» Articles » PMID: 37969503

Implications of Humeral Short-stem Diametral Sizing on Implant Stability

Overview
Journal JSES Int
Date 2023 Nov 16
PMID 37969503
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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;  = .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;  = .029; power = 0.66), though there were no significant changes in micromotion (SS: 169 ± 59 μm; SS+2: 187 ± 52 μm;  = .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.

Citing Articles

Volumetric Humeral Canal Fill Ratio Effects Primary Stability and Cortical Bone Loading in Short and Standard Stem Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Biomechanical and Computational Study.

Ritter D, Raiss P, Denard P, Werner B, Muller P, Woiczinski M J Imaging. 2024; 10(12.

PMID: 39728231 PMC: 11727762. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging10120334.

References
1.
Huiskes R, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B . The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992; (274):124-34. View

2.
Westerhoff P, Graichen F, Bender A, Halder A, Beier A, Rohlmann A . In vivo measurement of shoulder joint loads during activities of daily living. J Biomech. 2009; 42(12):1840-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.05.035. View

3.
Tavakoli A, Spangenberg G, Reeves J, Faber K, Langohr G . Humeral short stem varus-valgus alignment affects bone stress. J Orthop Res. 2021; 40(9):2169-2178. DOI: 10.1002/jor.25239. View

4.
Raiss P, Edwards T, Deutsch A, Shah A, Bruckner T, Loew M . Radiographic changes around humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(7):e54. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00378. View

5.
Casagrande D, Parks D, Torngren T, Schrumpf M, Harmsen S, Norris T . Radiographic evaluation of short-stem press-fit total shoulder arthroplasty: short-term follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25(7):1163-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.11.067. View