RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We aim to predict a clinical difference in the postoperative range of motion (RoM) between 2 reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) stem designs (Inlay-155° and Onlay-145°) using preoperative planning software. We hypothesized that preoperative 3D planning could anticipate the differences in postoperative clinical RoM between 2 humeral stem designs and by keeping the same glenoid implant. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients (14 men and 23 women, 76 ± 7 years) underwent a BIO-RSA (bony increased offset-RSA) with the use of preoperative planning and an intraoperative 3-dimensional-printed patient-specific guide for glenoid component implantation between January 2014 and September 2019 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Two types of humeral implants were used: Inlay with a 155° inclination (Inlay-155°) and Onlay with a 145°inclination (Onlay-145°). Glenoid implants remained unchanged. The postoperative RSA angle (inclination of the area in which the glenoid component of the RSA is implanted) and the lateralization shoulder angle were measured to confirm the good positioning of the glenoid implant and the global lateralization on postoperative X-rays. A correlation between simulated and clinical RoM was studied. Simulated and last follow-up active forward flexion (AFE), abduction, and external rotation (ER) were compared between the 2 types of implants. RESULTS: No significant difference in RSA and lateralization shoulder angle was found between planned and postoperative radiological implants' position. Clinical RoM at the last follow-up was always significantly different from simulated preoperative RoM. A low-to-moderate but significant correlation existed for AFE, abduction, and ER (r = 0.45, r = 0.47, and r = 0.57, respectively; P < .01). AFE and abduction were systematically underestimated (126° ± 16° and 95° ± 13° simulated vs. 150° ± 24° and 114° ± 13° postoperatively; P < .001), whereas ER was systematically overestimated (50° ± 19° simulated vs. 36° ± 19° postoperatively; P < .001). Simulated abduction and ER highlighted a significant difference between Inlay-155° and Onlay-145° (12° ± 2°, P = .01, and 23° ± 3°, P < .001), and this was also retrieved clinically at the last follow-up (23° ± 2°, P = .02, and 22° ± 2°, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to evaluate the clinical relevance of predicted RoM for RSA preoperative planning. Motion that involves the scapulothoracic joint (AFE and abduction) is underestimated, while ER is overestimated. However, preoperative planning provides clinically relevant RoM prediction with a significant correlation between both and brings reliable data when comparing 2 different types of humeral implants (Inlay-155° and Onlay-145°) for abduction and ER. Thus, RoM simulation is a valuable tool to optimize implant selection and choose RSA implants to reach the optimal RoM.