Double-pulley, V-shaped fixation technique for arthroscopic repair of ideberg type IA glenoid fracture.

Different techniques have been described for glenoid fractures, there is still a need for safe and effective agents to promote outcomes. From January 2016 to April 2021, the clinical data of 17 patients with pulley type IA fractures treated by the V-shaped fixation technique under shoulder arthroscopy were retrospectively analyzed. Preoperative X-ray, CT, and MRI examinations were completed. The functional score of the shoulder joint, such as the visual analog scale (VAS), Constant score, and Modified Rowe score, was used to evaluate the preoperative and final follow-up clinical outcomes. The active shoulder range of motion (ROM) was also collected preoperatively and at the final postoperative follow-up. Accordingly, intraoperative and postoperative complications were also observed. The mean follow-up was 49.52 months (16-79 months). The patients' follow-up exams showed that shoulder joint flexion, abduction, external rotation, internal rotation, and pain were not significantly different from those of the contralateral side (p > .05). The mean Constant score was 83.52 (58-98), and the average Modified Rowe score was 94.29 (70-100). X-ray and CT films of all cases showed good healing without articular depression or steps. Three patients had traumatic arthritis, with VAS <3 pain. No postoperative complications, such as infections, nerve or vessel damage, or suture anchor problems occurred during the follow-up period. Using the Double-pull, V-shaped fixation technique can stabilize the reduction of glenoid fractures while reducing the possibility of bone destruction. It is a good solution and provides an opportunity to treat rotator cuff tears associated with the procedure.

Morpho-functional analysis of the temporomandibular joint following mandible-first bimaxillary surgery with mandible-only patient-specific implants.

The aim of this study was to evaluate condylar and glenoid fossa remodeling after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery guided by patient-specific mandibular implants. In total, 18 patients suffering from dentofacial dysmorphism underwent a virtually planned bimaxillary mandibular PSI-guided orthognathic procedure. One month prior to surgery, patients underwent a CBCT scan and optical scans of the dental arches; these datasets were re-acquired 1 month and at least 9 months postsurgery. Three-dimensional models of the condyles, glenoid fossae, and interarticular surface space (IASS) were obtained and compared to evaluate the roto-translational positional discrepancy and surface variation of each condyle and glenoid fossa, and the IASS variation. The condylar position varied by an average of 4.31° and 2.18 mm, mainly due to surgically unavoidable ramus position correction. Condylar resorption remodeling was minimal (average ≤ 0.1 mm), and affected skeletal class III patients the most. Later condylar remodeling was positively correlated with patient age. No significant glenoid fossa remodeling was observed. No postoperative orofacial pain was recorded at clinical follow-up. The procedure was accurate in minimizing the shift in relationship between the bony components of the TMJ and their remodeling, and was effective in avoiding postoperative onset of orofacial pain. An increase in sample size, however, would be useful to confirm our findings.

Posterior deltoid-sparing approach for displaced inferior or posterior glenoid fossa fractures: technical note and case series.

Scapular surgery has usually been performed through the posterior Judet approach. This approach allows access to the entire posterior scapular body, but causes significant soft tissue damage and detaches the deltoid muscle. To date, there has been no clinical study of a deltoid-preserving approach to access the joint for displaced postero-inferior glenoid fractures (Ideberg type II or Ib). We describe an easy and less invasive approach to the postero-inferior glenoid fossa.

A formula for instability-related bone loss: estimating glenoid width and redefining bare spot.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study reveals a new intuitive method for preoperatively assessing defect ratio in glenoid deficiency based on the native glenoid width and the bare spot. METHODS: A linear relationship, i.e. the rh formula, between the native glenoid width (2r) and height (h) was revealed by a cadaver cohort (n = 204). To validate the reliability of the rh formula, 280 3D-CT images of intact glenoids were recruited. To evaluate the accuracy of rh formula in estimating glenoid defect, the 65 anterior-inferior defect models were artificially established based on the 3D-CT images of intact glenoids. Moreover, a clinically common anterior-posterior (AP) method was compared with the rh formula, to verify the technical superiority of rh formula. RESULTS: The regression analysis indicated a linear relationship between the width and height of intact glenoid: 2r = 0.768 × h - 1.222 mm (R2 = 0.820, p < 0.001). An excellent reliability was found between the formula prediction and model width (ICC = 0.911, p = 0.266). An excellent agreement was found between the predicted values and model parameters (glenoid width, ICCrh = 0.967, prh = 0.778; defect ratio, prh = 0.572, ICCrh = 0.997). And, it is of higher accuracy compared to the AP method (glenoid width, ICCAP = 0.933, pAP = 0.001; defect ratio, ICCAP = 0.911, pAP = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Applying the cadaver-based formula on 3D-CT scans accurately predicts native glenoid width and redefines bare spot for preoperatively determining glenoid bone loss.

Both angled bony-increased offset and metal-augmented baseplates provide satisfactory bone incorporation to the glenoid in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a radiographic evaluation using tomosynthesis.

BACKGROUND: Angled bony-increased offset and metal-augmented baseplate have recently been used to achieve neutral to inferior inclination of the glenoid implant. Nonetheless, bone incorporation is difficult to evaluate using computed tomography or other conventional methods owing to the presence of metal artifacts; therefore, whether bone incorporation between the grafted bone and glenoid or between the graft and baseplate implant can be achieved remains unclear. Several studies have reported the effectiveness of tomosynthesis in reducing metal artifacts for the evaluation of implant loosening, bone resorption, and spot welds. We aimed to evaluate and compare the bone incorporation rates between angled bony-increased offset and metal-augmented implants using tomosynthesis with metal artifact reduction technology. We hypothesized that a high bone incorporation rate would be obtained with angled bony-increased offset and a metal-augmented baseplate. METHODS: A total of 52 patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with angled bony-increased offset and 42 patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with metal-augmented baseplate were assessed and followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The bone incorporation and implant loosening rates were compared between the 2 groups, and the sites of spot welds and trabeculation were recorded according to zones. Bone incorporation between the bone and prosthesis was defined as a confirmation of spot welds connecting the porous area and bone in more than three zones. Bone incorporation between the native bone and grafted bone was defined as an observation of trabeculation. Glenoid loosening was defined as the presence of at least 1 mm radiolucency around the prosthesis in more than 2 zones. RESULTS: Both the angled bony-increased offset and metal-augmented baseplate groups achieved sufficient bone incorporation rates (98% [51/52 cases] vs. 100% [42/42 cases], P = 1.0) and low implant loosening rates (2% [1/52 cases] vs. 0% [0/42 cases], P = 1.0). Spot welds and trabeculation were likely to be confirmed in the lower parts of the glenoid. CONCLUSION: The two groups did not show any significant differences regarding bone incorporation rates. Considering the complexity of performing the procedure with angled bony-increased offset, the use of a metal-augmented baseplate can serve as an alternative treatment to avoid superior inclination in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Femoral head allograft for glenoid bone loss in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: functional and radiologic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Several techniques have been adopted during primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) to manage glenoid bone defect. Among bone grafts, humeral head autograft is currently the mainstream option. However, autologous humeral heads may be unavailable or inadequate, and allografts may be a viable alternative. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the functional and radiologic outcomes of femoral head allografts for glenoid bone defects in primary RSA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study with prospective data collection enrolling 20 consecutive patients who underwent RSA with femoral head allografts for glenoid bone defects. Indications for surgery were eccentric cuff tear arthropathy in 10 cases (50%), concentric osteoarthritis in 9 cases (45%), and fracture sequelae in 1 case (5%). Each patient was evaluated preoperatively and at follow-up by radiologic and computed tomography (CT) and by assessing the range of motion (ROM) and the Constant-Murley score (CMS). A CT-based software, a patient-specific 3D model of the scapula, and patient-specific instrumentation were used to shape the graft and to assess the position of K-wire for the central peg. Postoperatively, CT scans were used to identify graft incorporation and resorption. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 26.5 months (24-38), ROM and CMS showed a statistically significant improvement (all P = .001). The median measures of the graft were as follows: 28 mm (28-29) for diameter, 22° (10°-31°) for angle, 4 mm (2-8 mm) for minimum thickness, and 15 mm (11-21 mm) for maximum thickness. Before the surgery, the median glenoid version was 21.8° (16.5°-33.5°) for the retroverted glenoids and -13.5° (-23° to -12°) for the anteverted glenoids. At the follow-up, the median postoperative baseplate retroversion was 5.7° (2.2°-1.5°) (P = .001), and this value was close to the 4° retroversion planned on the preoperative CT-based software. Postoperative major complications were noted in 4 patients: 2 dislocations, 1 baseplate failure following a high-energy trauma, and 1 septic baseplate failure. Partial graft resorption without glenoid component failure was observed in 3 cases that did not require revision surgery. CONCLUSION: The femoral head allograft for glenoid bone loss in primary RSA restores shoulder function, with CMS values comparable to those of sex- and age-matched healthy individuals. A high rate of incorporation of the graft and satisfactory correction of the glenoid version can be expected after surgery. The management of glenoid bone defects remains a challenging procedure, and a 15% risk of major complication must be considered.

3-dimensionally printed patient-specific glenoid drill guides vs. standard nonspecific instrumentation: a randomized controlled trial comparing the accuracy of glenoid component placement in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Traditional, commercially sourced patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) systems for shoulder arthroplasty improve glenoid component placement but can involve considerable cost and outsourcing delays. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the accuracy of glenoid component positioning in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) using an in-house, point-of-care, 3-dimensionally (3D) printed patient-specific glenoid drill guide vs. standard nonspecific instrumentation. METHODS: This single-center randomized controlled trial included 36 adult patients undergoing primary aTSA. Patients were blinded and randomized 1:1 to either the PSI or the standard aTSA guide groups. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of glenoid component placement (version and inclination), which was determined using a metal-suppression computed tomography scan taken between 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. Deviation from the preoperative 3D templating plan was calculated for each patient. Blinded postoperative computed tomography measurements were performed by a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon and a musculoskeletal radiologist. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were randomized to the patient-specific glenoid drill guide group, and 17 patients were allocated to the standard instrumentation control group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for native version (P = .527) or inclination (P = .415). The version correction was similar between the 2 groups (P = .551), and the PSI group was significantly more accurate when correcting version than the control group (P = .042). The PSI group required a significantly greater inclination correction than the control group (P = .002); however, the 2 groups still had similar accuracy when correcting inclination (P = .851). For the PSI group, there was no correlation between the accuracy of component placement and native version, native inclination, or the Walch classification of glenoid wear (P > .05). For the control group, accuracy when correcting version was inversely correlated with native version (P = .033), but accuracy was not correlated with native inclination or the Walch classification of glenoid wear (P > .05). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.703 and 0.848 when measuring version and inclination accuracy, respectively. CONCLUSION: When compared with standard instrumentation, the use of in-house, 3D printed, patient-specific glenoid drill guides during aTSA led to more accurate glenoid component version correction and similarly accurate inclination correction. Additional research should examine the influence of proper component position and use of PSI on clinical outcomes.

Reliability assessment of new radiographic scales to evaluate radiolucency and bony in-between fin growth of partially cemented all-polyethylene glenoid components.

BACKGROUND: Current methods available for assessment of radiolucency and in-between fin (IBF) growth of a glenoid component have not undergone interobserver reliability testing for an all-polyethylene fluted central peg (FCP) glenoid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate anteroposterior radiographs of an FCP glenoid component at ≥48 months comparing commonly used scales to a new method adapted to the FCP. Our hypothesis was that the new method would result in acceptable intra- and interobserver agreement and a more accurate description of radiographic findings. METHODS: We reviewed ≥48-month follow-up radiographs of patients treated with a primary aTSA using an FCP glenoid. Eighty-three patients were included in the review. Radiographs were evaluated by 5 reviewers using novel IBF radiodensity and radiolucency assessments and the Wirth and Lazarus methods. To assess intraobserver reliability, a subset of 40 images was reviewed. Kappa statistics were calculated to determine intra- and interobserver reliability; correlations were assessed using Pearson correlation. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement (κ score) was as follows: IBF 0.71, radiolucency 0.68, Wirth 0.48, and Lazarus 0.22. Intraobserver agreement ranges were as follows: IBF radiodensity 0.36-0.67, radiolucency 0.55-0.62, Wirth 0.11-0.73, and Lazarus 0.04-0.46. Correlation analysis revealed the following: IBF to Wirth r = 0.93, radiolucency to Lazarus r = 0.92 (P value <.001 for all). CONCLUSION: This study introduces a radiographic assessment method developed specifically for an FCP glenoid component. Results show high interobserver and acceptable intraobserver reliability for the method presented in this study. The new scales provide a more accurate description of radiographic findings, helping to identify glenoid components that may be at risk for loosening.

Validation of mixed-reality surgical navigation for glenoid axis pin placement in shoulder arthroplasty using a cadaveric model.

BACKGROUND: Mixed reality may offer an alternative for computer-assisted navigation in shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and precision of mixed-reality guidance for the placement of the glenoid axis pin in cadaver specimens. This step is essential for accurate glenoid placement in total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Fourteen cadaveric shoulders underwent simulated shoulder replacement surgery by 7 experienced shoulder surgeons. The surgeons exposed the cadavers through a deltopectoral approach and then used mixed-reality surgical navigation to insert a guide pin in a preplanned position and trajectory in the glenoid. The mixed-reality system used the Microsoft Hololens 2 headset, navigation software, dedicated instruments with fiducial marker cubes, and a securing pin. Computed tomography scans obtained before and after the procedure were used to plan the surgeries and determine the difference between the planned and executed values for the entry point, version, and inclination. One specimen had to be discarded from the analysis because the guide pin was removed accidentally before obtaining the postprocedure computed tomography scan. RESULTS: Regarding the navigated entry point on the glenoid, the mean difference between planned and executed values was 1.7 ± 0.8 mm; this difference was 1.2 ± 0.6 mm in the superior-inferior direction and 0.9 ± 0.8 mm in the anterior-posterior direction. The maximum deviation from the entry point for all 13 specimens analyzed was 3.1 mm. Regarding version, the mean difference between planned and executed version values was 1.6° ± 1.2°, with a maximum deviation in version for all 13 specimens of 4.1°. Regarding inclination, the mean angular difference was 1.7° ± 1.5°, with a maximum deviation in inclination of 5°. CONCLUSIONS: The mixed-reality navigation system used in this study allowed surgeons to insert the glenoid guide pin on average within 2 mm from the planned entry point and within 2° of version and inclination. The navigated values did not exceed 3 mm or 5°, respectively, for any of the specimens analyzed. This approach may help surgeons more accurately place the definitive glenoid component.

Premorbid glenoid anatomy reconstruction from contralateral shoulder 3-dimensional measurements: a computed tomography scan analysis of 260 shoulders.

BACKGROUND: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) aims to reconstruct the premorbid anatomy of a pathologic shoulder. A healthy contralateral shoulder could be useful as a template in planning TSA. The symmetry between the left and right shoulders in healthy patients remains to be proved. The purpose of this study was to compare the 3-dimensional anatomy of the glenoid between sides in a healthy population. METHODS: A multinational computed tomography scan database was retrospectively reviewed for all healthy bilateral shoulders in patients aged between 18 and 50 years. One hundred thirty pairs of healthy shoulder computed tomography scans were analyzed, and glenoid version, inclination, width, and height, as well as glenoid lateral offset and scapula lateral offset, were measured. All anatomic measures were computed with Blueprint, validated 3-dimensional planning software. The intraclass correlation coefficient was determined for each measure between left and right shoulders. The minimal detectable change (MDC) was calculated using the following formula: MDC=2×1.96×Standarderrorofmeasurement. RESULTS: The comparison between 130 pairs of healthy scapulae showed statistically significant differences in absolute values between right and left glenoid version (-5.3° vs. -4.6°, P < .01), inclination (8.4° vs. 9.3°, P < .01), and width (25.6 mm vs. 25.4 mm, P < .01), as well as scapula offset (105.8 mm vs. 106.2 mm, P < .01). Glenoid height was comparable between right and left shoulders (33.3 mm vs. 33.3 mm, P = .9). The differences between the means were always inferior to the MDC regarding glenoid version, inclination, height, and width, as well as scapula offset. Very strong intraclass correlation coefficients between the left and right shoulders were found for all evaluated paired measures. CONCLUSION: Healthy contralateral scapulae are highly reliable to predict inclination, height, width, and scapula offset and are reliable to predict version of a given scapula. Paired right and left scapulae were not statistically symmetrical regarding mean glenoid version, inclination, and width, as well as scapula offset. Nevertheless, the reported differences were not higher than the MDC for this cohort, confirming that healthy contralateral shoulders can be a useful template in TSA preoperative planning.

Comparison of long-term clinical and radiological outcomes for cemented keel, cemented peg, and hybrid cage glenoids with anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty using the same humeral component.

Aims: The aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) up to long-term follow-up, when using cemented keel, cemented peg, and hybrid cage peg glenoid components and the same humeral system. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a multicentre, international clinical database of a single platform shoulder system to compare the short-, mid-, and long-term clinical outcomes associated with three designs of aTSA glenoid components: 294 cemented keel, 527 cemented peg, and 981 hybrid cage glenoids. Outcomes were evaluated at 4,746 postoperative timepoints for 1,802 primary aTSA, with a mean follow-up of 65 months (24 to 217). Results: Relative to their preoperative condition, each glenoid cohort had significant improvements in clinical outcomes from two years to ten years after surgery. Patients with cage glenoids had significantly better clinical outcomes, with higher patient-reported outcome scores and significantly increased active range of motion, compared with those with keel and peg glenoids. Those with cage glenoids also had significantly fewer complications (keel: 13.3%, peg: 13.1%, cage: 7.4%), revisions (keel: 7.1%, peg 9.7%, cage 3.5%), and aseptic glenoid loosening and failure (keel: 4.7%, peg: 5.8%, cage: 2.5%). Regarding radiological outcomes, 70 patients (11.2%) with cage glenoids had glenoid radiolucent lines (RLLs). The cage glenoid RLL rate was 3.3-times (p < 0.001) less than those with keel glenoids (37.3%) and 4.6-times (p < 0.001) less than those with peg glenoids (51.2%). Conclusion: These findings show that good long-term clinical and radiological outcomes can be achieved with each of the three aTSA designs of glenoid component analyzed in this study. However, there were some differences in clinical and radiological outcomes: generally, cage glenoids performed best, followed by cemented keel glenoids, and finally cemented peg glenoids.

Clinical and radiologic outcomes of Lima ProMade custom 3D-printed glenoid components in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with severe glenoid bone loss: a minimum 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiologic outcomes of patients undergoing primary or revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using custom 3D-printed components to manage severe glenoid bone loss with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. METHODS: Following ethical approval, patients were identified and invited to participate. Inclusion criteria were (1) severe glenoid bone loss necessitating the need for custom implants and (2) patients with definitive glenoid and humeral components implanted more than 2 years prior. Included patients underwent clinical assessment using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Constant-Murley score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and the quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Radiographic assessment included anteroposterior and axial projections. Patients were invited to attend a computed tomography (CT) scan to confirm osseointegration. Statistical analysis used descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation [SD]) and paired t test for parametric data. RESULTS: Eleven patients declined to participate. Five patients were deceased prior to study commencement, leaving 42 remaining patients in this analysis. Three patients had revision surgery before the 2-year follow-up; of these, 2 retained their custom glenoid components. Mean follow-up was 31.6 months from surgery (range 24-52 months). All 4 scores improved: OSS from a mean 15 (SD 8.4) to 36 (SD 12) (P < .001), Constant-Murley score from a mean 15 (SD 11.2) to 52 (SD 20.1) (P < .001), QuickDASH from a mean 70 (SD 21) to 31 (SD 24.8) (P = .004), and the ASES score from a mean 22 (SD 17.8) to 71 (SD 23.3) (P = .007). Radiologic evaluation demonstrated good osseointegration in all but 1 included patient. CONCLUSION: The utility of custom 3D-printed components for managing severe glenoid bone loss in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty yields significant clinical improvements in this complex cohort. Large complex glenoid bone defects can be managed successfully with custom 3D-printed glenoid components.

Editorial Commentary: High Variability Exists Among Different Techniques for Measuring Glenoid Bone Loss.

Glenoid bone loss is a predominant factor in determining proper surgical management for glenohumeral instability. Precise measurements of glenoid (and humeral) bone defects are fundamental, and millimeters matter. Three-dimensional computed tomography scans may provide the highest interobserver reliability for making these measurements. Yet, because imprecision in the range of millimeters is observed with even the most precise glenoid bone loss measurement techniques, it could be a mistake to over-rely, let alone solely rely, on glenoid bone loss measurement as the primary determinant for selecting one surgical procedure over another. Surgeons must measure glenoid bone loss but also thoughtfully consider patient age, associated soft-tissue injuries, and activity level, including throwing and participation in collision sports. When choosing the proper surgical procedure for a shoulder instability patient, we should not focus on only one variably measured parameter but, instead, on a comprehensive assessment of the patient.

Glenoid component placement accuracy in total shoulder arthroplasty with preoperative planning and standard instrumentation is not influenced by supero-inferior glenoid erosion.

PURPOSE: Accurate glenoid component placement in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains challenging even with preoperative planning, especially for variable glenoid erosion patterns in the coronal plane. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 170 primary TSAs in which preoperative planning software was used. After registration of intraoperative bony landmarks, surgeons were blinded to the navigation screen and attempted to implement their plan by simulating placement of a central-axis guide pin: 230 screenshots of simulated guide pin placement were included (aTSA = 66, rTSA = 164). Displacement, error in version and inclination, and overall malposition from the preoperatively-planned target point were stratified by the Favard classification describing superior-inferior glenoid wear: E0 (n = 89); E1 (n = 81); E2 (n = 29); E3(n = 29); E4(n = 2). Malposition was considered > 10° for version/inclination errors or > 4 mm displacement from the starting point. RESULTS: Mean displacement error was 3.5 ± 2.7 mm (aTSA = 2.7 ± 2.3 mm, rTSA = 3.8 ± 2.9 mm), version error was 5.7 ± 4.7° (aTSA = 5.8 ± 4.4°, rTSA = 5.7 ± 4.8°), inclination error was 7.1 ± 5.6 (aTSA = 4.8 ± 4.8°, rTSA = 8.1 ± 5.7°), and malposition rate was 53% (aTSA = 38%, rTSA = 59%). When compared by Favard classification, there were no differences in any measure; when stratified by TSA type, version error differed for rTSAs (P = .038), with E1 having the greatest version error (6.9 ± 5.2°) and E3 the least (4.2 ± 3.4°). When comparing glenoids without wear (E0) and glenoids with superior wear (E2 and E3), the only difference was greater version error in glenoids without wear (6.0 ± 4.9° vs. 4.6 ± 3.7°, P = .041). CONCLUSIONS: Glenoid malposition did not differ based on coronal glenoid morphology. Although, malposition was relatively high, suggesting surgeons should consider alternate techniques beyond preoperative planning and standard instrumentation in TSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with a B2 glenoid addressed with corrective reaming: mean 8-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The management of Walch B2 glenoid deformities in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis is frequently debated. Previous literature has shown that the treatment of B2 glenoids with high-side reaming and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) perform well in the short-term but is associated with an increased glenoid component failure rate in severe deformities. Therefore, many have explored alternative options, including augmented anatomic glenoid components and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Our goal in this study is to provide mid-term radiographic and clinical outcomes after high-side reaming and aTSA for B2 glenoids. METHODS: Patients were followed both clinically and radiographically. Preoperative computed tomography scans were used for retrospective analysis of deformity. Both preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Simple Shoulder Test scores were collected. Radiographs were analyzed preoperatively and postoperatively for humeral head decentering relative to the glenoid vault, immediate glenoid seating, and final glenoid peg radiolucency. RESULTS: Of the original cohort of 59 patients (6 now deceased) reported at a mean radiographic follow-up of 3.4 years, 34 shoulders in 33 patients with B2 glenoids (mean retroversion 18.9°, range 4°-32°) were available for follow-up at a mean of 8.6 years (range 5.5-11.2) after high-side glenoid reaming with aTSA. Three (5.1%) of the original 59 shoulder were revised. At final follow-up, 3 of 30 (10.0%) shoulders had radiographic glenoid component failure, but were unrevised. Glenoid component failure was associated with worse initial glenoid component seating (mean Lazarus score 1.2 vs. 2.0, P = .002). Glenoid failure was also associated with increased posterior humeral head subluxation at 2-4 year follow-up (mean 5.6% vs. 12.6%, P = .045) and at final follow-up (mean 7.0% vs. 21%, P = .002). There was no association between glenoid component failure and preoperative retroversion, inclination, or humeral head subluxation (all P > .05). Glenoid component failure was associated with worse American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (88 vs. 73) and visual analog scale pain (0.8 vs. 2.1) scores (both P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: At a mean of 8.6 years, 88% of shoulders available for follow-up had well-fixed glenoid components. Glenoid component failure was associated with poor initial glenoid component seating, with failed components having an average of 25% of the glenoid component not seated. Preoperative deformity such as glenoid retroversion, inclination, or humeral head subluxation did not predict glenoid component failure. This study supports that initial glenoid component seating and recurrence of posterior humeral head subluxation may be the most important factors for mid-term glenoid component survival in aTSA in patients with B2 glenoids.

Glenoid reconstruction bone loss with a pediculated coracoid autograft during shoulder arthroplasty. A technical note.

Reconstruction of glenoid bone loss is a difficult but often required component of shoulder arthroplasty. A variety of free autografts or allografts have been proposed for reconstruction. While Latarjet is well accepted for the management of anterior instability, the use of a coracoid graft has not been described in conjunction with shoulder arthroplasty. We propose that anterior and central glenoid bone defects can be reconstructed with the coracoid process. to provide a vascularized local structural autograft. Level of evidence: IV.

Analysis and 3D correction of glenoid dysplasia with metal hemi-wedge base plate augment: short-term radiographic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid defects can be addressed traditionally by asymmetric reaming or by bone-preserving correction to a more lateral joint line by bone or metal augmented baseplates in reverse shoulder arthroplasties. While there is more evidence in literature regarding the outcome and complications of Bony Increased Offset Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty (BIO-RSA), there is minimal reported experience with the outcome after metal glenoid augments. The aim of this study was to determine whether a metal augment can correct the glenoid deformity in an anatomic manner. METHODS: Glenoid morphology and deformity were determined in 50 patients with Walch type B1, B2, D and Favard type E0-E3 glenoid defects using preoperative radiographic and computed tomography (CT) analysis. All patients received a preoperative planning CT with 3D planning, and measurements of glenoid inclination (in 3 planes proximal, middle, distal), reversed shoulder arthroplasty angle (RSA) and glenoid version were obtained. All patients had a pathologic inclination in the coronal or frontal planes of > 10°. Above the threshold of 10° pathological glenoid version or inclination metal hemi-augments of 10°, 20°, or 30° were used which allow an individual 360° augment positioning according to the patient glenoid deformity. RESULTS: The mean preoperative numbers of the glenoid version demonstrate that most glenoids were in retroversion and superior inclination. In total 2410° wedges, 1820° wedges and 8 30° wedges were used. In the majority of cases, the wedge was positioned posteriorly and/or cranially between 10:00 and 12:00 o'clock, which allows a correction in a 3D manner of the glenoid inclination and version. The mean RSA angle could be corrected from 22.76 ± 6.06 to 0.19° ± 2.7 (p < 0.0001). The highest retroversion of the glenoid is evidenced in the proximal section and it could be corrected from - 23.32° ± 4.56 to - 6.74° ± 7.75 (p < 0.0001) and in the middle section from - 18.93° ± 3.35 to - 7.66° ± 5.28 (p < 0.0001). A mean sphere bone overhang distance (SBOD) of 5.70 ± 2.04 mm was found in order to avoid or minimize relevant scapular notching. CONCLUSION: By using a new 360° metal-augmented baseplate, the preoperative pathological inclination and retroversion can be corrected without medialization of the joint line. Future clinical results will show whether this bone-preserving procedure improves also the clinical outcomes as compared to asymmetric medialized reaming or wedged BIO-RSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Case series.

High correlation between inner and outer glenoid circle diameters and its clinical relevance.

PURPOSE: The majority of methods for measuring glenoid bone loss in shoulder instability use the best-fit circle following the inferior glenoid rim. However, there is no precise method on how to draw this circle, particularly in case of a missing rim segment. Defining the radius is a source of substantial error. It was hypothesized that there is a relationship between the best-fit inferior circle (inner circle), defined by Sugaya, and the circle tangent to the supra- and infra-glenoid tubercles (outer circle), defined by Itoi, thus allowing a more consistent appreciation of the paleo-glenoid. METHODS: Ninety-five normal dry scapulae were examined. The specimens were digitally photographed obtaining perpendicular images of the glenoid cavity. Using HOROS® imaging software, a best-fit inferior circle (inner circle) and a second circle fitting the most inferior and superior points of the glenoid (outer circle) were drawn by two investigators. The diameters and areas of the circles were recorded. Two-way random-effects intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to measure intra- and inter-observer agreement. A Bayesian measurement-error regression model was used to determine the relationship between outer and inner circle measurements. RESULTS: The mean glenoid height was 35.1 mm and the glenoid width 25.6 mm. The mean diameter of the outer circle was 35.7 ± 4.2 mm and the mean diameter of the inner circle was 26.8 ± 3.2 mm. ICC showed excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement for both the outer circle diameter (ICC ≥ 0.95) and inner circle diameter (ICC ≥ 0.93). The two diameters demonstrated a very strong significant Pearson correlation (0.92, p < 0.001) and the regression showed excellent model fit R2 = 0.87. The areas of the two circles were also highly and significantly correlated (r = 0.94; p < 0.001). The ratio of inner circle to outer diameters was 0.74. CONCLUSION: There is a strong correlation between the inner and outer glenoid circle diameters. This study sets the base for the use the combined outer and inner circle and its ratio to better appreciate the paleo-glenoid morphology and thus obtain a more reliable bone loss estimation. Application of this method aids in a more reliable estimation bone loss with potential benefit in surgical decision-making.

Accuracy of reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle according to the size of the baseplate.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid inclination must be assessed precisely during preoperative planning for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) to position the glenoid baseplate correctly. We hypothesized that a more dynamic measurement method would better match the diversity of glenoid heights in the population and the variety of commercialized glenoid baseplates. Our purpose was to describe a new method to measure the RSA angle accounting for the baseplate size. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 50 shoulders that underwent RSA for primary osteoarthritis or cuff tear arthropathy between June 2019 and February 2020 were included (mean age, 76 years). Three variants of the RSA angle were measured: the RSA angle as originally described by Boileau et al, the relative RSA 25 angle (which simulates the implantation of a 25-mm baseplate), and the relative RSA 29 angle (which simulates the implantation of a 29-mm baseplate). Measurements in the 2-dimensional true reformatted scapular plane were made by 3 independent operators. RESULTS: The mean R-S distance (ie, distance between point R [intersection of supraspinatus fossa line with glenoid surface] and point S [inferior border of glenoid]) was 24.2 ± 4.0 mm. The mean RSA angle was 20.3° ± 8.4°, whereas the mean relative RSA 25 angle was 19.3° ± 7.8° and the mean relative RSA 29 angle was 15.6° ± 7.6°. The mean difference between the RSA angle and the relative RSA 25 angle was 1.0° ± 4.1° (P = .16). The mean difference between the RSA angle and the relative RSA 29 angle was 4.7° ± 3.8° (P < .0001). In half of the shoulders in our series, the difference between the RSA angle and the RSA 29 angle exceeded 5°. CONCLUSION: The RSA angle is a reproducible measure of the inclination of the inferior part of the glenoid that is reliable in most cases for glenoid baseplates of 24-25 mm in height. However, surgeons should be aware that the RSA angle may overestimate the superior orientation of the inferior glenoid for baseplates of different sizes or for small- or large-stature patients. In these cases, the relative RSA angle adapted to the size of the baseplate more accurately evaluates the inclination of the inferior glenoid.

Anatomic measurement of osseous parameters of the glenoid.

The angle and position of the scapular glenoid are important in shoulder mechanics, the interpretation of diseases, and planning shoulder replacement surgery. In total shoulder replacement, understanding the bony parameters of the glenoid is also of considerable guiding significance for designing implant size and improving material adaptability. To compare glenoid parameters measured from skeletal scapula specimens with those measured by 3D modeling of CT scanning images, analyze correlations between these data, and draw conclusions to guide clinical treatment of shoulder joint injury and total shoulder joint replacement. The data of manual and CT measurements from the same Chinese dry glenoid was compared. Three-dimensional measurement data were collected from the Japanese population and compared with the Chinese population data generated in this study. There were no significant differences between manual measurement and CT measurement in the inclination angle, glenopolar angle, anteroposterior transverse diameter, upper to lower vertical diameter, and depth of the glenoid (P = 0.288, 0.524, 0.111, 0.194, and 0.055, respectively). Further, there were no significant differences between Japanese and Chinese glenoid bones in the upper and lower vertical diameters or anteroposterior transverse diameters (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between CT and manual measurements, suggesting that the CT method may provide measurements very close to the actual specimen size. This result, however, indicated that the measurer should be careful when measuring the depth of the glenoid.