Cargando…

Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts

BACKGROUND: As the incidence of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) increases, so will the revision burden. At times, the revision surgeon may be faced with a well-fixed component on one side of the joint and revision implants from a different manufacturer. The ability to use glenoid and humeral imp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Teeter, Matthew G., Dawson, Matthew T., Athwal, George S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26980984
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.174512
_version_ 1782418565049090048
author Teeter, Matthew G.
Dawson, Matthew T.
Athwal, George S.
author_facet Teeter, Matthew G.
Dawson, Matthew T.
Athwal, George S.
author_sort Teeter, Matthew G.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: As the incidence of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) increases, so will the revision burden. At times, the revision surgeon may be faced with a well-fixed component on one side of the joint and revision implants from a different manufacturer. The ability to use glenoid and humeral implants from different manufacturers could simplify the revision procedure. This study hypothesized that across a range of RSA systems, some implants would demonstrate high size compatibility and others would demonstrate low compatibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six polyethylene inserts each from eight reverse total shoulder arthroplasty systems were examined (48 total inserts). All inserts were scanned using a laboratory micro-computed tomography scanner at 50 μm isotropic voxel spacing, and their surface geometries were reconstructed. The different implant geometries were co-registered, and the three-dimensional (3D) variability between the articular surfaces of the different implant systems was measured. Intrasystem manufacturing variability was also determined by measuring the 3D variability of inserts from the same system. RESULTS: The intersystem polyethylene articular surface deviations between same-size systems were not significantly different (P = 0.61) and were a mean maximum of 60 ± 16 μm (range: 30-80 μm). Intrasystem manufacturing variability was equivalent between all but two models, averaging 49 ± 17 μm (range: 23-99 μm). DISCUSSION: Differences in articular geometry between same-size inserts from different systems were on the same scale as intrasystem manufacturing variability, suggesting that different implant systems of the same nominal diameter could potentially be used interchangeably in revision or extenuating circumstances. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that surgeons can theoretically interchange same-sized implant components from the different RSA systems tested when conducting revisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4772410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47724102016-03-15 Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts Teeter, Matthew G. Dawson, Matthew T. Athwal, George S. Int J Shoulder Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: As the incidence of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) increases, so will the revision burden. At times, the revision surgeon may be faced with a well-fixed component on one side of the joint and revision implants from a different manufacturer. The ability to use glenoid and humeral implants from different manufacturers could simplify the revision procedure. This study hypothesized that across a range of RSA systems, some implants would demonstrate high size compatibility and others would demonstrate low compatibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six polyethylene inserts each from eight reverse total shoulder arthroplasty systems were examined (48 total inserts). All inserts were scanned using a laboratory micro-computed tomography scanner at 50 μm isotropic voxel spacing, and their surface geometries were reconstructed. The different implant geometries were co-registered, and the three-dimensional (3D) variability between the articular surfaces of the different implant systems was measured. Intrasystem manufacturing variability was also determined by measuring the 3D variability of inserts from the same system. RESULTS: The intersystem polyethylene articular surface deviations between same-size systems were not significantly different (P = 0.61) and were a mean maximum of 60 ± 16 μm (range: 30-80 μm). Intrasystem manufacturing variability was equivalent between all but two models, averaging 49 ± 17 μm (range: 23-99 μm). DISCUSSION: Differences in articular geometry between same-size inserts from different systems were on the same scale as intrasystem manufacturing variability, suggesting that different implant systems of the same nominal diameter could potentially be used interchangeably in revision or extenuating circumstances. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that surgeons can theoretically interchange same-sized implant components from the different RSA systems tested when conducting revisions. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4772410/ /pubmed/26980984 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.174512 Text en Copyright: © International Journal of Shoulder Surgery http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Teeter, Matthew G.
Dawson, Matthew T.
Athwal, George S.
Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts
title Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts
title_full Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts
title_fullStr Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts
title_full_unstemmed Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts
title_short Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts
title_sort inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26980984
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0973-6042.174512
work_keys_str_mv AT teetermatthewg interandintrasystemsizevariabilityofreverseshoulderarthroplastypolyethyleneinserts
AT dawsonmatthewt interandintrasystemsizevariabilityofreverseshoulderarthroplastypolyethyleneinserts
AT athwalgeorges interandintrasystemsizevariabilityofreverseshoulderarthroplastypolyethyleneinserts