Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 10;5(1):121–137. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.07.018

Table III.

Rates of instability according to diagnosis and prosthesis design

Studies included Shoulders Instability present Rate, % P value
Diagnosis
 Cuff tear arthropathy 15 905 21 2.3 .02 vs. PHF; <.001 vs. failed arthroplasty
 PHF 36 1654 67 4.1 .03 vs. failed arthroplasty
 Failed arthroplasty 29 1243 72 5.8 .62 vs. instability arthropathy
 Instability arthropathy 4 80 3 3.8 >.99 vs. PHF; .44 vs. CTA
Prothesis design
 LG/MH 22 1021 20 2.0 .02 vs. MG/LH
 MG/LH 16 1888 17 0.9 .02 vs. LG/MH
 LG/LH 1 45 2 4.4
 Subtotal 39 2954 39 1.3 <.001 vs. MG/MH
 MG/MH 73 2932 116 4.0
Author P value vs. Zumstein et al
 Zumstein et al 21 782 37 4.7
 Current study 137 9303 308 3.3 .04
 Current study: subtotal of non-Grammont designs 39 2954 39 1.3 <.001

PHF, proximal humerus fracture; LG, lateralized glenoid; MH, medialized humerus; MG, medialized glenoid; LH, lateralized humerus; CTA, cuff tear arthropathy; JSES, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

The Grammont design (MG/MH) had a significantly higher instability rate vs. all other designs combined (4.0%, 1.3%; P < .001), instability rates, especially modern non-Grammont designs, have significantly decreased compared to Zumstein et al (JSES, 2011).

Bold indicates statistical significance (P < .05).

Fisher exact test.