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 cross-sectional 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 significantly 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 findings 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.
Keywords: Hemiarthroplasty; Humeral head resurfacing; Mid-term follow-up; Patient-reported outcomes; Rotator cuff dysfunction; Shoulder arthroplasty; Shoulder osteoarthritis.