Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparison of the current study to resurfacing/ stemless implants

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

Study

No of shoulders

Follow up

Prosthesis

CS

Age

adjusted

CS

Range of motion

Flexion

Abduction

External rotation

Active

P

A

P

A

P

Thomas et.al (2005)

48

34.2 mo(24–63)

Co

48.6r

58o

54c

 

120 o

97 r

 

99 o

75 r

 

46 o

39 r

 

Mullet (2007)

21

53.6 mo(25–111)

Co

56.4

77 (25–100)

105.9 (73.5

− 137.5)

     

Levy et al. (2004)

62

6.5 yr(2–16)

Co

53.4 ± 13.8a

47.9 ± 17.8b

71 ± 19.8b

76 ± 13.4a

101 ± 41b

104 ± 42a

 

83 ± 45 b

87 ± 43a

 

44 ± 24 b

47 ± 26a

 

Berth et.al.(2013)

41

30.8 ± 4.6푚표

T

54.7 ± 7.3

73.2 ± 11.3

115.9 ± 9.8

 

105 ± 12.1

 

54.4 ± 10.7

 

Razmjou et.al (2013)

17 t

39b

24 mo

T, B, N

 

92 ± 22 T

135 ± 35 T

 

121 ± 40 T

 

54 ± 17 t

 
 

18n

   

89 ± 18 퐵

94 ± 24 N

142 ± 24 B

131 ± 27 N

 

126 ± 33 B

123 ± 32 N

 

51 ± 18 b

43 ± 19 푛

 

Huguet et.al (2010)

61

36 mo(36–51)

T

75

 

145

   

40

 

Churchill et.al (2016)

149

2

S

80.7 ± 10.5

104.1 ± 14.8

146.6 ± 23.7

 

56.4 ± 15.4

 

Current study

21

5.9 y(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 ± 38.5

46.1 ± 17.3

52.3

±14.3

Habermyer (2015)

78

72.9 mo

E

75 ± 31

140.7 ± 35.9

 

129.9 ± 29.3

 

44.2 ± 20

 

Hawi (2017)

43

9y(90-127mo)

E

79 ± 21

118 ± 43

105 ± 43

 

43 ± 19

 

Gallacher(2018)

100

35.4 (24–76) mo

E

OSS: 28/48 (36-40)

 

 

Uschok(2017)

14

68 (59–84)

mo

E

72.8 ± 11

154 ± 8.5

149.3 ± 14.9

 

48.6 ± 15.6

 
  1. aTotal shoulder arthroplasty. bHemiarthroplasty
  2. o Osteoarthritis, r Rheumatoid arthritis, c Cuff arthropathy
  3. T TESS: Total evolutive shoulder system
  4. B Bigliani –Flatow
  5. N Neer
  6. Co Copeland (Mark III)
  7. S Simpliciti shoulder prosthesis
  8. E Eclipse shoulder prosthesis