25dkou548 10.3205/25dkou548 urn:nbn:de:0183-25dkou5480 Meeting Abstract Kraus Kraus Moritz M

Abteilung für Schulter- und Ellbogenchirurgie, Schulthess Klinik Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz Klinik für Traumatologie, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz

author Gebauer Gebauer Henry H

Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery (CMSC), Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Deutschland

author Lazaridou Lazaridou Asimina A

Abteilung für Schulter- und Ellbogenchirurgie, Schulthess Klinik Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz

author Scheibel Scheibel Markus M

Abteilung für Schulter- und Ellbogenchirurgie, Schulthess Klinik Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery (CMSC), Charité - Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Deutschland

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 20251031 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0634 548 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie Berufsverband für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Deutscher Kongress für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (DKOU 2025) Abstracts | Schulter Endoprothetik Berlin 20251028 20251031 AB87-4120 TextObjectives and questions: The glenoid component and its fixation in bone are critical factors for implant longevity in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). This study compares long-term survival rates of keeled and pegged glenoid components.Material and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 90 patients who underwent aTSA between 2011 and 2016. Patients were divided into three groups: Keeled-CoCr (n=38): Keeled glenoid components with cobalt-chromium humeral components, Pegged-CoCr (n=14): Pegged glenoid components with cobalt-chromium humeral components, and Pegged-Titanium (n=38): Pegged glenoid components with titanium-coated humeral components.Propensity-score matching was performed between the Keeled-CoCr and Pegged-Titanium groups to control for confounders such as age, sex, and glenoid morphology. The primary outcome was implant survival, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and log-rank tests. Secondary outcomes included clinical scores (Constant Score), glenohumeral distance (GHD) at baseline and after 5 years, and changes in GHD over time. Data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests with a significance level of 0.05.Results: The groups showed no significant differences in age (Keeled-CoCr: 69.0 [60.2; 73.8], Pegged-CoCr: 68.0 [63.8; 69.8], Pegged-Titanium: 68.0 [57.0; 73.0], p=0.889), sex distribution (male: 47.4%, 28.6%, 50%, p=0.375), or glenoid morphology (p=0.919).Implant survival was significantly longer for Keeled-CoCr components (102 [79.8; 128] months) compared to Pegged-CoCr (66.0 [60.5; 74.5] months) and Pegged-Titanium (73.0 [36.0; 95.2] months, p<0.0001). Survival in the Keeled-CoCr group was significantly longer than Pegged-CoCr (p=0.004) and Pegged-Titanium (p=0.001), with no significant difference between the two pegged groups (p=0.521).Constant Scores were significantly higher in the Keeled-CoCr group (80.0 [73.0; 83.0]) compared to Pegged-CoCr (37.5 [26.8; 55.0]) and Pegged-Titanium (32.5 [24.2; 46.5], p<0.001). Scores for Keeled-CoCr were significantly better than both pegged groups (p<0.001), with no significant difference between Pegged-CoCr and Pegged-Titanium (p=0.499).Revision rates were lower for Keeled-CoCr (13%) compared to Pegged-CoCr (53%) and Pegged-Titanium (53%, p<0.001). The GHD showed no significant differences at baseline (p=0.126) or after 5 years, nor did the reduction in GHD over time: Keeled-CoCr: 1.30 [0.80; 2.30], Pegged-CoCr: 2.60 [1.02; 3.58], Pegged-Titanium: 2.40 [1.20; 3.00], p=0.231.Discussion and conclusions: Our results suggest that keeled glenoid components may have better long-term survival and functional outcomes than pegged components in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. However, this study focuses on a singleimplant from one manufacturer. Further research is needed to confirm whether these findings apply to other designs and brands. 0 0 0 0