Long-Term Outcomes of Pyrocarbon Hemiarthroplasty in a Young Patient with Severe Chondrolysis

Document Type : CASE REPORT

Authors

Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA

10.22038/abjs.2024.82753.3766

Abstract

Pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty is a novel procedure that has shown promise for the complex cases of young patients with severe shoulder arthritis. This prosthesis aims to overcome challenges faced by conventional hemiarthroplasty designs, particularly the issue of significant glenoid arthrosis over time. Results of the pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty have generally shown good promise, but there has been a scarcity in studies and reports that explore the long-term outcomes of this procedure. In this report, we describe the case of a young male patient who underwent a pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty for significant glenohumeral chondrolysis. The patient underwent the procedure and was able to demonstrate seven-year postoperative outcomes, reporting an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon’s score of 97, a single assessment numeric evaluation score of 95 and a visual analogue scale pain score of 0 at final follow-up. Radiological imaging revealed some progressive glenoid arthrosis and superior glenoid erosion over the course of seven years.
        Level of evidence: V

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Fonte H, Amorim-Barbosa T, Diniz S, Barros L, Ramos J, Claro R. Shoulder Arthroplasty Options for Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis in Young and Active Patients (<60 Years Old): A Systematic Review. J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast. 2022; 6: 24715492221087014-24715492221087014. doi: 10.1177/24715492221087014.
  2. Best MJ, Aziz KT, Wilckens JH, McFarland EG, Srikumaran U. Increasing incidence of primary reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg.2021; 30: 1159-1166. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.010.
  3. Stenquist DS, Barger J, Mohamadi A, et al. Impact of Age on Functional Outcome After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Performed for Proximal Humerus Fractures or Their Sequelae. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2023; 11: 29-38. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2022.56366.2798.
  4. Buch B, Vall M, Consigliere P, Guillén JA, Cruz E, Natera L. Short Stems and Stemless Shoulder Arthroplasty: Current Concepts Review. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2022; 10: 633-647. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2021.53555.2664.
  5. Wanga KY, Agarwal AR, Best MJ, Mawn JG, Kamalapathy P, Srikumaran U. A Comparison of Complications and Survivorship after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fracture compared with Cuff Tear Arthropathy. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2023; 11: 166-172. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2022.62599.3045.
  6. Weber S, Grehn H, Hutter R, Sommer C, Haupt S. Shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture treatment: a retrospective functional outcome analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022; 33: 1581-1589. doi: 10.1007/s00590-022-03313-z.
  7. Nielsen KP, Amundsen A, Olsen BS, Rasmussen JV. Good long-term patient-reported outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy. JSES Int. 2021; 6: 40-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.08.002.
  8. Na SS, Kim DH, Choi BC, Cho CH. Outcomes and complications after arthroplasty in patients with osteonecrosis of humeral head-systematic review. J Orthop Sci. 2023; 28:772-777. doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2022.04.002.
  9. Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman GM, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A Comparison of Pain, Strength, Range of Motion, and Functional Outcomes after Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 1947-1956. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.d.02854.
  10. Carroll RM, Izquierdo R, Vazquez M, Blaine TA, Levine WN, Bigliani LU. Conversion of painful hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty: Long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004; 13: 599-603. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.03.016.
  11. Leung B, Horodyski M, Struk AM, Wright TW. Functional outcome of hemiarthroplasty compared with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of rotator cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21: 319-323. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.023.
  12. Geervliet PC, Willems JH, Sierevelt IN, Visser CP, van Noort A. Overstuffing in resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is a potential risk for failure. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019; 14: 474-474. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1522-1.
  13. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. 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/j.jse.2004.03.013.
  14. Familiari F, Hochreiter B, Gerber C. Unacceptable failure of osteochondral glenoid allograft for biologic resurfacing of the glenoid. J Exp Orthop. 2021; 8: 111-111. doi: 10.1186/s40634-021-00419-x.
  15. Cointat C, Raynier JL, Vasseur H, et al. Short-term outcomes and survival of pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty in the young arthritic shoulder. J J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022; 31: 113-122. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.06.002.
  16. Campos-Pereira E, Henrique-Barros L, Claro R. Pyrocarbon Humeral Head in a Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty: Preliminary Results at 3 Years Follow-Up and Review of the Current Literature. Case Rep Orthop. 2021; 2021: 6633690-6633690. doi: 10.1155/2021/6633690.
  17. Fares MY, Singh J, Boufadel P, Cohn MR, Abboud JA. Pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty and the shoulder: biomechanical and clinical results of an emerging treatment option. Clin Shoulder Elb. 2024; 27:117-125. doi: 10.5397/cise.2023.00024.
  18. Ramírez-Martínez I, Smith SL, Trail IA, Joyce TJ. Wear behaviour of polyethylene glenoid inserts against PyroCarbon humeral heads in shoulder arthroplasties. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020:103:103553. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103553.
  19. Mehta N, Hall DJ, Pourzal R, Garrigues GE. The Biomaterials of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. JBJS Rev. 2020; 8: e19.00212-e00219.00212. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.rvw.19.00212.
  20. Stanley J, Klawitter J, More R. Replacing joints with pyrolytic carbon. InJoint replacement technology. 2008 (pp. 631-656). Woodhead Publishing.
  21. Cook SD, Beckenbaugh R, Weinstein AM, Klawitter JJ. Pyrolite Carbon Implants in the Metacarpophalangeal Joint of Baboons. Orthopedics. 1983; 6: 952-961. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19830801-03.
  22. Klawitter JJ, Patton J, More R, Peter N, Podnos E, Ross M. In vitro comparison of wear characteristics of PyroCarbon and metal on bone: Shoulder hemiarthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow. 2020; 12: 11-22.doi: 10.1177/1758573218796837.
  23. Stryker. Stryker now offers the only FDA-cleared pyrocarbon bearing material option for shoulder hemiarthroplasty. Available at: https://www.stryker.com/us/en/about/news/2023/stryker-now-offers-the-only-fda-cleared-pyrocarbon-bearing-mater.html. Accessed March 30, 2023.
  24. McBride AP, Ross M, Hoy G, et al. Mid-term outcomes of pyrolytic carbon humeral resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared with metal humeral resurfacing and metal stemmed hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis in young patients: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022; 31: 755-762. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.08.017.
  25. Hudek R, Werner B, Abdelkawi AF, Gohlke F. Pyrocarbon interposition shoulder arthroplasty in advanced collapse of the humeral head. Der Orthopäde. 2017; 46: 1034-1044. doi: 10.1007/s00132-017-3495-2.
  26. Hirakawa Y, Ode GE, Le Coz P, et al. Poor results after pyrocarbon interpositional shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30: 2361-2369. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.01.032.
  27. Dupley L, Monga P. Catastrophic Failure of a Pyrocarbon Hemiarthroplasty from Glenoid Metal Anchors. International Journal of Case Reports in Orthopaedics. 2024; 6: 135-139. doi: 10.22271/27078345.2024.v6.i1c.202.
  28. Garret J, Harly E, Le Huec JC, Brunner U, Rotini R, Godenèche A. Pyrolytic carbon humeral head in hemi-shoulder arthroplasty: preliminary results at 2-year follow-up. JSES Open Access. 2019; 3: 37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2018.09.002.

 

 

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 14, Issue 5
May 2026
Pages 363-370

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 September 2024
  • Revise Date: 02 December 2024
  • Accept Date: 04 December 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics