Hemiarthroplasty is often considered in the setting of preserved glenoid cartilage given the high risk of revision associated with total shoulder arthroplasty. Pyrocarbon (PyC) has been used as an implant material that theoretically allows for formation of a neo-membrane that would act like cartilage to reduce glenoid wear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, revision rates, and complication rates in the existing literature on shoulder hemiarthroplasty using PyC.
PyC hemiarthroplasty shows overall improvements in ROM and patient-reported outcomes for patients. However, there remains concern for glenoid erosion on radiographic evaluation at minimum 2-year follow-up. Although preliminary studies have shown encouraging results, this systematic review emphasizes the need for longer-term follow-up studies with further radiographic evaluation of the severity of glenoid erosion and the association with functional outcomes and failure risk.
Level of evidence: Level IV; Systematic Review. Copyright remains with the authors and publisher.
Hemiarthroplasty is often considered in the setting of preserved glenoid cartilage given the high risk of revision associated with total shoulder arthroplasty. Pyrocarbon (PyC) has been used as an implant material that theoretically allows for formation of a neo-membrane that would act like cartilage to reduce glenoid wear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, revision rates, and complication rates in the existing literature on shoulder hemiarthroplasty using PyC.
PyC hemiarthroplasty shows overall improvements in ROM and patient-reported outcomes for patients. However, there remains concern for glenoid erosion on radiographic evaluation at minimum 2-year follow-up. Although preliminary studies have shown encouraging results, this systematic review emphasizes the need for longer-term follow-up studies with further radiographic evaluation of the severity of glenoid erosion and the association with functional outcomes and failure risk.
Level of evidence: Level IV; Systematic Review. Copyright remains with the authors and publisher.