RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To investigate the effectiveness of bursal acromial resurfacing (acromiograft) on acromiohumeral distance, subacromial contact area, and pressure in a cadaveric model of massive rotator cuff tear. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested using a customized shoulder testing system. Humeral head translation, subacromial contact pressure, and the subacromial contact area were evaluated across 4 conditions: (1) intact shoulder; (2) simulated massive rotator cuff tear, (3) 3-mm acromiograft condition, and (4) 6-mm acromiograft condition. The acromiografts were simulated using Teflon and a reported technique. The values were measured at 0°, 20°, and 40° abduction and 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° external rotation for each abduction status. RESULTS: Compared with a massive cuff tear, the 6-mm acromiograft significantly reduced the superior translation of the humeral head at all abduction/external rotation angles (P < .05). The 3-mm acromiograft also decreased superior translation of the humeral head compared with massive cuff tear, but not all differences were significant. The 3- and 6-mm acromiografts significantly decreased the subacromial contact pressure and increased the subacromial contact area in almost all positions (P < .05). The 3-mm acromiograft maintained biomechanical properties similar to the intact condition, whereas the 6-mm acromiograft increased the contact area. CONCLUSIONS: This biomechanical study demonstrated that both 3- and 6-mm acromiografts using Teflon in a cadaveric model of a massive cuff tear resulted in recentering of the superiorly migrated humeral head, increased the subacromial contact area, and decreased the subacromial contact pressure. The 3-mm graft was sufficient for achieving the intended therapeutic effects. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The acromiograft can normalize altered biomechanics and may aid in the treatment of massive cuff tears. Because grafting the acromion's undersurface is new with limited clinical outcomes, further observation is crucial. Using a Teflon instead of an acellular dermal matrix allograft for bursal acromial resurfacing could yield different results, requiring careful interpretation.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The utilization of short humeral stems in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has gained attention in recent times. However, concerns regarding the risk of misalignment during implant insertion are associated with their use. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were prepared for dissection and biomechanical testing. A bespoke humeral implant was fabricated to facilitate assessment of neutral, varus, and valgus alignments using a single stem, and 10° was established as the maximum permissible angle for misalignments. Shift in humerus position and changes in deltoid length attributable to misalignments relative to the neutral position were evaluated using a Microscribe 3DLx system. The impingement-free range of motion, encompassing abduction, adduction, internal rotation, and external rotation (ER), was gauged using a digital goniometer. The capacity for abduction was evaluated at maximal abduction angles under successive loading on the middle deltoid. A specialized traction system coupled with a force transducer was employed to measure anterior dislocation forces. RESULTS: Relative to the neutral alignment, valgus alignment resulted in a more distal (10.5 ± 2.4 mm) and medial (8.3 ± 2.2 mm) translation of the humeral component, whereas the varus alignment resulted in the humerus shifting more superiorly (11.2 ± 1.3 mm) and laterally (9.9 ± 0.9 mm) at 0° abduction. The valgus alignment exhibited the highest abduction angle than neutral alignment (86.2°, P < .001). Conversely, the varus alignment demonstrated significantly higher adduction (18.4 ± 7.4°, P < .001), internal rotation (68.9 ± 15.0°, P = .014), and ER (45.2 ± 10.5°, P = .002) at 0° abduction compared to the neutral alignments. Anterior dislocation forces were considerably lower (23.8 N) in the varus group compared to the neutral group at 0°ER (P = .047). Additionally, abduction capability was markedly higher in varus alignment at low deltoid loads than the neutral alignment (5N, P = .009; 7.5 N, P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: The varus position enhances rotational range of motion (ROM) but increases instability, while the valgus position does not significantly impact ROM or instability compared to the neutral position.