Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

The Newcastle University research output collection, currently available on ePrints, will shortly be moving to a new open repository platform, Figshare. To prepare for the data migration we have paused adding new content to ePrints, and will resume once the new repository is launched. During this time you will continue to have access to ePrints (but no new content will appear). We will share updates here when available.

Which primary shoulder and elbow replacement? A review of the results of prostheses available in the UK

Lookup NU author(s): John Williams

Downloads

Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.

Abstract

To assist surgeons select a suitable prosthesis, we have undertaken a detailed review of all shoulder and elbow replacements currently marketed in the UK. Twenty shoulder and 8 elbow implants, manufactured by 16 companies, have been identified. Twelve of the shoulder and one of the elbow implants have been introduced or modified in the last 8 years and have no clinical results published in peer-reviewed journals. Only the Biomodular, Bipolar, Copeland, Isoelastic, Neer hemi, Neer II, Roper-Day and Select shoulders accounting for less than 40% of the UK shoulder market, possess published results. The Capitello-condylar, Coonrad-Morrey, GSB III, Kudo, Liverpool, Roper-Tuke and Souter-Strathclyde elbows all have published results. These account for over 95% of all UK elbow replacements. The implications of these findings in an era of evidence-based medicine is discussed. Reviewing the clinical results should be of primary importance in the selection of a suitable prosthesis. Implants with a proven long-term record must represent the 'gold standard'. New or modified implants should only be used if they are part of a properly conducted clinical trial.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Mackay DC, Hudson B, Williams JR

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England

Year: 2001

Volume: 83

Issue: 4

Pages: 258-265

ISSN (print): 0035-8843

ISSN (electronic): 1478-7083

Publisher: The Royal College of Surgeons of England

Share