Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of the present study to studies of conventional stemmed prosthesis

From: Do the radiological changes seen at mid term follow up of stemless shoulder prosthesis affect outcome?

Study No of shoulders Duration of follow up Prosthesis Mean CS Age adjusted CS Range of motion (in degrees)
Flexion Abduction External rotation
A P A P A P
Raiss et.al (2012) 46 10y Aq 61 ± 18.2 79 ± 43 133 ± 36.7   123 ± 41.6   35 ± 15.8  
Deshmukh (2005) 72 14 y ± 2.7 N    Elevation-80 (58–100) 109 (84-
124)
   25 (15–41)  
Levineet.al (2012) 27 17.2y(13–21) N Elevation-
141.89 (45-180)
    61 (30–90)  
Sandow (2013) 33 3y G 54.5 ± 4a
77 ± 6b
       
Favard (2012) 110 8y Anatomic/ Reverse 62.8 o
47.5 r
53.8 c
       
Orfaly et al. (2003) 65 4.3y(2–8) G    Elevation 147     39  
Denard (2013) 50 115.5mo(60–211) Aq 58.4 ± 20.7 73.4 ± 23.9 128 ± 36     33 ± 24  
Current study 21 5.9y(4.5–7.9) E 71.2 ±16.6 83 ± 15.9 149.5 ± 38.9 160.4 ± 32.3 138 ± 43.4 148.5 ± 38. 46.1 ± 17.3 52.3 ± 14.3
  1. Abbreviations, y year, mo months, ahemiarthroplasty, btotal shoulder arthroplasty, o osteoarthritis, r heumatoid arthritis, c cuff arthropathy, y years, mo months, E Eclipse Prosthesis, Aq Aequalis prosthesis, G Global Arthroplasty system, N Neer II