Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of a reconstruction reverse shoulder for tumour surgery and tribological comparision with an anatomical shoulder arthroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The functional results after reconstruction of the proximal humerus in tumour surgery are poor. Therefore, a reversed proximal humerus replacement was developed in our institution (MUTARS humerus inverse). A low degree of wear on the polyethylene is required because of the patients’ youth and demands on shoulder function. A special type of polyethylene with shock-absorbing properties has been developed to minimise polyethylene wear in the MUTARS inverse proximal humerus replacement. We compared the tribological properties of an anatomical shoulder prosthesis (CAPICA) with the new reversed proximal humerus replacement (MUTARS humerus inverse).

Methods

Both prostheses were tested up to 5 × 106 cycles. Every millionth cycle the surface was inspected and a gravimetric measurement was performed. A measurement of surface roughness was done before testing and after 5 × 106 cycles.

Results

In both prostheses after 5 × 106 cycles there were no major defects, such as delamination, observed. In the reversed proximal humerus replacement abrasion of 28 mg/106 cycles was detected. The mean abrasion of the anatomical prosthesis was 9.28 mg/ 106 cycles.

Conclusion

The glenoid component of the first reversed humerus replacement (MUTARS humerus inverse) has wear properties comparable to those of normal reversed shoulder prostheses. This is important, as this type of prosthesis is used in young patients after resection of bone tumours, with a good functional outcome. It can, therefore, be expected that the revision rate due to wear will be as high as in patients with normal reversed shoulder prostheses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H et al (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:164–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mittermayer F, Krepler P, Dominkus M et al (2001) Long-term followup of uncemented tumor endoprostheses for the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:167–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sluga M, Windhager R, Lang S et al (1999) Local and systemic control after ablative and limb sparing surgery in patients with osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 358:120–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gosheger G, Goetze C, Hardes J et al (2008) The influence of the alloy of megaprostheses on infection rate. J Arthroplasty 23(6):916–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hardes J, Ahrens H, Gebert C et al (2007) Lack of toxicological side-effects in silver-coated megaprostheses in humans. Biomaterials 28(18):2869–2875

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hardes J, von Eiff C, Streitbuerger A et al (2010) Reduction of periprosthetic infection with silver-coated megaprostheses in patients with bone sarcoma. J Surg Oncol 101(5):389–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gosheger G, Hardes J, Ahrens H et al (2005) Endoprosthetic replacement of the humerus combined with trapezius and latissimus dorsi transfer: a report of three patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 125(1):62–65

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J et al (2011) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure–midterm results. Int Orthop 35(1):53–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM et al (2006) Neer award 2005: the grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(5):527–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J et al (2011) Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Should Elb Surg / Am Shoulder Elb Surg 20(1):146–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Favard L, Levigne C, Nerot C et al (2011) Reverse prostheses in arthropathies with cuff tear: are survivorship and function maintained over time? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(9):2469–2475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Farshad M, Gerber C (2010) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-from the most to the least common complication. Int Orthop 34(8):1075–1082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Terrier A, Merlini F, Pioletti DP et al (2009) Comparison of polyethylene wear in anatomical and reversed shoulder prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(7):977–982

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Margevicius KJ, Bauer TW, McMahon JT et al (1994) Isolation and characterization of debris in membranes around total joint prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76(11):1664–1675

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Purdue PE, Koulouvaris P, Potter HG et al (2007) The cellular and molecular biology of periprosthetic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 454:251–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schmalzried TP, Jasty M, Harris WH (1992) Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint space. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74(6):849–863

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Raiss P, Kinkel S, Sauter U et al (2010) Replacement of the proximal humerus with MUTARS tumor endoprostheses. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(4):371–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Klimkiewicz JJ, Iannotti JP, Rubash HE et al (1998) Aseptic loosening of the humeral component in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Should Elb Surg / Am Shoulder Elb Surg 7(4):422–426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wirth MA, Agrawal CM, Mabrey JD et al (1999) Isolation and characterization of polyethylene wear debris associated with osteolysis following total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 81(1):29–37

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Braman JP, Falicov A, Boorman R et al (2006) Alterations in surface geometry in retrieved polyethylene glenoid component. J Orthop Res 24(6):1249–1260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gunther SB, Graham J, Norris TR et al (2002) Retrieved glenoid components: a classification system for surface damage analysis. J Arthroplast 17(1):95–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hertel R, Ballmer FT (2003) Observations on retrieved glenoid components. J Arthroplast 18(3):361–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scarlat MM, Matsen FA 3rd (2001) Observations on retrieved polyethylene glenoid components. J Arthroplast 16(6):795–801

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Matsen FA 3rd, Clinton J, Lynch J et al (2008) Glenoid component failure in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 90(4):885–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Farron A, Terrier A, Buchler P (2006) Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Should Elb Surg/ Am Shoulder Elb Surg 15(4):521–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. De Wilde L, Walch G (2006) Humeral prosthetic failure of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty: a report of three cases. J Should Elb Surg / Am Shoulder Elb Surg 15(2):260–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Tumor Orthopaedics, Münster University Hospital, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, A1, 48149, Münster, Germany

    Ralf Dieckmann, Dennis Liem, Georg Gosheger, Marcel-Philipp Henrichs, Steffen Höll, Jendrik Hardes & Arne Streitbürger

Authors
  1. Ralf Dieckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dennis Liem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georg Gosheger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcel-Philipp Henrichs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steffen Höll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jendrik Hardes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arne Streitbürger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf Dieckmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dieckmann, R., Liem, D., Gosheger, G. et al. Evaluation of a reconstruction reverse shoulder for tumour surgery and tribological comparision with an anatomical shoulder arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 451–456 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1771-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1771-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation