This multicenter retrospective study compares two bone-preserving humeral strategies in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. It asks whether humeral head resurfacing and stemless implants deliver comparable ROM and patient-reported outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up. It is the first direct comparison of these two implants for glenohumeral osteoarthritis.
When you choose a bone-preserving humeral implant, patient selection drives the decision more than the data here can settle. Stemless fixation depends on good metaphyseal bone. That is why this cohort used it in younger males and reserved HHR for elderly females with poorer bone quality. Recognize that bias when reading the numbers.
The stemless group's better final ROM is largely a starting-point artifact. Both implants improved substantially, and the HHR group's larger gains simply reflect a worse preoperative baseline. Remember the classic HHR pitfalls tested on boards: difficult glenoid exposure, risk of overstuffing when recreating a deformed head, and reported nerve injury from retraction.
Because this is a retrospective, unmatched comparison with baseline demographic differences and unequal follow-up, treat it as hypothesis-generating. It does not establish one implant as superior.
This multicenter retrospective study compares two bone-preserving humeral strategies in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. It asks whether humeral head resurfacing and stemless implants deliver comparable ROM and patient-reported outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up. It is the first direct comparison of these two implants for glenohumeral osteoarthritis.
When you choose a bone-preserving humeral implant, patient selection drives the decision more than the data here can settle. Stemless fixation depends on good metaphyseal bone. That is why this cohort used it in younger males and reserved HHR for elderly females with poorer bone quality. Recognize that bias when reading the numbers.
The stemless group's better final ROM is largely a starting-point artifact. Both implants improved substantially, and the HHR group's larger gains simply reflect a worse preoperative baseline. Remember the classic HHR pitfalls tested on boards: difficult glenoid exposure, risk of overstuffing when recreating a deformed head, and reported nerve injury from retraction.
Because this is a retrospective, unmatched comparison with baseline demographic differences and unequal follow-up, treat it as hypothesis-generating. It does not establish one implant as superior.