Skip to main content
JSES Open Access logoLink to JSES Open Access
. 2019 Sep 16;3(3):154–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.07.008

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty: review of short and medium-term results

Alexander Upfill-Brown a, Nicholas Satariano b, Brian Feeley b,c,
PMCID: PMC6835021  PMID: 31709355

Abstract

Background

The number of anatomic total shoulder (TSA), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSA) is rapidly increasing in the United States. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty has numerous theoretical advantages, including preserved bone stock, decreased operating time, reduced rate of intraoperative humerus fracture, and flexibility of anatomic reconstruction. Only recently studies with more than 5 years of mean follow-up have become available.

Methods

The MEDLINE database was systematically queried to identify all studies reporting outcomes regarding anatomic or reverse stemless shoulder arthroplasty. Studies were categorized according to mean reported follow-up. Outcome scores and range of motion measurements were compiled. Complication and revision rates due to failure of the humeral or glenoid components were summarized.

Results

Nineteen TSA and HA studies with a total of 1115 patients were identified, with 4 studies and 162 patients with a mean follow-up between 60 and 120 months. Six RTSA studies with a total of 346 patients were identified, all with a mean follow-up between 18 and 60 months. There was a reliable improvement in outcomes compared with preoperative scores across studies. A cumulative 0.7% (8 of 1115) humeral component complication rate was found for TSA and HA components. There was a cumulative 1.7% (6 of 346) humeral complication rate for RTSA prostheses.

Conclusions

In the studies reporting similar outcome measures, there were reliable improvements on par with stemmed counterparts. Aggregate complication rates appear similar to those published in the literature for stemmed components. Evidence supporting the utility and safety of stemless designs would be strengthened by longer-term follow-up and additional prospective comparative studies.

Keywords: Shoulder arthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, stemless, press-fit, canal-sparing


The incidence of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) continues to rapidly increase in the United States, with a documented 5-fold rise over the previous decade.36 A growing proportion of these procedures are RTSA, with one recent study finding RTSA accounting for 33% of all shoulder arthroplasty, along with 44% TSA and 23% hemiarthroplasty (HA).29 The implant designs have also undergone rapid changes with the advent of short stems and now most recently stemless components.

Theoretical advantages of stemless designs include preservation of humeral bone stock, reduced periprosthetic fracture with the elimination of broaching, reduction in stress shielding, more flexibility in reconstruction in cases of altered anatomy such as post-traumatic malunion, and less complex revision surgery.10, 11, 16 The numerous potential benefits make these new implants a promising option in the near future for clinical practice.

However, there are also possible disadvantages including the theoretical risk of component loosening before osseous ingrowth has occurred and the reliance on adequate humeral metaphyseal bone stock. Although in some cases lesser tuberosity fixation after osteotomy may be more challenging with stemless designs, there are several modern strategies to obtain a robust subscapularis repair including suture anchors, transosseous tunnels, and direct tendon to tendon repair. Although the lack of long-term follow-up (FU) has made some surgeons hesitant to use these implants, since the introduction of the stemless design in Europe in 2004, there have now been a growing number of studies reporting on medium-term 5- to 10-year FU.15, 17, 37

With several smaller studies present in the literature, a larger comprehensive analysis of the data available for stemless shoulder analysis can be performed. We present a systematic review of the published studies of patients undergoing stemless TSA, HA, and RTSA. Attention is focused on functional outcomes as well as reported complication and revision rates. We hypothesized that functional outcomes would be similar for stemless versus stemmed implants, and that humeral complications would not differ substantially from previously published rates for stemmed components.

Methods

A broad search of English-language literature was conducted beginning from January 1, 2000, through August 1, 2018. Investigators searched both MEDLINE through PubMed and Google Scholar using MeSH search terms including “stemless,” “canal-sparing,” “reverse,” “shoulder replacement,” or “shoulder arthroplasty.” A manual reference check of previous reviews and published studies was conducted to identify any additional relevant studies.

To meet inclusion criteria, studies needed to include more than 5 patients undergoing TSA, HA, or RTSA report functional outcomes measured using either standardized metrics or range of motion (ROM) measurement, and explicitly comment on complications. No threshold was set for minimum FU time. Studies were classified according to the mean length of FU into 3 groups: very short term (mean FU <18 months), short term (FU 18-60 months), and medium term (60-120 months).

Outcome measures reported by the authors varied substantially. Most included Constant-Murley scores (CMS),12 with other common metrics including the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. Most authors also reported explicit measures of ROM, such as external rotation (ER), abduction, and flexion.

All complications were examined in each study, with attention focused on humeral component–related complications and revisions. Revision rates due to failure of the humeral or glenoid component were also summarized. Study, patient, and treatment characteristics were summarized with the use of basic descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 19 studies of anatomic stemless TSA and HA were included in the analysis, with a mean FU between 6 and 108 months. Across the 19 included studies, a total of 1115 patients who underwent stemless TSA (n = 814) or HA (n = 301) were identified: 212 in very short–term FU studies, 741 in short-term FU studies, and 162 in medium-term FU studies (Table I). A total of 6 studies involving stemless RTSA were identified involving 346 patients, all with a mean FU in the short-term category between 18 and 60 months (Table IV).

Table I.

Summary of stemless anatomical TSA and HA studies identified, grouped by average length of follow-up

Study Device Type Patients
Reported indications Mean FU (mo) Reported outcomes
TSA HA
Medium term
 Habermeyer et al 201515 Arthrex/Eclipse Case series 29 39 Primary OA, post-trauma OA, postinfectious OA, instability, CTA, GD 72 CMS, ER, Flex, Abd
 Hawi et al 201717 Arthrex/Eclipse Case series 17 32 Post-trauma OA, primary OA, instability, CTA, postinfectious OA 108 CMS, ER, Flex, Abd
 Uschok et al 201737 Arthrex/Eclipse Randomized 14 Primary OA 68 CMS, ER, Flex, Abd
 Beck et al 20184 Biomet/TESS Case series 31 Primary OA, RA, post-traumatic and HH necrosis 95 CMS, QuickDASH, VAS, Abd, Flex
Short term
 Huguet et al 201019 Biomet/TESS Case series 19 44 Primary OA, post-trauma OA, osteonecrosis 45 CMS, ER, Flex
 Brunner et al 20128 Arthrex/Eclipse Case series 119 114 Primary OA, post-trauma OA, postinfectious OA, AVN, RA, instability, CTA 23 CMS, ER, Flex, Abd
 Berth and Pap 20126 Biomet/TESS Randomized 41 Primary OA 31 CMS, DASH, ER, Abd, Flex
 Razmjou et al 201327 Biomet/TESS Comparative 17 Primary OA >24 RCMS, ASES, QuickDASH, WOOS
 Bell and Coghlan 20145 Mathys/Affinis Case series 12 Primary OA >24 CMS, ASES, DASH, SPADI, Abd
 Mariotti et al 201425 Wright Med/Simpliciti Comparative 9 Primary OA 24 CMS, SST, ER, IR, Abd, Flex
 Ballas et al 20163 Biomet/TESS Case series 27 Malunion 44 CMS
 Churchill et al 201611 Wright Med/Simpliciti Case series 149 Primary OA, post-trauma OA >24 CMS, ASES, SST, VAS, ER, Abd, IR
 Spranz et al 201733 Biomet/TESS Comparative 12 Primary OA 52 CMS, ER, Flex, Ext, Abd
 Krukenberg et al 201822 Zimmer/Sidus Case series 73 32 Primary OA, post-trauma OA, AVN, instability, RA >24 CMS, ASES, SSV, ER, Flex
 Heuberer et al 201818 Arthrex/Eclipse Case series 33 40 Primary OA, post-trauma OA 58 CMS
Very short term
 Sayed-Noor et al 201828 Biomet/TESS Case series 63 Primary OA 12 QuickDASH, ER, Abd
 Maier 201524 Biomet/TESS Comparative 12 Primary OA 6 CMS, ER, IR, Abd, Flex
 Schoch et al 201130 Arthrex/Eclipse Case series 115 Primary OA, post-trauma OA 12 CMS, ER, Abd, Flex
 Kadum et al 201120 Biomet/TESS Case series 22 Primary OA, post-trauma OA, RA 14 QuickDASH, EQ-5D, VAS

TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty; HA, hemiarthroplasty; FU, follow-up; OA, osteoarthritis; CTA, cuff tear arthropathy; GD, glenoid dysplasia; CMS, Constant-Murley score; ER, external rotation; Flex, flexion; Abd, Abduction; TESS, Total Evolutive Shoulder System; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; HH, humeral head; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; VAS, visual analog scale for pain; AVN, avascular necrosis; RCMS, relative Constant-Murley score; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; WOOS, Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder score; SPADI, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; SST, Simple Shoulder Test; IR, internal rotation; SSV, Subjective Shoulder Value.

Table IV.

Summary of stemless RTSA studies identified

Study Device Type Patients Reported indications Mean FU (mo) Reported outcomes
Ballas and Béguin 20132 Biomet/TESS Case series 56 RCT, CTA, primary OA 59 CMS, OSS, ER, Abd
Kadum et al 201421 Biomet/TESS Comparative 16 CTA, primary OA with RCD, post-trauma sequelae, RA 39 QuickDASH, EQ-5D, VAS, IR, Abd, Flex
Teissier et al 201534 Biomet/TESS Case series 87 RCT, CTA 41 CMS, QuickDASH, ASES, ER, Abd, Flex
von Engelhardt et al 201538 Biomet/TESS Case series 65 CTA, revision arthroplasty 18 RCMS, DASH
Levy et al 201623 IDO/Verso Case series 98 CTA, post-trauma sequelae, RA, RCT, RCD 50 CMS, SSV, ER, IR, Abd
Moroder et al 201626 Biomet/TESS Comparative 24 CTA 34 CMS, ASES, SSV, VAS

RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; FU, follow-up; TESS, Total Evolutive Shoulder System; RCT, rotator cuff tear; CTA, cuff tear arthropathy; OA, osteoarthritis; CMS, Constant-Murley score; OSS, Oxford Shoulder Score; ER, external rotation; Abd, abduction; RCD, rotator cuff deficiency; RA, rheumatoid arthritis; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; VAS, visual analog scale; IR, internal rotation; Flex, flexion; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; RCMS, relative Constant-Murley score; SSV, Subjective Shoulder Value.

Only postoperative values reported for these scores.

A total of 5 stemless TSA/HA implants from 6 different prosthesis companies were identified. These included the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS; Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA), the Eclipse stemless shoulder prosthesis (Arthrex, Freiham, Germany) (Fig. 1, A, B), the Affinis (Mathys AG, Bettlach, Switzerland), the Sidus Stem-Free Shoulder System (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA), and the Simpliciti total shoulder system (Wright Medical, Memphis, TN, USA) (Fig. 1, C, D). The Simpliciti by Wright Medical and the Sidus system by Zimmer Biomet are the only devices currently Food and Drug Administration approved for use in the United States.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Humeral components from 2 stemless total shoulder arthroplasty systems most commonly found in literature. (A) Picture of the Eclipse (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) from Habermeyer et al,15 with (B) the representative AP radiograph from Brunner et al.8 (C) Picture of Simpliciti (Wright Medical, Memphis, TN, USA) and (D) the representative anteroposterior radiography both from Churchill et al.11

A total of 2 stemless RTSA implants were identified including the TESS short reverse corolla (Biomet) and the Verso stemless reverse metaphyseal TSA prosthesis (Innovative Design Orthopaedics, London, UK). Neither stemless RTSA device is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Stemless TSA and HA outcomes

Primary osteoarthritis was the most common indication reported for stemless TSA, though studies varied in the indications included in analysis. There was considerable variability in reported outcome measures; the most commonly reported is the CMS with 84% (n = 16) of studies reporting preoperative and postoperative values (Table I). A total of 73% (n = 14) of studies were case series, 15% (n = 3) of studies were nonrandomized comparisons of stemmed and stemless humeral components, and 10% (n = 2) were randomized studies of stemmed versus stemless components.

Looking specifically at the randomized trials, the study by Berth and Pap6 analyzed 82 patients evenly randomized to stemless (TESS; Biomet) or cemented stem components. They found no difference in functional outcomes at more than 24 months of FU; however, there was significantly increased operating room (OR) time (106 vs. 92 minutes) and estimated blood loss (593 vs. 496 mL) reported in the stemmed group compared with the stemless group. The second study by Uschok et al37 analyzed 40 patients randomized to stemless (Eclipse; Arthrex) or press-fit stem components, with 29 patients available for analysis at more than 60 months of FU. The authors found no difference in functional outcomes between either group postoperatively.

A graphical representation of 2 commonly reported outcomes, ER and CMS, is displayed in Figure 2. Across studies, there was a reliable improvement in both CMS and ER postoperatively compared with preoperatively, with a roughly 30-point improvement in CMS and a 20° increase in ER.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Reported outcomes before and after anatomical stemless total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty for Constant-Murray score (A) and external rotation (B). Colors represent each study, with warm colors corresponding to medium-term follow-up studies and cool colors corresponding to short-term follow-up studies. Very short–term studies (average follow-up <18 months) were excluded.

Stemless RTSA outcomes

The most common indications were cuff tear arthropathy and rotator cuff tear (Table IV). Four studies were case series reporting a variety of outcomes. Two studies were nonrandomized comparisons between stemmed and stemless RTSA components, neither finding any significant difference in functional outcomes.

Reported outcomes varied substantially between studies, with 50% (n = 3) of the studies reporting CMS preoperatively and postoperatively, 1 reporting only postoperative values, and the remaining 2 studies using other outcome measures including the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score.

CMS and ER and abduction measurements preoperatively and postoperatively are summarized in Figure 3 for those studies with the available information. There was an approximately 30-point improvement in CMS, a 20° increase in ER, and a 60° increase in abduction (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Reported outcomes before and after stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for Constant-Murray score (A), external rotation (B), and abduction (C). Colors represent each study. The size of the point represents the number of patients in each study.

Complications

Of the 1115 stemless TSA and HA patients included, 0.7% (n = 8) of complications were related to the humeral component (Table II). Six were intraoperative fracture,19, 22 5 of which were reported in the first published study on stemless components, and all healed with nonoperative management. Two complications were asymptomatic loosening confirmed by radiology.17, 8 There were no revisions related to the humeral component. Four studies also reported changes in bone density over the greater tuberosity, with higher percentages indicating greater internal stress shielding, present in 29%,37 29%,17 34%,15 and 43%18 of patients undergoing stemless TSA. The one comparative study reporting changes in greater tuberosity bone density found a higher rate of reduced bone density in stemmed (47%) compared with stemless TSA components (29%), though this difference was not significant and the clinical relevance is not clear (P = .4).37 When comparing bone density at the humeral calcar however, a significant increase in the rate of reduced bone density was found in the stemmed group (41%) compared with the stemless group (0%).37

Table II.

Summary of humeral component complications in stemless anatomical TSA and HA

Study Patients Complications Radiologic changes Related revisions
Medium term
 Habermeyer et al 201515 78 1 incomplete RLL, 3 partial osteolysis under HH, 34% with decreased BD of GT None
 Hawi et al 201717 43 1 asymptomatic radiological loosening 1 incomplete RLL on HH, 29% decrease BD over GT None
 Uschok et al 201737 14 Reduced BD in GT in 29% None
 Beck et al 20184 31 None None
Short term
 Huguet et al 201019 63 5 intraoperative fracture of metaphysis None
 Brunner et al 20128 233 1 asymptomatic radiological loosening 9 incomplete RLL <2 mm, 5 incomplete RLL >2 mm, 2 RLL >2 mm None
 Berth and Pap 20126 41 None None
 Razmjou et al 201327 17 1 RLL
 Bell and Coghlan 20145 12 None None
 Mariotti et al 201425 9 None
 Ballas et al 20163 27 1 osteolysis under HH None
 Churchill et al 201611 149 None None
 Spranz et al 201733 12
 Krukenberg et al 201822 105 1 intraoperative fracture greater tuberosity 1 incomplete RLL HH None
 Heuberer et al 201818 73 8 with signs osteolysis, decreased BD over GT in 43% None
Very short term
 Sayed-Noor et al 201828 63 None
 Maier 201524 12 None
 Schoch et al 201130 115
 Kadum et al 201120 22

TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty; HA, hemiarthroplasty; RLL, radiolucent lines; HH, humeral head; BD, bone density; GT, greater tuberosity.

Of the 346 stemless RTSA patients included, 1.7% (n = 6) experienced complications related to the humeral component (Table V). Two of 6 were instances of symptomatic loosening,2, 38 of which all were revised to a stemmed humeral component (one after 3 days, the other not reported). Three complications were intraoperative fracture of the metaphysis, all managed conservatively.2, 23 One case involved malpositioning of the humeral component, which required revision to a stemmed humeral component in the immediate postop period.38 Radiographical changes were sparingly reported with only 3 reports of incomplete radiolucent lines surrounding the humeral component.26

Table V.

Summary of humeral component complications in stemless RTSA

Study Patients Complications Radiologic changes Related revisions
Ballas and Béguin 20132 56 1 intraoperative fracture of metaphysis, 1 loosening (3 d) None 1
Kadum et al 201421 16 None None None
Teissier et al 201534 87 None None None
von Engelhardt et al 201538 67 1 loosening (in revision), 1 malposition NR 2
Levy et al 201623 98 2 intraoperative fracture of metaphysis None None
Moroder et al 201626 24 None 3 incomplete RLL None

RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; NR, not reported; RLL, radiolucent lines.

There were substantially more complications related to the glenoid component in patients undergoing TSA and RTSA. Of the 814 anatomic TSA patients, 2.1% (n = 17) experienced complications involving the glenoid component: 9 patients with loosening, 7 with intraoperative fracture or perforation, and 1 failure of the metal-backed component (Table III). A total of 29% (n = 5) of these patients required revision of the glenoid component. Of the 346 RTSA stemless RTSA patients, 3.2% (n = 11) experienced complications involving the glenoid component: 9 patients with loosening and 2 with malpositioning (Table VI). A total of 90% (n = 10) of these patients required revision of the glenoid component.

Table III.

Summary of glenoid component complications in stemless anatomical TSA and HA

Study Patients Complications Radiologic changes Related revisions
Medium term
 Habermeyer et al 201515 78 2 loosening Incomplete RLL in 8.3% of MBC and 53% of cemented 2
 Hawi et al 201717 43 5 with RLL, 27% with incomplete RLL None
 Uschok et al 201737 14 2 loosening 2 incomplete RLL 0
 Beck et al 20184 31 1 loosening, 1 failure MBC 20 of 22 with RL 1
Short term
 Huguet et al 201019 63 None
 Brunner et al 20128 233 1 loosening None 1
 Berth and Pap 20126 41 1 intraoperative fracture 9 with RL None
 Razmjou et al 201337 17 6 intraoperative perforation 1 subsidence
 Bell and Coghlan 20145 12 8 incomplete RLL None
 Mariotti et al 201425 9 None
 Ballas et al 20163 27 None None
 Churchill et al 201611 149 1 loosening None 1
 Spranz et al 201733 12 NR
 Krukenberg et al 201822 105 6 complete RLL, 10 incomplete RLL None
 Heuberer et al 201818 73 None None
Very short term
 Sayed-Noor et al 201828 63 NR None
 Maier 201524 12 NR None
 Schoch et al 201130 115 2 loosening NR
 Kadum et al 201120 22 NR

TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty; HA, hemiarthroplasty; RLL, radiolucent lines; MBC, metal-backed component; RL, radiolucent; NR, not reported.

Table VI.

Summary of glenoid component complications in stemless RTSA

Study Patients Complications Radiologic changes Scapular notching (%) Related revisions
Ballas and Béguin 20132 56 3 disassociation None 5 (9) 3
Kadum et al 201421 16 2 loosening None 4 (25) 2
Teissier et al 201534 87 None None 17 (19) None
von Engelhardt et al 201538 67 3 loosening, 2 malpositioning NR 9 (13) 4
Levy et al 201623 98 1 loosening None 21 (22) 1
Moroder et al 201626 24 None NR 2 (8) None

RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; NR, not reported.

Discussion

The body of literature regarding stemless anatomic and RTSA continues to grow with the available prospective and randomized studies showing outcomes similar to traditional stemmed counterparts. Across retrospective case series, there were consistent improvements in commonly reported outcomes including functional scores and ROM measurements. In the available comparative studies, there was also no difference in functional outcomes between stemmed and stemless components. These outcomes are maintained in the medium-term studies identified for anatomic TSA, with a mean FU more than 60 months. Standardization across reported outcomes, including both preoperative and postoperative values, would enable more robust meta-analyses in the future.

Data from 2 studies supported claims that stemless shoulder replacement results in shorter operative time compared with stemmed components. The aforementioned randomized study by Berth and Pap6 found a decreased OR time of roughly 15 minutes and a decreased estimated blood loss of roughly 100 mL in the stemless group compared with the stemmed group. Heuberer et al18 found operative time to be more than 20 minutes shorter in both stemless TSA and HA compared with stemmed alternatives (P < .001). This is an important benefit as shorter OR times have been shown to result in fewer postoperative infections, reduced complications, and decreased cost.9, 13, 39

Regarding other advantages and disadvantages, previous literature has highlighted the concern for increased loosening of stemless components, while citing decreased intraoperative fracture as a theoretical benefit. This review found a 0.2% rate of asymptomatic humeral loosening (none of which required revision) and a 0.5% rate of intraoperative humeral fracture in patients undergoing stemless TSA or HA. The most recent systematic review of complication rates in anatomic and reverse stemmed shoulder arthroplasty found a 0.1% rate of humeral loosening and a 0.6% rate of intraoperative humeral fracture,7 with an intraoperative fracture rate as high as 1.5% in other studies.1 Thus, in studies we identified, outcomes for anatomic stemless designs were found to have a comparable rate of humeral component loosening and similar if not slightly less rate of intraoperative fracture compared with stemmed components.

In cases of stemmed RTSA, reported rates of humeral loosening are 0.7%, and although isolated humeral fracture rates are not clearly available, 2.3% of RTSA were complicated by either a glenoid or humerus intraoperative fracture.7 In this review, the 6 studies available for stemless RTSA demonstrated a 0.6% rate of humeral component loosening and a 0.9% rate of humeral intraoperative fracture with no instances of glenoid fracture. Although our identified rate of humeral loosening for stemless RTSA was slightly higher than the rate identified in a recent systemic review of stemmed components,7 we cannot comment on the significance of this difference given the small number of stemless RTSA patients available in the literature.

In the studies identified, we found reliable improvements in functional outcomes and largely equivocal complication rates for stemless anatomic TSA, HA, and RTSA compared with those published for stemmed components. However, there are multiple limitations to the current body of literature. First, there is an absence of long-term FU studies with an average FU of 10 years or more for stemless implants. For stemmed TSA and HA components, multiple studies have examined patients at 15 and 20 years of FU, finding survival rates of 87% to 88% at 15 years and 84% to 85% at 20 years.14, 31, 32, 35 Survival is substantially lower for stemmed anatomic HA averaging 75% to 76% at 20 years.31, 32 Second, there is a relative lack of randomized studies comparing stemmed and stemless components. Although these studies may be expensive, reliance on data from case reports introduces the possibility of selection bias, which may result in underestimates of complication and revision rates associated with these new prostheses. Finally, one of the main theoretical advantages of stemless components is the preservation of bone stock and subsequently less complicated secondary or revision surgery. Although there is little data on the available literature on revisions of stemless humeral components (possibly because of their current lack of long-term FU), a study comparing outcomes in revision of stemless versus stemmed implants could shed new light on this possible advantage.

Conclusion

In our review of all the current available literature, we identified a total of 25 studies with 1461 patients who underwent stemless TSA, HA, or RTSA. Two randomized studies were available that showed no difference in functional outcomes between patients who received stemless or stemmed components. In the studies that reported similar outcome measures, there were reliable improvements in CMS and ROM including ER and abduction. Aggregate complication rates appear similar to those reported in the literature for stemmed implants. Overall, the current data on stemless implants are promising; however, evidence supporting the utility and safety of these relatively new designs would be strengthened by longer-term FU and additional randomized studies.

Disclaimer

The authors, their immediate families, and any research foundations with which they are affiliated have not received any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.

Footnotes

No Institutional Review Board approval was required for this study.

References

  • 1.Athwal G.S., Sperling J.W., Rispoli D.M., Cofield R.H. Periprosthetic humeral fractures during shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:594–603. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ballas R., Béguin L. Results of a stemless reverse shoulder prosthesis at more than 58 months mean without loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:e1–e6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ballas R., Teissier P., Teissier J. Stemless shoulder prosthesis for treatment of proximal humeral malunion does not require tuberosity osteotomy. Int Orthop. 2016;40:1–7. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3138-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Beck S., Beck V., Wegner A., Dudda M., Patsalis T., Jäger M. Long-term survivorship of stemless anatomical shoulder replacement. Int Orthop. 2018;42:1–4. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-3779-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bell S.N., Coghlan J.A. Short stem shoulder replacement. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2014;8:72–75. doi: 10.4103/0973-6042.140113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Berth A., Pap G. Stemless shoulder prosthesis versus conventional anatomic shoulder prosthesis in patients with osteoarthritis. J Orthopaed Traumatol. 2012;14:31–37. doi: 10.1007/s10195-012-0216-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bohsali K.I., Bois A.J., Wirth M.A. Complications of shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:256–269. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Brunner U.H., Fruth M., Rückl K., Magosch P., Tauber M., Resch H. The stemless Eclipse prosthesis—indications and mid-term results. Obere Extremität. 2012;7:22–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Childers C.P., Maggard-Gibbons M. Understanding costs of care in the operating room. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:e176233–e176237. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Churchill R.S., Athwal G.S. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty—current results and designs. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:10–16. doi: 10.1007/s12178-016-9320-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Churchill R.S., Chuinard C., Wiater J.M., Friedman R., Freehill M., Jacobson S. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the Simpliciti canal-sparing shoulder arthroplasty system. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:552–560. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Constant C.R., Gerber C., Emery R.J.H., Søjbjerg J.O., Gohlke F., Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: Modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:355–361. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Daley B.J., Cecil W., Clarke P.C., Cofer J.B., Guillamondegui O.D. How slow is too slow? Correlation of operative time to complications: an analysis from the Tennessee surgical quality collaborative. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:550–558. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Deshmukh A.V., Koris M., Zurakowski D., Thornhill T.S. Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:471–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Habermeyer P., Lichtenberg S., Tauber M., Magosch P. Midterm results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1463–1472. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Harmer L., Throckmorton T., Sperling J.W. Total shoulder arthroplasty: are the humeral components getting shorter? Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9:17–22. doi: 10.1007/s12178-016-9313-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hawi N., Magosch P., Tauber M., Lichtenberg S., Habermeyer P. Nine-year outcome after anatomic stemless shoulder prosthesis: clinical and radiologic results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26:1609–1615. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.02.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Heuberer P.R., Brandl G., Pauzenberger L., Laky B., Kriegleder B., Anderl W. Radiological changes do not influence clinical mid-term outcome in stemless humeral head replacements with hollow screw fixation: a prospective radiological and clinical evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19:1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-1945-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Huguet D., DeClercq G., Rio B., Teissier J., Zipoli B., The TESS Group Results of a new stemless shoulder prosthesis: radiologic proof of maintained fixation and stability after a minimum of three years' follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19:847–852. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kadum B., Mafi N., Norberg S., Sayed-Noor A.S. Results of the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS®): a single-centre study of 56 consecutive patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:1623–1629. doi: 10.1007/s00402-011-1368-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kadum B., Mukka S., Englund E., Sayed-Noor A., Sjödén G. Clinical and radiological outcome of the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS®) reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective comparative non-randomised study. Int Orthop. 2014;38:1001–1006. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2277-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Krukenberg A., McBirnie J., Bartsch S., Böhler N., Wiedemann E., Jost B. Sidus Stem-Free Shoulder System for primary osteoarthritis: short-term results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:1483–1490. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.02.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Levy O., Narvani A., Hous N., Abraham R., Relwani J., Pradhan R. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a cementless short metaphyseal humeral implant without a stem: clinical and radiologic outcomes in prospective 2- to 7-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25:1362–1370. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Maier M.W. Are there differences between stemless and conventional stemmed shoulder prostheses in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0723-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mariotti U., Motta P., Stucchi A., Ponti di Sant'Angelo F. Stemmed versus stemless total shoulder arthroplasty: a preliminary report and short-term results. Musculoskelet Surg. 2014;98:195–200. doi: 10.1007/s12306-014-0312-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Moroder P., Ernstbrunner L., Zweiger C., Schatz M., Seitlinger G., Skursky R. Short to mid-term results of stemless reverse shoulder arthroplasty in a selected patient population compared to a matched control group with stem. Int Orthop. 2016;40:1–6. doi: 10.1007/s00264-016-3249-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Razmjou H., Holtby R., Christakis M., Axelrod T., Richards R. Impact of prosthetic design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22:206–214. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sayed-Noor A.S., Pollock R., Elhassan B.T., Kadum B. Fatty infiltration and muscle atrophy of the rotator cuff in stemless total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:976–982. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schairer W.W., Nwachukwu B.U., Lyman S., Craig E.V., Gulotta L.V. National utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Schoch C., Huth J., Aghajev E., Bauer G., Mauch F. Stemless humeral head replacement in posttraumatic and primary omarthrosis patients. Obere Extremität. 2011;6:275–281. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Schoch B., Schleck C., Cofield R.H., Sperling J.W. Shoulder arthroplasty in patients younger than 50 years: minimum 20-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:705–710. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.07.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sperling J.W., Cofield R.H., Rowland C.M. Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:604–613. doi: 10.1016/S1058274604001296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Spranz D.M., Bruttel H., Wolf S.I., Zeifang F., Maier M.W. Functional midterm follow-up comparison of stemless total shoulder prostheses versus conventional stemmed anatomic shoulder prostheses using a 3D-motion-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18:1–5. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1835-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Teissier P., Teissier J., Kouyoumdjian P., Asencio G. The TESS reverse shoulder arthroplasty without a stem in the treatment of cuff-deficient shoulder conditions: clinical and radiographic results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.04.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Torchia M.E., Cofield R.H., Settergren C.R. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6:495–505. doi: 10.1016/s1058-2746(97)90081-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Trofa D., Rajaee S.S., Smith E.L. Nationwide trends in total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2014;43:166–172. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Uschok S., Magosch P., Moe M., Lichtenberg S., Habermeyer P. Is the stemless humeral head replacement clinically and radiographically a secure equivalent to standard stem humeral head replacement in the long-term follow-up? A prospective randomized trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26:225–232. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.von Engelhardt L.V., Manzke M., Filler T.J., Jerosch J. Short-term results of the reverse Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS) in cuff tear arthropathy and revision arthroplasty cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2218-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Willis-Owen C.A., Konyves A., Martin D.K. Factors affecting the incidence of infection in hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1128–1133. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.24333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from JSES Open Access are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES