Elizabeth C Bond, Suzanne Finley, Elizabeth Pennington, Emily K Reinke, Lewis McGarvey, Grant E Garrigues, Tally E Lassiter, Oke A Anakwenze
{"title":"Use of a Low Profile Ultra-High Molecular Weight Polyethylene Diaphyseal Humeral Cement Restrictor in Shoulder Arthroplasty.","authors":"Elizabeth C Bond, Suzanne Finley, Elizabeth Pennington, Emily K Reinke, Lewis McGarvey, Grant E Garrigues, Tally E Lassiter, Oke A Anakwenze","doi":"10.1177/24715492241291328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>When implanting a cemented humeral stem, a reliable method to prevent inappropriate extension and enable pressurization of cement in the intramedullary canal is required. The aim was to assess the outcomes of a dedicated humeral diaphyseal cement restrictor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In total 218 shoulders (207 patients) were included in the study, all of whom underwent a cemented total shoulder arthroplasty and a retrospective review was performed. The primary outcomes of interest were device stability in the medullary canal, successful occlusion of the canal, cement extrusion and quality of cement mantle.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of the cohort was female (63.3%) males and the average patient age was 71.7 years (SD 8.45). In 81.7% the device was deemed to be stable in the medullary canal. The device was significantly more stable in primary (84.2%) compared to revision cases (64.3%, p = 0.02). In 69.7% Barrack grade A mantle quality was achieved, this was higher in primary cases (74.2%) compared to revision cases (39.3%) (p = 0.00006).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We noted excellent cementation outcomes using a cement restrictor specifically designed for the diaphyseal humerus anatomy. However, this humeral specific restrictor was noted to be more stable in primary as compared to revision cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":73942,"journal":{"name":"Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty","volume":"8 ","pages":"24715492241291328"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487543/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/24715492241291328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: When implanting a cemented humeral stem, a reliable method to prevent inappropriate extension and enable pressurization of cement in the intramedullary canal is required. The aim was to assess the outcomes of a dedicated humeral diaphyseal cement restrictor.
Methods: In total 218 shoulders (207 patients) were included in the study, all of whom underwent a cemented total shoulder arthroplasty and a retrospective review was performed. The primary outcomes of interest were device stability in the medullary canal, successful occlusion of the canal, cement extrusion and quality of cement mantle.
Results: The majority of the cohort was female (63.3%) males and the average patient age was 71.7 years (SD 8.45). In 81.7% the device was deemed to be stable in the medullary canal. The device was significantly more stable in primary (84.2%) compared to revision cases (64.3%, p = 0.02). In 69.7% Barrack grade A mantle quality was achieved, this was higher in primary cases (74.2%) compared to revision cases (39.3%) (p = 0.00006).
Discussion: We noted excellent cementation outcomes using a cement restrictor specifically designed for the diaphyseal humerus anatomy. However, this humeral specific restrictor was noted to be more stable in primary as compared to revision cases.