This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
Little migration, good clinical results found with HHRIs
Although both the Copeland and Global C.A.P. humeral head resurfacing implants showed little migration and good clinical results in patients with shoulder osteoarthritis, Copeland had increased periprosthetic bone mineral density and length of glenohumeral offset, according to study results.
Researchers randomly assigned 32 patients with shoulder osteoarthritis to receive a Copeland (Biomet) or Global C.A.P. (DePuy Int.) humeral head resurfacing implant (HHRI). Radiostereometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, Constant Shoulder Score (CSS) and WOOS were used to monitor patients for 2 years, and length of glenohumeral offset (LGHO) was measured preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively.
Study results showed a total translation of 0.48 mm for the Copeland and 0.82 mm for the Global C.A.P. The researchers revised five HHRI and found a total translation of 0.58 mm for revised HHRI vs. a total translation of 0.22 mm in nonrevised HHRI in the interval before the last follow-up. However, a comparison of total translation at the last follow-up found no difference between HHRIs, according to the researchers.
Although periprosthetic bone mineral density initially decreased, after 6 months it increased continuously for both HHRIs.
The researchers found bone mineral density was 48% higher around the Copeland HHRI at 2 years. Copeland HHRI also had a significantly higher mean difference in LGHO vs. Global C.A.P. However, clinical results evaluated with CSS and WOOS improved over time for both implant groups with no differences between groups, according to the researchers.
Disclosure: See the study for a full list of all authors’ relevant financial disclosures.