| Title |
Progressive glenoid bone loss caused by erosion in humeral head resurfacing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Die Orthopädie, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00132-017-3483-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. S. Werner, J. Stehle, A. Abdelkawi, P. Plumhoff, R. Hudek, F. Gohlke |
| Abstract |
Cementless surface replacement of the shoulder represents an alternative to conventional stemmed anatomic prostheses. Glenoid erosion is a well-known complication in hemiarthroplasty. However, there is limited data concerning radiographic evaluation and prognostic factors for this phenomenon. The aim of our study was to determine the development of glenoid erosion following shoulder resurfacing using a new measurement technique and detect potential prognostic factors. We performed a retrospective analysis on 38 shoulders undergoing humeral head resurfacing with a mean follow-up of 65.4 ± 43 months. Clinical and radiographic evaluation followed a standardized protocol including pre- and postoperative Constant score, active range of motion, and X‑rays in true anteroposterior view. Three independent observers performed measurements of glenoid erosion. We found good interobserver reliability for glenoid erosion measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.74-0.78). Progressive glenoid erosion was present in all cases, averaging 5.5 ± 3.9 mm at more than 5 years' follow-up. Male patients demonstrated increased glenoid bone loss within the first 5 years (p < 0.04). The mean Constant score improved to 55.4 ± 23.6 points at the latest follow-up. Younger age was correlated to increased functional outcome. Revision rate due to painful glenoid erosion was 37%. Glenoid erosion can be routinely expected in patients undergoing humeral head resurfacing. Painful glenoid erosion leads to deterioration in functional outcome and necessitates revision surgery in a high percentage of cases. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 1 | 17% |
| Researcher | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Die Orthopädie
#276
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#297,069
of 338,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Die Orthopädie
#3
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 678 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.