Current Issue Search Articles Instructions for authors
 

 HOME | Login   

 

 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
 Users online: 102


  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Patients and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1577    
    Printed59    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded47    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 
 
 Table of Contents  
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 100-104   


 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Thermal damage during humeral reaming in total shoulder resurfacing

1 Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS2 8HW, United Kingdom
2 The Avon Orthopaedic Centre, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, United Kingdom

Correspondence Address:
Philip A McCann
Bristol Royal Infirmary, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, BS2 8HW
United Kingdom
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.118910

Get Permissions

 

 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Article in PDF (1,165 KB)
Reader Comments
Access Statistics
Citation Manager
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

Date of Web Publication25-Sep-2013

   Abstract 

Introduction: Total shoulder resurfacing (TSR) provides a reliable solution for the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis. It confers a number of advantages over traditional joint replacement with stemmed humeral components, in terms of bone preservation and improved joint kinematics. This study aimed to determine if humeral reaming instruments produce a thermal insult to subchondral bone during TSR.
Patients
and Methods: This was tested in vivo on 13 patients (8 with rheumatoid arthritis and 5 with osteoarthritis) with a single reaming system and in vitro with three different humeral reaming systems on saw bone models. Real-time infrared thermal video imaging was used to assess the temperatures generated.
Results
: Synthes (Epoca) instruments generated average temperatures of 40.7°C (SD 0.9°C) in the rheumatoid group and 56.5°C (SD 0.87°C) in the osteoarthritis group (P = 0.001). Irrigation with room temperature saline cooled the humeral head to 30°C (SD 1.2°C). Saw bone analysis generated temperatures of 58.2°C (SD 0.79°C) in the Synthes (Epoca) 59.9°C (SD 0.81°C) in Biomet (Copeland) and 58.4°C (SD 0.88°C) in the Depuy Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis (CAP) reamers (P = 0.12).
Conclusion:
Humeral reaming with power driven instruments generates considerable temperatures both in vivo and in vitro. This paper demonstrates that a significant thermal effect beyond the 47°C threshold needed to induce osteonecrosis is observed with humeral reamers, with little variation seen between manufacturers. Irrigation with room temperature saline cools the reamed bone to physiological levels and should be performed regularly during this step in TSR.


Keywords: Humeral reaming, thermal damage, total shoulder resurfacing


How to cite this article:
McCann PA, Sarangi PP, Baker RP, Blom AW, Amirfeyz R. Thermal damage during humeral reaming in total shoulder resurfacing. Int J Shoulder Surg 2013;7:100-4

How to cite this URL:
McCann PA, Sarangi PP, Baker RP, Blom AW, Amirfeyz R. Thermal damage during humeral reaming in total shoulder resurfacing. Int J Shoulder Surg [serial online] 2013 [cited 2016 May 22];7:100-4. Available from: http://www.internationalshoulderjournal.org/text.asp?2013/7/3/100/118910



   Introduction Top


Total shoulder resurfacing (TSR) provides a reliable and robust solution for the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis. [1] Resurfacing is more bone preserving, allows for accurate reconstruction of glenohumeral version, restores the geometric center of the humeral head and provides a more anatomical construct than with stemmed humeral components. [2],[3],[4] It has been shown to provide pain relief whilst maintaining a satisfactory range of functional movement. [5],[6] Resurfacing is especially suited to the young, active patient with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. [7] It is been shown to be beneficial in inflammatory arthropathies such as rheumatoid arthritis, as it avoids a potential stress riser in between a stemmed total elbow replacement and a shoulder component, [8] for osteonecrosis of the humeral head [9],[10],[11] and in post-traumatic degenerative arthritis where implantation of a stemmed humeral component is often difficult due to malunion and consequent anatomical aberration. [12]

However, the success of this procedure may be tempered by failure of either the glenoid or the humeral component. Adequate fixation to the host bone of the proximal humerus is a critical factor in the success of resurfacing. [13] Glenoid loosening is a significant factor in failure of total shoulder replacement, [14] with the majority of revision arthroplasty performed to address this issue. [15] High temperatures have been noted at the implant glenoid interface [16] and glenoid reaming has been shown to generate high temperatures in vivo, beyond the physiological threshold required to induce osteonecrosis. [17] Hence reaming may contribute to resorption at the bone implant surface, resulting in prosthetic loosening.

Osteonecrosis can occur at temperatures exceeding 47°C for 60 s. [18] Thermal injury to bone after drilling with power driven instruments has been observed in both the animal [19] and human models. [20],[21],[22] The duration of heat exposure is also important, with higher temperatures resulting in osteonecrosis within as little as 5 s. [23] Damage at the cellular level is thought to be mediated by inactivation of alkaline phosphatase, which results in marrow necrosis. [24] Given this effect, the importance of regular irrigation has been stressed. [22],[25],[26] Recent work has also shown the potential for significant thermal injury generated by power driven reaming instruments to the femoral head in hip resurfacing, which may lead to implant failure secondary to osteonecrosis at the bone implant interface. [27] It is not known if humeral reaming produces thermal damage to the subchondral bone of the proximal humerus or if this varies with bone density or underlying pathology. It is feasible that reaming in sclerotic, osteoarthritic bone would generate higher temperatures than in soft rheumatoid bone.

Furthermore, humeral reamer design may influence heat generation. Reamer design varies depending upon the parent company. Modifications in reamer blade number, orientation, size and the so-called ventilation holes may influence heat generation. Subtle variations in such generic orthopaedic equipment have been noted to significantly influence the effect on bone, for example in the intramedullary reaming of long bones. [28],[29],[30] Implant design has been shown to be an important factor in stability following resurfacing. [31]

We hypothesized that humeral reaming would induce a thermal insult to the subchondral bone of the proximal humerus, and that the extent of this injury may vary depending on the underlying pathology. Our secondary hypothesis was that reamer design would have an effect on heat generation and would vary between different manufacturers.


   Patients and Methods Top


Ethical approval was obtained from the research and development department of the trust. All patients eligible for TSR, which consented to be part of the trial, were recruited during February-August 2009. Patients with distorted anatomy deemed not suitable for the humeral head resurfacing, those for revision surgery and patients who voluntarily opted out of the trial were excluded. Six males and seven females were included. The average age was 67 years (range 38-85 years). Informed consent was taken permitting infrared thermography and image recording during TSR. All procedures were performed by or under close supervision of one of the authors (PP. Sarangi) The surgery was completed in the standard manner without alteration to the accepted technique. [1] No cement was used on the humeral side.

The primary diagnosis was rheumatoid arthritis in eight patients and osteoarthritis in the remaining five. A thermal imaging camera (Thermovision A320, Flir Systems Inc., Wilsonville, Oregon, USA), which records surface temperatures in real time to accuracy of ±0.05°C, was placed on a tripod at a distance of 1.5 m from the operative field in a position that provided the optimum view of the proximal humerus. All measurements throughout the study were captured with the same camera, which was calibrated to the ambient room temperature and humidity prior to use in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The camera was connected to a laptop computer, running the software application required to control and record from the thermal imaging camera (ThermaCAM Researcher Pro, version 2.8, Flir Systems Inc., Wilsonville, Oregon, USA, http://www.flir.com/).

Software recording was commenced on exposure of the proximal humerus and continued until humeral preparation was completed. This was judged complete when the proximal humerus displayed the appropriate concentricity and matched the radius of curvature of the trial component. During reaming with a standard air - drive power reamer, the humeral head theater spotlights were turned off to reduce thermal artefact. In each case, the patients underwent arthroplasty using the Synthes (Epoca) system.

The data were then saved with the ThermaCAM Researcher Pro software. The maximum temperature of the bone was recorded for every image. Statistical analysis was performed with the Kolmogorov Smirnov test for normality and an unpaired t-test between the two patient groups.

Prior to commencement of the saw bone analysis, a power calculation was performed to estimate sample size required to generate a power of 0.8, significance level of 0.05 and to detect a 2°C difference between different types of humeral reamer. This showed at least 8 samples would be required in each group. Another 2 sawbones were added to each group allowing for technical fault. Three types of reamers: the Epoca (Synthes, Paoli, Pennsylvania), Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis (Depuy, Warsaw, Indiana) and Copeland (Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) systems were compared. In vitro analysis was performed in a laboratory setting, set to reflect the operative environment. The ambient room temperature was set to 20°C. The thermal camera was mounted on a tripod and coupled with the computer as in the in vivo design. Synthetic humeral composite saw bones (Sawbones 3306, Pacific Research Laboratories, Inc., Vashon, WA) were placed in a vice 1.5 m from the thermal camera and orientated to mirror the position of the humeral shaft during reaming. Reaming was commenced in the standard fashion and continued until the sawbone displayed the appropriate concentricity and matched the radius of curvature of the trial component. Software recording was commenced prior to reaming and continued until prosthetic humeral preparation was completed. A cordless battery powered drill (Colibri, Synthes, Paoli, Pennsylvania) was used to complete the reaming.

ANOVA test was used to compare the three groups.


   Results Top


In vivo test

Humeral reaming with the Synthes Epoca instruments generated mean temperatures of 40.7°C (SD 0.9°C) in the rheumatoid group [Figure 1] and 56.5°C (SD 0.87°C) in the osteoarthritis group [Figure 2]. This was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Irrigation with room temperature saline cooled the humeral head to 30°C (SD 1.2°C) [Figure 3] within 3 s.
Figure 1: Calibrated infra-red thermal image during proximal humeral reaming in patient with rheumatoid arthritis

Click here to view
Figure 2: Calibrated infra-red thermal image during proximal humeral reaming in patient with osteoarthritis

Click here to view
Figure 3: Temperature during reaming and subsequent saline irrigation

Click here to view


In vitro test

The maximum recorded temperature of the milled sawbones was 58.2°C (SD 0.79°C) when using Synthes (Epoca), 59.9°C (SD 0.81°C) with the Biomet (Copeland) reamers and 58.4°C (SD 0.88°C) with the Depuy (CAP) reamers [Figure 4]. This was statistically insignificant (P = 0.12).
Figure 4: Calibrated infra-red thermal image during reaming on the sawbone model

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The aim of this study was to assess the degree of thermal insult conferred by power driven humeral reamers. We have shown that temperatures exceeding the baseline required to cause necrosis (47°C) are generated both in vivo and in vitro, with maximal temperatures of 56.5°C in the former and 59.9°C in the latter, supporting our hypothesis.

Reaming in vivo creates temperatures above the threshold required to induce osteonecrosis of the subchondral bone in patients with osteoarthritis. However, reaming generates significantly lower temperatures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (40.7°C), illustrating that the underlying pathology has an effect on the amount of heat generated. We assume that this variance is due to structural differences in the bone architecture and the relative osteopenia seen with inflammatory disease. We have also shown that reamer design does not have a significant effect on the thermal output at the instrument bone interface, as in vitro analysis with the three reaming systems highlighted no significant difference between manufacturers. From this, we conclude that subtleties in reamer design such as the number and orientation of blades has no significant effect. Cooling with room temperature saline reduced the surface temperature of the bone to physiological levels. This correlates to the findings of Augustin et al. [22] who found that cooling during drilling of cortical bone prevented a significant rise in the temperature of bone independent of drill bit size, drill speed, and the direction of drilling.

To our knowledge, this is the first study of this kind examining heat generation in reaming of the proximal humerus. Baker et al. [27] examined the effects on reaming in vivo during resurfacing of the femoral head. It was shown that temperatures up to 89°C are reached during milling of the proximal femur. The authors examined the effects of four different reamer designs in vivo and found that alternation in reamer design, in addition to pulsed irrigation and duration of reaming had an effect on heat generation. Despite observing a higher peak temperature, the mean temperatures observed were lower (47°C) than in our osteoarthritis group. It is difficult to account for this variation, but factors such as host bone quality, patient age, reamer design, reamer torque, and surgical technique will have a contributory effect. We did not have the facility to assess the effect of different reamers in vivo, but consider the saw bone testing performed in this study to provide a suitable model for the analysis of differing designs.

A number of complications after humeral resurfacing have been reported. These include infection (0.9%), [32] dislocation (4%), [32] residual pain, [33] poorer function as compared to stemmed total shoulder replacement, [34] and loosening of the components (25%). [35]

Loosening remains the primary clinical indication for revision [36] even in advance of developments made to the implant design and manufacture. [14] The exact incidence of the humeral component loosening is unknown but recent work by Pritchett found evidence of humeral loosening in a single resurfacing in a series of 74 shoulders at a follow up of 20 years. [37] This phenomenon may be underreported in the literature. However it is similar to loosening rates observed in the femoral head resurfacing, which is estimated at 1.3%-2.0%. [38] Levy and Copeland noted 30% incidence of radiolucency around the humeral component at 10 years. [39] The correlation between this and prosthetic loosening remains to be fully established.

Glenoid loosening remains a major mode of failure. It has been demonstrated by Olson et al. that reaming confers a significant thermal insult to the host bone during preparation of the glenoid. [17] Theoretically this may predispose to osteonecrosis, precipitating bone resorption and subsequent micro motion at the bone implant interface, leading to prosthetic loosening. In addition to the use of thermal imaging software, the authors augmented the in vivo analysis of 10 patients (nine with osteoarthritis and one rheumatoid arthritis) with a finite element heat conduction computer model to assess for depth of heat penetration. This was found to be directly proportional to the surface temperature at the glenoid. We did not assess for depth of heat penetration in this study, which represents a limitation to this work.

Other confounding factors include reamer fatigue and surgeon technique. The reamers used were new instruments and hence sharp. It is feasible that worn, older instruments would cause a more significant insult as it is accepted that blunt instruments confer a higher risk of thermal damage. [26] Another factor that cannot be accurately controlled for is the pressure with which the reamer is applied. However, in this study, all reaming was performed by the senior author (R Amirfeyz) using the standard method.

The heterogeneous mix of patients in this study corresponds to a standard case sample within our current practice. Patient demographics are comparable to the other studies examining the thermal effects of reaming. [17],[27] Our study however, had a larger proportion of patients with inflammatory arthritis, in which the thermal changes observed with reaming are likely to be underestimated due to the relatively osteopenic bone.

All in-vivo resurfacings were performed without adjunctive cement fixation. It is feasible that if cement were used then the thermal damage may perhaps be even higher. Churchill demonstrated the thermal effects of cement polymerization at the glenoid in the cadaveric model and found a maximum average temperature of 64.7°C at polymethylmethacrylate curing. [16] It is therefore possible that cemented humeral resurfacings are subject to further damage after reaming.

The imaging technique employed with a thermal camera and its software is consistent with similar work in this field. It is a highly accurate method of determining surface temperature (within 0.05°C) and negates the technical difficulties associated with thermocouples, which are invasive and prone to artefact and inaccuracy with pressure variation. [40],[41]

This work illustrates a number of important points. We have accurately demonstrated that temperatures capable of inducing osteonecrosis are generated during reaming of the proximal humerus in osteoarthritis, and that irrigation with saline cools the bone to physiological levels. Variation in reamer design has little influence on the heat production. Given the significant thermal effect conferred by power driven reamers on the proximal humerus, we suggest that reaming technique be modified to reduce the risk of heat induced osteonecrosis, which may contribute to prosthetic loosening. Firstly, that the subchondral bone is irrigated with room temperature saline at regular intervals and secondly, that the application of "pulsed" pressure on the reamer as opposed to constant forceful reaming is employed to reduce the length of time that the bone is exposed to the high temperature of the instrument.

 
   References Top

1.Burgess DL, McGrath MS, Bonutti PM, Marker DR, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Shoulder resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:1228-38.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.Thomas SR, Sforza G, Levy O, Copeland SA. Geometrical analysis of Copeland surface replacement shoulder arthroplasty in relation to normal anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:186-92.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.Pearl ML. Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:99S-104.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Hammond G, Tibone JE, McGarry MH, Jun BJ, Lee TQ. Biomechanical comparison of anatomic humeral head resurfacing and hemiarthroplasty in functional glenohumeral positions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:68-76.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Jensen KL. Humeral resurfacing arthroplasty: Rationale, indications, technique, and results. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2007;36(12 Suppl 1):4-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Radnay CS, Setter KJ, Chambers L, Levine WN, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS. Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: A systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16:396-402.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS. Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:110-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Levy O, Funk L, Sforza G, Copeland SA. Copeland surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:512-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.Raiss P, Kasten P, Baumann F, Moser M, Rickert M, Loew M. Treatment of osteonecrosis of the humeral head with cementless surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:512-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Orfaly RM, Rockwood CA Jr, Esenyel CZ, Wirth MA. Shoulder arthroplasty in cases with avascular necrosis of the humeral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:340-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Uribe JW, Botto-van Bemden A. Partial humeral head resurfacing for osteonecrosis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007;16(Suppl 3):S27-32.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Pape G, Zeifang F, Bruckner T, Raiss P, Rickert M, Loew M. Humeral surface replacement for the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:1403-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Jakubowitz E, Neubrech C, Raiss P, Nadorf J, Tanner MC, Rickert M, et al. Humeral cementless surface replacement arthroplasties of the shoulder: An experimental investigation on their initial fixation. J Orthop Res 2011;29:1216-21.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Matsen FA 3rd, Clinton J, Lynch J, Bertelsen A, Richardson ML. Glenoid component failure in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:885-96.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.Strauss EJ, Roche C, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD. The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:819-33.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Churchill RS, Boorman RS, Fehringer EV, Matsen FA 3rd. Glenoid cementing may generate sufficient heat to endanger the surrounding bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Feb;(419):76-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Olson S, Clinton JM, Working Z, Lynch JR, Warme WJ, Womack W, et al. Thermal effects of glenoid reaming during shoulder arthroplasty in vivo. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:11-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.Eriksson AR, Albrektsson T. Temperature threshold levels for heat-induced bone tissue injury: A vital-microscopic study in the rabbit. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:101-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.Toews AR, Bailey JV, Townsend HG, Barber SM. Effect of feed rate and drill speed on temperatures in equine cortical bone. Am J Vet Res 1999;60:942-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Matthews LS, Green CA, Goldstein SA. The thermal effects of skeletal fixation-pin insertion in bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:1077-83.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Abouzgia MB, James DF. Temperature rise during drilling through bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:342-53.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Augustin G, Davila S, Mihoci K, Udiljak T, Vedrina DS, Antabak A. Thermal osteonecrosis and bone drilling parameters revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008;128:71-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.Lundskog J. Heat and bone tissue. An experimental investigation of the thermal properties of bone and threshold levels for thermal injury. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1972;9:1-80.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.Posen S, Neale FC, Clubb JS. Heat inactivation in the study of human alkaline phosphatases. Ann Intern Med 1965;62:1234-43.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.Benington IC, Biagioni PA, Briggs J, Sheridan S, Lamey PJ. Thermal changes observed at implant sites during internal and external irrigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:293-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.Fincham BM, Jaeblon T. The effect of drill bit, pin, and wire tip design on drilling. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011;19:574-9.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.Baker R, Whitehouse M, Kilshaw M, Pabbruwe M, Spencer R, Blom A, et al. Maximum temperatures of 89°C recorded during the mechanical preparation of 35 femoral heads for resurfacing. Acta Orthop 2011;82:669-73.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]    
28.García OG, Mombiela FL, De La Fuente CJ, Aránguez MG, Escribano DV, Martín JV. The influence of the size and condition of the reamers on bone temperature during intramedullary reaming. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:994-9.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Leunig M, Hertel R. Thermal necrosis after tibial reaming for intramedullary nail fixation. A report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:584-7.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.Frölke JP, Peters R, Boshuizen K, Patka P, Bakker FC, Haarman HJ. The assessment of cortical heat during intramedullary reaming of long bones. Injury 2001;32:683-8.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.Kasten P, Neubrech C, Raiss P, Nadorf J, Rickert M, Jakubowitz E. Humeral head resurfacing in central bone defects: In vitro stability of different implants with increasing defect size. J Orthop Res 2012;30:1285-9.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]    
32.Aldinger PR, Raiss P, Rickert M, Loew M. Complications in shoulder arthroplasty: An analysis of 485 cases. Int Orthop 2010;34:517-24.  Back to cited text no. 32
[PUBMED]    
33.Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Shoulder arthroplasty with or without resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82:26-34.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]    
34.Buchner M, Eschbach N, Loew M. Comparison of the short-term functional results after surface replacement and total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: A matched-pair analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008;128:347-54.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]    
35.Rydholm U, Sjögren J. Surface replacement of the humeral head in the rheumatoid shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1993;2:286-95.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.Bishop JY, Flatow EL. Comparison of the short-term functional results after surface replacement and total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: A matched-pair analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2008;128:347-54.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.Pritchett JW. Long-term results and patient satisfaction after shoulder resurfacing. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011;20:771-7.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]    
38.Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ, Campbell PA, Wisk LE, Takamura KM. Complications after metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 2011;42:207-30.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]    
39.Levy O, Copeland SA. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder. 5-to 10-year results with the Copeland mark-2 prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83:213-21.  Back to cited text no. 39
[PUBMED]    
40.Goldberg SH, Cohen MS, Young M, Bradnock B. Thermal tissue damage caused by ultrasonic cement removal from the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:583-91.  Back to cited text no. 40
[PUBMED]    
41.Nicoll BK, Peters RJ. Heat generation during ultrasonic instrumentation of dentin as affected by different irrigation methods. J Periodontol 1998;69:884-8.  Back to cited text no. 41
[PUBMED]    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article