Skip to main content

Table 1 Demographic data and outcome measurement of individual studies

From: Loosening and revision rates after total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of cemented all-polyethylene glenoid and three modern designs of metal-backed glenoid

Authors

Level of Evidence

Design

Cases

Mean age (y, range)

Mean FU (m, range)

Range of motion

Outcome measurements

Cemented all-polyethylene glenoid components (PEG)

 Raiss (2008)

IV

Aequalisa

21

55 (37–60)

7 years (5–9)

FE, ABD, IR, ER

Constant score

 Rice (2008)

IV

Cofield IIb

14

66 (52–78)

5 years (2–8)

ABD, ER

Neer result rating

 Fox (2009)

IV

Mixedc

972

66.4

68.1

N

N

 Edwards (2010)

I

Aequalisa

47

69 ± 11

26 (12–38)

N

N

 Throckmorton (2010)

III

Cofield

100

68.6 (52–80)

48.5 (24–98)

FE, IR, ER

VAS

 Arnold (2011)

IV

Global Advantaged

35

70 (49–89)

43 (24–66)

N

Constant score

 Collin (2011)

II

Aequalisa

56

66.7 (43–83)

120 (102–155)

N

N

 Walch (2011)

IV

Aequalisa

333

69.3 (35–90)

89.5 (61–152)

FE, ER

Constant score

 Young (2011)

IV

Aequalisa

226

66.9 (40–90)

122.7 (61–219)

FE, ER

Constant score

 Raiss (2012)

IV

Aequalisa

39

64 (43–79)

132 (120–180)

FE, ABD, IR, ER

Constant score

 Wirth (2012)

IV

Global Advantaged

44

66 (52–79)

48 (24–84)

FE, IR, ER

VAS, ASES score, SST

 Denard (2013)

IV

Aequalisa

50

50.5 (35–55)

115.5 (60–211)

FE, ER

Constant score

 Greiner (2013)

IV

Affinise

97

66.6 (30–85)

58.8 (31.2–92.5)

FE, ABD

Constant score

 Raiss (2014)

IV

N (mixed)

329

N

8.0 years (4–17)

FE, ER

Constant score

 Gazielly (2015)

IV

Aequalisa

39

68.1 (51–81)

102 (56.4–150)

FE, ER

Constant score, pain score

 Gulotta (2015)

III

BioModularf

40

68.2 ± 9.1

38 (24–45)

N

VAS, ASES

 Noyes (2015)

IV

Global Advantaged

42

64 (51–80)

80 (63–114)

FE, ER

ASES

 Wright (2015)

IV

Equinoxeg

24

66.4 ± 9.1

29.6 ± 8.7

FE, ABD, IR, ER

Constant score, ASES, SST, UCLA

 Parks (2016)

IV

Affinitih

76

63.5 (39–86)

28.7 (24–60)

FE, ABD, IR, ER

Constant score, ASES

 Wijeratna (2016)

IV

Global Advantaged

83

68.6 (49–88)

46.7 (24–99)

FE, IR, ER

ASES, Oxford score

 McLendon (2017)

IV

Cofield IIi

287

65 (21–85)

84 (48–171.6)

N

N

 Service (2017)

III

Global Advantaged

71

68 ± 8.3

30 ± 7.2

N

SST

 Gauci (2018)

III

Aequalisa

46

55(40–60)

123.6 ± 26 (60–144)

FE, ER

VAS, Constant score, SSV

 Raiss (2018)

IV

Aequalisj

118

68 (51–85)

38 (24–70)

N

N

 Sanchez-Sotelo (2018)

2018/IV

PEG

202

67 (24–93)

32.4 (24–60)

FE, IR, ER

ASES

Modern design of metal-backed glenoid component (MBG)

 Castagna (2010)

IV

Second-generation SMRl

35

62.7 (55.3–70.1)

75.4

N

VAS, Constant score, SST

 Fucentese (2010)

IV

Sulmeshm

22

68.5 (49–84)

50 (24–89)

N

Constant score

 Budge (2013)

IV

Tantalum TMn

19

62.8 ± 14.6

31 (24–64)

ER

VAS, ASES score

 Styron (2016)

IV

Tantalum TMn

66

66.2 (31–88)

50.2

FE, IR, ER

N

 Sandow (2016)

IV

Tantalum TMn

10

(60–79)

24

FE

VAS, Oxford score, ASES score

 Panti (2016)

IV

Tantalum TMn

76

69.6 (52–81)

43.2 (24–72)

FE, ABD, ER

VAS, ASES score

 Endrizzi (2016)

IV

Tantalum TMn

73

67.5 ± 8.6 (46–85)

50.8 (24–68)

N

VAS, ASES score

 Merolla (2016)

IV

Tantalum TMn

40

63.8 (40–75)

38 (24–42)

FE, ABD, ER

Health state, Constant score, ASES score

 Gurin (2017)

IV

Tantalum TMn

80

N

100

N

VAS

 Watson (2018)

IV

Tantalum TMn

36

66.36 (50–85)

34.1 (23–61)

FE, ER

VAS, SANE score, Penn score, ASES score

Common outcome measurements

Radiolucency, loosening, complication, and revision surgery (failure)

  1. N not recorded, y year, m month, FU follow-up, FE forward elevation, ABD abduction, IR internal rotation, ER external rotation, VAS visual analogue scale, ASES American shoulder and elbow surgeons, SST simple shoulder test, SF-12 short form-12, UCLA University of California at Los Angeles, SSV subjective shoulder value, SANE single alpha-numeric evaluation
  2. aUnconstrained, cemented, third-generation implant (Aequalis Primary Shoulder Prosthesis; Tornier Inc., Edina, Minnesota, USA) or Aequalis prosthesis (Tornier, Mont Bonnot, France)
  3. bCofield 2 keeled all-polyethylene cemented components with a posterior augmentation (Smith and Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN, USA)
  4. cNeer II all-polyethylene components (3 M, St. Paul, MN; Kirschner Medical Corporation, Fairlawn, NJ; Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA), Cofield 1 all-polyethylene component, Cofield 2 all-polyethylene keeled, and Cofield 2 all-polyethylene pegged components (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA)
  5. dDepuy Global Advantage with an Anchor Peg glenoid (Depuy, Warsaw, IN, USA)
  6. eAffinis shoulder prosthesis (Mathys Ltd. Bettlach, Switzerland)
  7. fBioModular Total Shoulder System with an all-polyethylene, cemented, pegged glenoid (Biomet, Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA)
  8. gEquinoxe (Exactech, Inc., Gainesville, FL, USA)
  9. hAffiniti CortiLoc glenoid (Tornier, Inc., Edina, MN, USA)
  10. iCofield II all-polyethylene pegged component (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA)
  11. j Cemented keeled glenoid with different backside radiuses of curvature (Tornier/Wright Medical, Memphis, TN, USA)
  12. kReUnion (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA)
  13. lSecond generation SMR System (Lima Corporate, Villanova, Italy)
  14. mTitanium metal-backed glenoid component (Sulmesh; Zimmer, Winterthur, Switzerland)
  15. nSecond-generation porous tantalum trabecular metal glenoid (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA)