrath MS, Bonutti PM, Marker DR, Delanois RE, Mont MA (2009) Shoulder resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1228–12238. 10.2106/JBJS.H.0108219411474 10.2106/JBJS.H.01082
8. Widnall JC Dheerendra SK Macfarlane RJ Waseem M The use of shoulder hemiarthroplasty and humeral head resurfacing: a review of current concepts Open Orthop J 2013 6 334 337 10.2174/1874325001307010334
Widnall JC, Dheerendra SK, Macfarlane RJ, Waseem M (2013) The use of shoulder hemiarthroplasty and humeral head resurfacing: a review of current concepts. Open Orthop J 6:334–337. 10.2174/187432500130701033410.2174/1874325001307010334
9. Buch B Vall M Consigliere P Guillén JA Cruz E Natera L Short stems and stemless shoulder arthroplasty: current concepts review Arch Bone Jt Surg 2022 10 633 647 10.22038/ABJS.2021.53555.2664 36258746
Buch B, Vall M, Consigliere P, Guillén JA, Cruz E, Natera L (2022) Short stems and stemless shoulder arthroplasty: current concepts review. Arch Bone Jt Surg 10:633–647. 10.22038/ABJS.2021.53555.266436258746 10.22038/ABJS.2021.53555.2664
10. Brorson S Viberg B Gundtoft P Jalal B Ohrt-Nissen S Epidemiology and trends in management of acute proximal humeral fractures in adults: an observational study of 137,436 cases from the Danish national patient register, 1996–2018 Acta Orthop 2022 93 750 755 10.2340/17453674.2022.4578 36148615
Brorson S, Viberg B, Gundtoft P, Jalal B, Ohrt-Nissen S (2022) Epidemiology and trends in management of acute proximal humeral fractures in adults: an observational study of 137,436 cases from the Danish national patient register, 1996–2018. Acta Orthop 93:750–755. 10.2340/17453674.2022.457836148615 10.2340/17453674.2022.4578
11. Sperling JW Cofield RH Rowland CM Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger J Shoulder Elb Surg 2004 13 604 613 10.1016/j.jse.2004.03.013
Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM (2004) Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elb Surg 13:604–61310.1016/j.jse.2004.03.013
12. Rasmussen JV Hole R Metlie T Brorson S Äärimaa V Demir Y Salomonsson B Jensen SL Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis has higher survival rates than hemiarthroplasty: a Nordic registry-based study Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018 26 659 665 10.1016/j.joca.2018.02.896 29474992
Rasmussen JV, Hole R, Metlie T, Brorson S, Äärimaa V, Demir Y, Salomonsson B, Jensen SL (2018) Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis has higher survival rates than hemiarthroplasty: a Nordic registry-based study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 26:659–665. 10.1016/j.joca.2018.02.896. (PMID: 29474992)29474992 10.1016/j.joca.2018.02.896
13. Fourman MS Beck A Gasbarro G Irrgang JJ Rodosky MW Lin A Humeral head resurfacing is associated with less pain and clinically equivalent functional outcomes compared with stemmed hemiarthroplasty at mid-term follow-up Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019 27 3203 3211 10.1007/s00167-019-05382-w 30915512
Fourman MS, Beck A, Gasbarro G, Irrgang JJ, Rodosky MW, Lin A (2019) Humeral head resurfacing is associated with less pain and clinically equivalent functional outcomes compared with stemmed hemiarthroplasty at mid-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:3203–3211. 10.1007/s00167-019-05382-w30915512 10.1007/s00167-019-05382-w
14. Alolabi B Youderian AR Napolitano L Szerlip BW Evans PJ Nowinski RJ Ricchetti ET Iannotti JP Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014 23 1740 1746 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.013 24856628
Alolabi B, Youderian AR, Napolitano L, Szerlip BW, Evans PJ, Nowinski RJ, Ricchetti ET, Iannotti JP (2014) Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:1740–1746. 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.01324856628 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.013
15. Geervliet PC Willems JH Sierevelt IN Visser CPJ van Noort A Overstuffing in resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is a potential risk for failure J Orthop Surg Res 2019 14 474 10.1186/s13018-019-1522-1 31888675
Geervliet PC, Willems JH, Sierevelt IN, Visser CPJ, van Noort A (2019) Overstuffing in resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is a potential risk for failure. J Orthop Surg Res 14:474. 10.1186/s13018-019-1522-131888675 10.1186/s13018-019-1522-1
16. Craig RS Goodier H Singh JA Hopewell S Rees JL Shoulder replacement surgery for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020 10.1002/14651858.CD012879.pub2 33320346
Craig RS, Goodier H, Singh JA, Hopewell S, Rees JL (2020) Shoulder replacement surgery for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 10.1002/14651858.CD012879.pub233320346 10.1002/14651858.CD012879.pub2
17. Maier MW Hetto P Raiss P Klotz M Bülhoff M Spranz D Zeifang F Cementless humeral head resurfacing for degenerative glenohumeral osteoarthritis fails at a high rate J Orthop 2018 15 349 353 10.1016/j.jor.2018.02.013 29881151
Maier MW, Hetto P, Raiss P, Klotz M, Bülhoff M, Spranz D, Zeifang F (2018) Cementless humeral head resurfacing for degenerative glenohumeral osteoarthritis fails at a high rate. J Orthop 15:349–353. 10.1016/j.jor.2018.02.01329881151 10.1016/j.jor.2018.02.013
18. Al-Hadithy N Domos P Sewell MD Naleem A Papanna MC Pandit R Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder for osteoarthritis: results of fifty Mark III Copeland prosthesis from an independent center with four-year mean follow-up J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012 21 1776 1781 10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.024 22572402
Al-Hadithy N, Domos P, Sewell MD, Naleem A, Papanna MC, Pandit R (2012) Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder for osteoarthritis: results of fifty Mark III Copeland prosthesis from an independent center with four-year mean follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:1776–1781. 10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.02422572402 10.1016/j.jse.2012.01.024
19. Soudy K Szymanski C Lalanne C Bourgault C Thiounn A Cotten A Maynou C Results and limitations of humeral head resurfacing: 105 cases at a mean follow-up of 5 years Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2017 103 415 420 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.12.015 28167247
Soudy K, Szymanski C, Lalanne C, Bourgault C, Thiounn A, Cotten A, Maynou C (2017) Results and limitations of humeral head resurfacing: 105 cases at a mean follow-up of 5 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:415–420. 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.12.01528167247 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.12.015
20. Chillemi C Paglialunga C De Giorgi G Proietti R Carli S Damo M Outcome and revision rate of uncemented humeral head resurfacing: Mid-term follow-up study World J Orthop 2021 12 403 411 10.5312/wjo.v12.i6.403 34189078
Chillemi C, Paglialunga C, De Giorgi G, Proietti R, Carli S, Damo M (2021) Outcome and revision rate of uncemented humeral head resurfacing: Mid-term follow-up study. World J Orthop 12:403–411. 10.5312/wjo.v12.i6.40334189078 10.5312/wjo.v12.i6.403
21. Gadea F Alami G Pape G Boileau P Favard L Shoulder hemiarthroplasty: outcomes and long-term survival analysis according to etiology Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012 98 659 665 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.020 22944393
Gadea F, Alami G, Pape G, Boileau P, Favard L (2012) Shoulder hemiarthroplasty: outcomes and long-term survival analysis according to etiology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98:659–665. 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.02022944393 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.020
22. Mechlenburg I Amstrup A Klebe T Jacobsen SS Teichert G Stilling M The Copeland resurfacing humeral head implant does not restore humeral head anatomy. A retrospective study Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013 133 615 619 10.1007/s00402-013-1715-8 23494113
Mechlenburg I, Amstrup A, Klebe T, Jacobsen SS, Teichert G, Stilling M (2013) The Copeland resurfacing humeral head implant does not restore humeral head anatomy. A retrospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:615–619. 10.1007/s00402-013-1715-8. (PMID: 23494113)23494113 10.1007/s00402-013-1715-8
23. Gartsman GM Roddey TS Hammerman SM Shoulder arthroplasty with or without resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000 82 26 34 10.2106/00004623-200001000-00004 10653081
Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM (2000) Shoulder arthroplasty with or without resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:26–34. 10.2106/00004623-200001000-0000410653081 10.2106/00004623-200001000-00004
24. Lo IK Litchfield RB Griffin S Faber K Patterson SD Kirkley A Quality-of-life outcome following hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. A prospective, randomized trial J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005 87 2178 2185 10.2106/JBJS.D.02198 16203880
Lo IK, Litchfield RB, Griffin S, Faber K, Patterson SD, Kirkley A (2005) Quality-of-life outcome following hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2178–2185. 10.2106/JBJS.D.0219816203880 10.2106/JBJS.D.02198
25. Sperling JW Cofield RH Schleck CD Harmsen WS Total shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis of the shoulder: results of 303 consecutive cases J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007 16 683 690 10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.135 18029202
Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS (2007) Total shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis of the shoulder: results of 303 consecutive cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:683–690. 10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.13518029202 10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.135
26. Jia X Chen Y Qiang M Zhang K Li H Jiang Y Zhang Y Compared to X-ray, three-dimensional computed tomography measurement is a reproducible radiographic method for normal proximal humerus J Orthop Surg Res 2016 11 82 10.1186/s13018-016-0417-7 27422405
Jia X, Chen Y, Qiang M, Zhang K, Li H, Jiang Y, Zhang Y (2016) Compared to X-ray, three-dimensional computed tomography measurement is a reproducible radiographic method for normal proximal humerus. J Orthop Surg Res 11:82. 10.1186/s13018-016-0417-727422405 10.1186/s13018-016-0417-7
