To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Radiostereometric analysis of humeral head resurfacing implant for shoulder osteoarthritis

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
January 2015

Radiostereometric analysis of humeral head resurfacing implant for shoulder osteoarthritis

Vol: 4| Issue: 1| Number:2| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:2

Evaluation of periprosthetic bone mineral density and postoperative migration of humeral head resurfacing implants: two-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1427-36.

Contributing Authors:
I Mechlenburg TM Klebe KV Døssing A Amstrup K Søballe M Stilling

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

32 adult patients with shoulder osteoarthritis were included in this trial to compare two humeral head resurfacing implants (HHRI): the Copeland HHRI and the Global C.A.P. HHRI. Implant migration, periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD), and length of glenohumeral offset (LGHO) were assessed via radiostereometric analysis (RSA), in addition to clinical questionnaires (Constant score and Western ...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue