Purpose Humeral head resurfacing (HHR) is a less invasive, anatomic alternative to the conventional stemmed hemiarthroplasty in patients in whom isolated humeral head replacement is preferred. It was hypothesized that, in a mid-term crosssectional subjective outcome analysis, HHR would have equivalent patient-reported and functional outcomes to stemmed hemiarthroplasty (HA). Methods A total of 213 HHR and 153 HA procedures were performed at a single academic institution from 2000 to 2014. Of these, 106 HHR and 47 HA patients corresponding with 120 HHR and 55 HA shoulders responded to a survey that collected patient demographics, surgical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and self-reported range of motion scores using both bespoke and validated metrics. Results Follow-up was longer in the HA group (9.4 ± 3.4 vs. 5.2 ± 1.8 years, p < 0.0001). Self-reported range of motion was equivalent between groups. Surgery was perceived as helpful following 76.7% of HHRs and 78.2% of HAs (p > 0.99). The ASES pain subscore was signiicantly worse in the HA group (25.2 ± 29.5 vs. 38.5 ± 12.7 after HHR, p < 0.0001), which translated into worse ASES total scores (45.1 ± 14.8 HA vs. 52.2 ± 23.7 HHR, p < 0.05). These indings were equivocal in responses received 2-8 years vs. ≥ 8 years after surgery. Conclusions Indications should be equivocal; humeral head resurfacing is a viable alternative to hemiarthroplasty, with equivalent patient satisfaction and reduced pain in the mid-term post-operative period. Level of evidence III.

Background: Humeral head resurfacing (HHR) has emerged as an alternative treatment for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We investigated the outcomes of HHR using validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 213 patients who underwent HHR. A PRO follow-up was performed by administering a questionnaire including the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) score, Brophy activity survey, short form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (quickDASH) survey, and general shoulder function. PRO scores were stratified by comorbidities and complications. Results: Survey responses were received from 106 patients (51%), with a mean follow-up of 5.6 AE 1.8 years (range: 9 months to 6.1 years). Preoperative comorbidities were associated with significantly higher quickDASH scores. Postoperative complications were associated with significantly higher rates of current pain, higher visual analog scale scores, night pain, lower subjective shoulder values, and lower ASES pain and total scores. No differences in patient satisfaction were identified between the cohorts with and without preoperative comorbidities and between the cohorts with and without postoperative complications. Conclusion: In our cross-sectional analysis of mid-to long-term outcomes following HHR, preoperative comorbidities, or postoperative complications had no impact on patient-perceived postoperative satisfaction or most PROs. HHR is clinically viable in a wide variety of patients. Future work is necessary to compare the efficacy of HHR compared with more traditional total shoulder arthroplasty and stemmed hemiarthroplasty regarding long-term outcomes and appropriate indications.

Pre-operative comorbidities and post-operative complications do not influence patient-perceived satisfaction and overall success following humeral head resurfacing.

No abstract