A Multi-Centre, Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Second-Generation Uncemented Trabecular Metal-backed versus Cemented Polyethylene Glenoid Component in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Five-year Results
Patrick Y K Chin,William Regan,Derek Plausinis,Zane Zarzour,Fay Leung,Kayla Johnston,Brendan Lim,Treny Sasyniuk,Patrick Y.K. Chin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.12.004
IF: 3.507
2024-01-01
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Abstract:BACKGROUND: Previously, we reported early (2-year) findings from a randomized controlled trial comparing a second-generation uncemented trabecular metal-backed (TM) glenoid vs. cemented polyethylene glenoid (POLY) in patients undergoing a total shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of the current study is to report disease-specific quality of life, clinical, patient-reported, and radiographic outcomes at midterm (5-year) from this trial.METHODS: Five surgeons from 3 centers participated. Patients 18-79 years with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis were screened for eligibility. Randomization to an uncemented TM or cemented POLY glenoid was performed intra-operatively after adequate bone stock was confirmed. Study intervals were baseline, 2- and 5-year postoperative. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder (WOOS) quality of life score. Secondary outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey scores and clinical and radiographic examinations. Radiographic images were reviewed for metal debris according to Endrizzi. Mixed effects repeated measures analysis of variance for within- and between-group comparisons were performed.RESULTS: Of the 104 patients who consented, 93 were randomized (46 TM; 47 POLY). There were no differences between groups at baseline (TM: mean age 66.5 years [standard deviation (SD) 6.4], 24 male and 22 female; and POLY: mean age 68.4 years [SD 5.5], 23 male / 24 female). Mean (SD) WOOS scores at baseline and 2 and 5 years were as follows: TM, 32 (21), 92 (13), and 93 (11); POLY, 27 (15), 93 (11), and 93 (10), respectively. No statistical or clinically relevant differences were noted with patient-reported outcomes between groups. Metal debris was observed in 11 (23.9%) patients, but outcomes were not negatively impacted, and debris severity was minor (grades 1 and 2). Complication rates were similar between groups (TM: 7 of 46 [15.2%], and POLY: 8 of 47 [17.0%]; P = .813). No aseptic glenoid failures were reported, but 1 patient in the TM group required revision because of infection.CONCLUSIONS: Our short-term (2-year) findings were maintained with longer follow-up. At 5 years postoperation, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences between an uncemented second-generation TM glenoid and a cemented polyethylene glenoid with respect to disease-specific quality of life or patient-reported outcomes. No glenoid implant failures were reported, and complication rates were similar between groups. Only one complication was glenoid related (1 infection in the TM group). Metal debris was observed in 23.9% of patients with a TM glenoid but did not negatively influence implant survival, patient-reported outcomes, or shoulder function.
surgery,orthopedics,sport sciences