Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
[LN]

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1091    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded19    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Click on image for details.

 Inter and intra-system size variability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty polyethylene inserts

Matthew G Teeter1, Matthew T Dawson2, George S Athwal3
1 Department of Surgery; Department of Medical Biophysics; Lawson Health Research Institute, Robarts Research Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
2 Imaging Research Laboratories, Robarts Research Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
3 Department of Surgery, Western University; Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence Address:
George S Athwal
Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, ON N6A 4L6
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.174512

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2016  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 10-14

 
SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (1,396 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Background: As the incidence of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) increases, so will the revision burden. At times, the revision surgeon may be faced with a well-fixed component on one side of the joint and revision implants from a different manufacturer. The ability to use glenoid and humeral implants from different manufacturers could simplify the revision procedure. This study hypothesized that across a range of RSA systems, some implants would demonstrate high size compatibility and others would demonstrate low compatibility. Materials and Methods: Six polyethylene inserts each from eight reverse total shoulder arthroplasty systems were examined (48 total inserts). All inserts were scanned using a laboratory micro-computed tomography scanner at 50 μm isotropic voxel spacing, and their surface geometries were reconstructed. The different implant geometries were co-registered, and the three-dimensional (3D) variability between the articular surfaces of the different implant systems was measured. Intrasystem manufacturing variability was also determined by measuring the 3D variability of inserts from the same system. Results: The intersystem polyethylene articular surface deviations between same-size systems were not significantly different (P = 0.61) and were a mean maximum of 60 ± 16 μm (range: 30-80 μm). Intrasystem manufacturing variability was equivalent between all but two models, averaging 49 ± 17 μm (range: 23-99 μm). Discussion: Differences in articular geometry between same-size inserts from different systems were on the same scale as intrasystem manufacturing variability, suggesting that different implant systems of the same nominal diameter could potentially be used interchangeably in revision or extenuating circumstances. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that surgeons can theoretically interchange same-sized implant components from the different RSA systems tested when conducting revisions.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 


Sitemap | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer
© 2006 - International Journal of Shoulder Surgery
| Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Online since 1st September '06

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
 



Matthew G Teeter1, Matthew T Dawson2, George S Athwal3
1 Department of Surgery; Department of Medical Biophysics; Lawson Health Research Institute, Robarts Research Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
2 Imaging Research Laboratories, Robarts Research Institute, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
3 Department of Surgery, Western University; Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada

Correspondence Address:
George S Athwal
Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Health Care, 268 Grosvenor Street, London, ON N6A 4L6
Canada
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.174512

Rights and Permissions

Background: As the incidence of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) increases, so will the revision burden. At times, the revision surgeon may be faced with a well-fixed component on one side of the joint and revision implants from a different manufacturer. The ability to use glenoid and humeral implants from different manufacturers could simplify the revision procedure. This study hypothesized that across a range of RSA systems, some implants would demonstrate high size compatibility and others would demonstrate low compatibility. Materials and Methods: Six polyethylene inserts each from eight reverse total shoulder arthroplasty systems were examined (48 total inserts). All inserts were scanned using a laboratory micro-computed tomography scanner at 50 μm isotropic voxel spacing, and their surface geometries were reconstructed. The different implant geometries were co-registered, and the three-dimensional (3D) variability between the articular surfaces of the different implant systems was measured. Intrasystem manufacturing variability was also determined by measuring the 3D variability of inserts from the same system. Results: The intersystem polyethylene articular surface deviations between same-size systems were not significantly different (P = 0.61) and were a mean maximum of 60 ± 16 μm (range: 30-80 μm). Intrasystem manufacturing variability was equivalent between all but two models, averaging 49 ± 17 μm (range: 23-99 μm). Discussion: Differences in articular geometry between same-size inserts from different systems were on the same scale as intrasystem manufacturing variability, suggesting that different implant systems of the same nominal diameter could potentially be used interchangeably in revision or extenuating circumstances. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that surgeons can theoretically interchange same-sized implant components from the different RSA systems tested when conducting revisions.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article  


Sitemap | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer
© 2006 - International Journal of Shoulder Surgery
| Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow Online since 1st September '06