Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Porous metals and alternate bearing surfaces in shoulder arthroplasty

  • Shoulder Arthroplasty (G Athwal, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) provides an effective solution for the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis. However, long-term outcomes have been limited by glenoid component aseptic loosening and polyethylene (PE) wear. Previous attempts to improve glenoid fixation with metal-backed glenoids resulted in inferior results. Newer component designs that contain porous metal allow for biological ingrowth of the prosthesis, potentially improving longevity and overall outcomes. Porous metal can also improve humeral component fixation, obviating the need for cement and simplifying revision surgery. Advances such as highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE), vitamin E-doped HXLPE, and alternate bearing surfaces like ceramics and pyrolytic carbon have proven to provide superior wear characteristics in other joint replacements and may prove beneficial in the shoulder as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Schrumpf M, Maak T, Hammoud S, Craig EV. The glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4:191–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Huff LR, Scalise JJ. The glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty: current concepts. Curr Orthop Pract. 2013;24:393–6. Good review of glenoid anatomy, pathoanatomy, and treatment options for the glenoid.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Neer CS. Replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56:1–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Norris TR, Iannotti JP. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2002;11:130–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Day JS, Lau E, Ong KL, Williams GR, Ramsey ML, Kurtz SM. Prevalence and projections of total shoulder and elbow arthroplasty in the United States to 2015. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:1115–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bohsali KI, Wirth MA, Rockwood Jr CA. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2279–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2006;15:19–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fox TJ, Cil A, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009;18:859–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Matsen III FA, Clinton J, Lynch J, Bertelsen A, Richardson ML. Glenoid component failure in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:885–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wirth MA, Rockwood Jr CA. Complications of total shoulder-replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:603–16.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survivorship of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:143–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalez JF, Alami GB, Baque F, Walch G, Boileau P. Complications of unconstrained shoulder prostheses. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:666–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Merolla G, Nastrucci G, Porcellini G. Shoulder arthroplasty in osteoarthritis: current concepts in biomechanics and surgical technique. Transl Med UniSa. 2013;6:16–28.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pinkas D, Wiater B, Wiater JM. The glenoid component in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015;23:317–26. A comprehensive review of glenoid anatomy, pathology, assessment, glenoid loosening, implantation techniques, and design.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Williams GR, Abboud JA. Total shoulder arthroplasty: glenoid component design. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2005;14:122S–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Churchill RS. Trends in glenoid component design in unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:S41–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheung EV, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Polyethylene insert exchange for wear after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2007;16:574–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stone KD, Grabowski JJ, Cofield RH, Morrey BF, An KN. Stress analyses of glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 1999;8:151–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Boileau P, Avidor C, Krishnan SG, Walch G, Kempf JF, Mole D. Cemented polyethylene versus uncemented metal-backed glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2002;11:351–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Boileau P, Moineau G, Morin-Salvo N, et al. Metal-backed glenoid implant with polyethylene insert is not a viable long-term therapeutic option. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24:1534–43. 165 patients treated with metal-back, polyethylene glenoids over 5 years were followed clinically and radiographically for 12 years. A mean follow-up of 8.5 years showed a 46% survival rate. A total of 37% of patients required revision and 80% of those had polyethylene wear. Only 3% of patients could have isolated polyethylene exchange.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Papadonikolakis A, Matsen III FA. Metal-backed glenoid components have a higher rate of failure and fail by different modes in comparison with all-polyethylene components: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:1041–7. Systematic review of 21 studies on radiolucency, radiographic failure, and revision after arthroplasty with metal-backed glenoids (MBGs); 23 studies with all polyethylene glenoids. They found the revision rate was 3 times higher for MBGs.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tammachote N, Sperling JW, Vathana T, Cofield RH, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD. Long-term results of cemented metal-backed glenoid components for osteoarthritis of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:160–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Taunton MJ, McIntosh AL, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Total shoulder arthroplasty with a metal-backed, bone-ingrowth glenoid component. Medium to long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2180–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Giori NJ, Beaupre GS, Carter DR. The influence of fixation peg design on the shear stability of prosthetic implants. J Orthop Res. 1990;8:892–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Anglin C, Wyss UP, Nyffeler RW, Gerber C. Loosening performance of cemented glenoid prosthesis design pairs. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001;16:144–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Edwards TB, Labriola JE, Stanley RJ, O'Connor DP, Elkousy HA, Gartsman GM. Radiographic comparison of pegged and keeled glenoid components using modern cementing techniques: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:251–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gartsman GM, Elkousy HA, Warnock KM, Edwards TB, O'Connor DP. Radiographic comparison of pegged and keeled glenoid components. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2005;14:252–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lazarus MD, Jensen KL, Southworth C, Matsen III FA. The radiographic evaluation of keeled and pegged glenoid component insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:1174–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Arnold RM, High RR, Grosshans KT, Walker CW, Fehringer EV. Bone presence between the central peg’s radial fins of a partially cemented pegged all poly glenoid component suggest few radiolucencies. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:315–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Churchill RS, Zellmer C, Zimmers HJ, Ruggero R. Clinical and radiographic analysis of a partially cemented glenoid implant: five-year minimum follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:1091–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wirth MA, Korvick DL, Basamania CJ, Toro F, Aufdemorte TB, Rockwood Jr CA. Radiologic, mechanical, and histologic evaluation of 2 glenoid prosthesis designs in a canine model. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2001;10:140–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup D, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME. Survivorship of uncemented proximally porous-coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;319:168–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cook SD, Thomas KA, Haddad Jr RJ. Histologic analysis of retrieved human porous-coated total joint components. Clin Orthop. 1988;234:90–101.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Spector M. Historical review of porous-coated implants. J Arthroplasty. 1987;2:163–77.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Berry DJ. Primary total hip arthoplasty. In: Chapman MW, editor. Chapman’s orthopaedic surgery. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 2769–90.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Callaghan JJ. The clinical results and basic science of total hip arthroplasty with porous-coated prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:299–310.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Fucentese SF, Costouros JG, Kuhnel SP, Gerber C. Total shoulder arthroplasty with an uncemented soft-metal-backed glenoid component. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:624–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Budge MD, Nolan EM, Heisey MH, Baker K, Wiater JM. Results of total shoulder arthroplasty with a monoblock porous tantalum glenoid component: a prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22:535–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bastian JD, Hertel R. Osteosynthesis and hemiarthroplasty of fractures of the proximal humerus: outcomes in a consecutive case series. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009;18:216–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Tinsi L, Walch G, Coste JS, Mole D. Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2002;11:401–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kontakis G, Koutras C, Tosounidis T, Giannoudis P. Early management of proximal humeral fractures with hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2008;90:1407–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Krishnan SG, Bennion PW, Reineck JR, Burkhead WZ. Hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture: restoration of the Gothic arch. Orthop Clin N Am. 2008;39:441–50. vi.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fialka C, Stampfl P, Arbes S, Reuter P, Oberleitner G, Vecsei V. Primary hemiarthroplasty in four-part fractures of the proximal humerus: randomized trial of two different implant systems. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2008;17:210–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gerber C, Hersche O, Berberat C. The clinical relevance of posttraumatic avascular necrosis of the humeral head. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 1998;7:586–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Huffman GR, Itamura JM, McGarry MH, et al. Neer award 2006: biomechanical assessment of inferior tuberosity placement during hemiarthroplasty for four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2008;17:189–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kralinger F, Schwaiger R, Wambacher M, et al. Outcome after primary hemiarthroplasty for fracture of the head of the humerus. A retrospective multicentre study of 167 patients. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2004;86:217–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Nijs S, Broos P. Outcome of shoulder hemiarthroplasty in acute proximal humeral fractures: a frustrating meta-analysis experience. Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75:445–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Li F, Jiang C. Trabecular metal shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop. 2013;37:2259–64.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Li F, Zhu Y, Lu Y, Liu X, Wu G, Jiang C. Hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of complex proximal humeral fractures: does a trabecular metal prosthesis make a difference? A prospective, comparative study with a minimum 3-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:1437–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Wright TW, O'Driscoll SW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Radiographic assessment of uncemented humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:180–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, O'Driscoll SW, Torchia ME, Rowland CM. Radiographic assessment of ingrowth total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2000;9:507–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Throckmorton TW, Zarkadas PC, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Radiographic stability of ingrowth humeral stems in total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2122–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bugbee WD, Culpepper WJ, Engh Jr CA, Engh Sr CA. Long-term clinical consequences of stress-shielding after total hip arthroplasty without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1007–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1987;69:45–55.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Engh Jr CA, Young AM, Engh Sr CA, Hopper Jr RH. Clinical consequences of stress shielding after porous-coated total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:157–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Huiskes R, Weinans H, van Rietbergen B. The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop. 1992;274:124–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Huiskes R. The various stress patterns of press-fit, ingrown, and cemented femoral stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;261:27–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Spormann C, Durchholz H, Audige L, et al. Patterns of proximal humeral bone resorption after total shoulder arthroplasty with an uncemented rectangular stem. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:1028–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Favard L, Katz D, Colmar M, Benkalfate T, Thomazeau H, Emily S. Total shoulder arthroplasty - arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathies: results and complications after a minimum follow-up of 8 years according to the type of arthroplasty and etiology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:S41–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Melis B, DeFranco M, Ladermann A, et al. An evaluation of the radiological changes around the Grammont reverse geometry shoulder arthroplasty after eight to 12 years. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2011;93:1240–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Wiater JM, Moravek Jr JE, Budge MD, Koueiter DM, Marcantonio D, Wiater BP. Clinical and radiographic results of cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative study with 2 to 5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:1208–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Colman M, Wright A, Gruen G, Siska P, Pape HC, Tarkin I. Prolonged operative time increases infection rate in tibial plateau fractures. Injury. 2013;44:249–52.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Willis-Owen CA, Konyves A, Martin DK. Factors affecting the incidence of infection in hip and knee replacement: an analysis of 5277 cases. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2010;92:1128–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson MG, Richart T. Prolonged operative time correlates with increased infection rate after total knee arthroplasty. HSS J. 2006;2:70–2.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Athwal GS, Sperling JW, Rispoli DM, Cofield RH. Periprosthetic humeral fractures during shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:594–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Deshmukh AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2005;14:471–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Farng E, Zingmond D, Krenek L, Soohoo NF. Factors predicting complication rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:557–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Kumar S, Sperling JW, Haidukewych GH, Cofield RH. Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:680–9. Review article discusses current status of stemless shoulder arthroplasty implants.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 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 Elb Surg. 2004;13:604–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Churchill RS. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty: current status. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23:1409–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Petriccioli D, Bertone C, Marchi G. Stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a literature review. Joints. 2015;3:38–41.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Huguet D, Declercq G, Rio B, Teissier J, Zipoli B. Results of a new stemless shoulder prosthesis: radiologic proof of maintained fixation and stability after a minimum of three years’ follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:847–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Razmjou H, Holtby R, Christakis M, Axelrod T, Richards R. Impact of prosthetic design on clinical and radiologic outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22:206–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Berth A, Pap G. Stemless shoulder prosthesis versus conventional anatomic shoulder prosthesis in patients with osteoarthritis: a comparison of the functional outcome after a minimum of two years follow-up. J Orthop Traumatol. 2013;14:31–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:464–73.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 1997;6:495–505.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Williams Jr GR, Iannotti JP. Alternative bearing surfaces--do we need them? Am J Orthop Belle Mead N J. 2007;36:15–7.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Jazrawi LM, Kummer FJ, DiCesare PE. Alternative bearing surfaces for total joint arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1998;6:198–203.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Goodman S. Bearing surfaces for joint replacement: new materials or new problems. In: Jones LC, Haggard WO, Greenwald AS (eds.) Metal-on-Metal Bearings. 2014:13–20.

  80. Geerdink CH, Grimm B, Vencken W, Heyligers IC, Tonino AJ. Cross-linked compared with historical polyethylene in THA: an 8-year clinical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:979–84.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Reynolds SE, Malkani AL, Ramakrishnan R, Yakkanti MR. Wear analysis of first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty: an average 9-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1064–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Saikko V, Calonius O, Keranen J. Wear of conventional and cross-linked ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene acetabular cups against polished and roughened CoCr femoral heads in a biaxial hip simulator. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;63:848–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Sato T, Nakashima Y, Akiyama M, et al. Wear resistant performance of highly cross-linked and annealed ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene against ceramic heads in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2012;30:2031–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:146–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Atwood SA, Van Citters DW, Patten EW, Furmanski J, Ries MD, Pruitt LA. Tradeoffs amongst fatigue, wear, and oxidation resistance of cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011;4:1033–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Rimnac C, Pruitt L. How do material properties influence wear and fracture mechanisms? J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16 Suppl 1:S94–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Schroder DT, Kelly NH, Wright TM, Parks ML. Retrieved highly crosslinked UHMWPE acetabular liners have similar wear damage as conventional UHMWPE. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:387–94.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Peers S, Moravek Jr JE, Budge MD, et al. Wear rates of highly cross-linked polyethylene humeral liners subjected to alternating cycles of glenohumeral flexion and abduction. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24:143–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Gomoll A, Wanich T, Bellare A. J-integral fracture toughness and tearing modulus measurement of radiation cross-linked UHMWPE. J Orthop Res. 2002;20:1152–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Nam D, Kepler CK, Nho SJ, Craig EV, Warren RF, Wright TM. Observations on retrieved humeral polyethylene components from reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19:1003–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Gigante A, Bottegoni C, Ragone V, Banci L. Effectiveness of vitamin-E-doped polyethylene in joint replacement: a literature review. J Funct Biomater. 2015;6:889–900.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Haider H, Weisenburger JN, Kurtz SM, et al. Does vitamin E-stabilized ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene address concerns of cross-linked polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:461–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Cuckler JM, Bearcroft J, Asgian CM. Femoral head technologies to reduce polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995;57–63.

  94. Fritsch EW, Gleitz M. Ceramic femoral head fractures in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;129–136.

  95. Chan K, Ayeni O, McKnight L, Ignacy TA, Farrokhyar F, Thoma A. Pyrocarbon versus silicone proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:114–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Ricon FJ, Sanchez P, Lajara F, Galan A, Lozano JA, Guerado E. Result of a pyrocarbon prosthesis after comminuted and unreconstructable radial head fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21:82–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Sarris IK, Kyrkos MJ, Galanis NN, Papavasiliou KA, Sayegh FE, Kapetanos GA. Radial head replacement with the MoPyC pyrocarbon prosthesis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21:1222–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Sweets TM, Stern PJ. Pyrolytic carbon resurfacing arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the proximal interphalangeal joint of the finger. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1417–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Van Nuffel M, Degreef I, Willems S, De Smet L. Proximal interphalangeal joint replacement: resurfacing pyrocarbon versus silicone arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg. 2014;80:190–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Wall LB, Stern PJ. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of metacarpophalangeal joint pyrolytic carbon arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Hand Surg Am. 2013;38:537–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Ouenzerfi G, Hassler M, Trunflo-Sfarghiu AM, Nallet A, Berthier Y. Triboligical behavior of pyrolytic carbon against bone promotes cartilage regeneration? http://leeds-lyon.sciencesconf.org/63177/document. Accessed 13 Nov 2015. Proceedings of the 42nd Leeds-Lyon Symposium on Tribology 2015.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Lyn Camire, MA, ELS, of our department for editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, 3333 North Calvert Street, Suite 400, Baltimore, MD, 21218, USA

    Shannon R. Carpenter, Ivan Urits & Anand M. Murthi

Authors
  1. Shannon R. Carpenter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan Urits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anand M. Murthi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anand M. Murthi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Shannon R. Carpenter, Ivan Urits, and Anand M. Murthi declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Shoulder Arthroplasty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carpenter, S.R., Urits, I. & Murthi, A.M. Porous metals and alternate bearing surfaces in shoulder arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9, 59–66 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9319-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9319-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation