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