Cemented vs. press-fit humeral stems: a matched cohort analysis at a mean follow-up of 10 years

Background: Although cementation of humeral stems has long been considered the gold standard for anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), cementless, or press-fit, fixation offers a relatively cheaper and less demanding alternative, particularly in the setting of a revision procedure. However, this approach has been accompanied by concerns of implant loosening and high rates of radiolucency. In the present study, we performed a propensity-matched comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes between cemented and cementless fixation techniques for aTSA. We hypothesized that cemented fixation of the humeral component would have significantly better implant survival while providing comparable functional outcomes at final follow-up. Methods: This study was a retrospective comparison of 50 shoulders undergoing aTSA: 25 using cemented humeral fixation vs. 25 using press-fit humeral fixation. Patients in the 2 groups were propensity matched according to age, sex, and preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score. Primary outcome measures included range of motion (ROM) (forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation), patient-reported outcomes (ASES, Simple Shoulder Test [SST], visual analog scale [VAS]), and implant survival. Results: At baseline, the 2 fixation groups were similar in regard to age, sex, body mass index, preoperative ASES score, and surgical indication. Mean follow-up was 11.7 ± 4.95 years in the cemented cohort and 9.13 ± 3.77 years in the press-fit cohort (P = .045). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements postoperatively in all included ROM and patient-reported outcomes. However, press-fit patients reported significantly better VAS, ASES, and SST scores. Mean VAS pain score was 1.1 ± 1.8 in press-fit patients and 3.2 ± 3.0 in cemented patients (P = .005). The mean ASES score was 87.7 ± 12.4 in press-fit patients and 69.5 ± 22.7 in cemented patients (P = .002). Lastly, the mean SST score was 9.8 ± 3.1 in press-fit patients and 7.7 ± 3.7 in cemented patients (P = .040). Both fixation techniques provided lasting implant survivorship with only a single revision operation in each of the cohorts. Conclusion: Herein, we provide a propensity-matched, long-term comparison of patients receiving anatomic shoulder arthroplasty stratified according to humeral stem fixation technique. The results of this analysis illustrate that both types of humeral fixation techniques yield durable and significant improvements in shoulder function with similar rates of survival at 10 years of follow-up.