Related Experiment Videos
Monoblock and modular total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis
J Mileti1, J W Sperling, R H Cofield
1Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume
|March 30, 2005
Summary
This study found no significant clinical or radiological differences between modular and monoblock shoulder arthroplasty designs for osteoarthritis. Both implant types demonstrated comparable outcomes in pain, range of motion, and patient satisfaction.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Biomedical Engineering
- Radiology
Background:
- Shoulder arthroplasty utilizes either monoblock or modular prosthesis designs.
- Previous research has not directly compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of these two designs.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical and radiological results of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty using monoblock versus modular designs for osteoarthritis.
Main Methods:
- A comparative study of 34 consecutive shoulders in each group (monoblock vs. modular) undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis.
- Implants used between 1992-1995 (monoblock) and post-1995 (modular), both with cemented all-polyethylene glenoids.
- Follow-up averaged 6.1 years for the monoblock group and 5.2 years for the modular group.
Main Results:
- No significant differences were observed in pain scores, active elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, patient satisfaction, or Neer ratings between the two groups.
- Radiological assessment showed no significant difference in components at risk for loosening (2/28 monoblock vs. 6/30 modular, p=0.25).
Conclusions:
- First- and second-generation implant designs for shoulder arthroplasty showed no significant differences in clinical outcomes or radiological changes.
- Both modular and monoblock designs appear to offer comparable results for total shoulder arthroplasty in treating osteoarthritis.