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.

Glenoid Inclination: Choosing the Transverse Axis Is Critical-A 3D Automated versus Manually Measured Study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the variation in measured glenoid inclination measurements between each of the most used methods for measuring the scapular transverse axis with computed tomography (CT) scans, and to investigate the underlying causes that explain the differences. METHODS: The glenoid center, trigonum and supraspinatus fossa were identified manually by four expert shoulder surgeons on 82 scapulae CT-scans. The transverse axis was generated either from the identified landmarks (Glenoid-Trigonum line (GT-line), Best-Fit Line Fossa (BFLF)) or by an automatic software (Y-axis). An assessment of the interobserver reliability was performed. We compared the measured glenoid inclination when modifying the transverse axis to assess its impact. RESULTS: Glenoid inclination remained stable between 6.3 and 8.5°. The variations occurred significantly when changing the method that determined the transverse axis with a mean biase from -1.7 (BFLF vs. Y-axis) to 0.6 (BFLF vs. GT-line). The Y-axis method showed higher stability to the inclination variation (p = 0.030). 9% of cases presented more than 5° of discrepancies between the methods. The manual methods presented a lower ICC (BFLF = 0.96, GT-line = 0.87) with the widest dispersion. CONCLUSION: Methods that determine the scapular transverse axis could have a critical impact on the measurement of the glenoid inclination. Despite an overall good concordance, around 10% of cases may provide high discrepancies (≥5°) between the methods with a possible impact on surgeon clinical choice. Trigonum should be used with caution as its anatomy is highly variable and more than two single points provide a better interrater concordance. The Y-axis is the most stable referential for the glenoid inclination.

The arm change position: Additional information for optimizing range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The arm change position (ACP) is a new parameter for evaluating the humerus' 3D displacement following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) during 3D pre operative planning. The purpose of this study was to analyze the relationship between ACP variations after RSA and simulated passive joint mobility. The assumption is that the ACP will to help optimize the passive joint mobility of a RSA implant. METHODS: In 30 degenerative shoulders, four shoulder surgeons planned a RSA with virtual motion analysis. After this analysis, each plan was revised to optimize the range of motion. Relationships between the differences in movement amplitude and the differences in ACP were evaluated. RESULTS: Arm lengthening and humerus lateralization were significantly associated with better joint mobility in all three planes (frontal, sagittal and axial). They were equally important for improving external rotation, extension, flexion and adduction. Anterior displacement of the humerus improved both internal and external rotation. DISCUSSION: The ACP is a useful preoperative planning parameter for RSA. It could help with selecting the best implant combination, as well as determining their position, in order to optimize the simulated passive mobility relative to humerus displacement after RSA. To validate the value of the ACP in clinical practice, a prospective study is needed in which the postoperative joint mobility is measured in vivo as a function of the ACP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case control study.

Preoperative planning of baseplate position in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Still no consensus on lateralization, version and inclination.

INTRODUCTION: In the context of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, some parameters of glenoid baseplate placement follow established golden rules, while other parameters still have no consensus. The assessment of glenoid wear in the future location of the glenoid baseplate varies among surgeons. The objective of this study was to analyze the inter-observer reproducibility of glenoid baseplate 3D positioning during virtual pre-operative planning. METHOD: Four shoulder surgeons planned the glenoid baseplate position of a reverse arthroplasty in the CT scans of 30 degenerative shoulders. The position of the glenoid guide pin entry point and the glenoid baseplate center was compared between surgeons. The baseplate's version and inclination were also analyzed. RESULTS: The 3D positioning of the pin entry point was achieved within ± 4 mm for nearly 100% of the shoulders. The superoinferior, anteroposterior and mediolateral positions of the baseplate center were achieved within ± 2 mm for 77.2%, 67.8% and 39.4% of the plans, respectively. The 3D orientation of the glenoid baseplate within ± 10° was inconsistent between the four surgeons (weak agreement, K=0.31, p=0.17). DISCUSSION: The placement of the glenoid guide pin was very consistent between surgeons. Conversely, there was little agreement on the lateralization, version and inclination criteria for positioning the glenoid baseplate between surgeons. These parameters need to be studied further in clinical practice to establish golden rules. Three-dimensional information from pre-operative planning is beneficial for assessing the glenoid deformity and for limiting its impact on the baseplate position achieved by different surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. Case control study.

Three-dimensional geometry of the normal shoulder: a software analysis.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) geometry of the normal glenohumeral bone anatomy and relations is poorly documented. Our aims were (1) to determine the 3D geometry of the normal glenohumeral joint (GHJ) with reference to the scapular body plane and (2) to identify spatial correlations between the orientation and direction of the humeral head and the glenoid. METHODS: Computed tomographies (CTs) of the normal, noninjured GHJ were collected from patients who had undergone CTs in the setting of (1) polytrauma, (2) traumatic head injury, (3) chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocations, and (4) unilateral trauma with a contralateral normal shoulder. We performed 3D segmentation and measurements with a fully automatic software (Glenosys; Imascap). Measurements were made in reference to the scapular body plane and its transverse axis. Geometric measurements included version, inclination, direction, orientation, best-fit sphere radius (BFSR), humeral subluxation, critical shoulder angle, reverse shoulder angle, glenoid area, and glenohumeral distance. Statistical correlations were sought between glenoid and humeral 3D measurements (Pearson correlation). RESULTS: A total of 122 normal GHJs (64 men, 58 women, age: 52 ± 17 years) were studied. The glenoid BFSR was always larger than the humerus BFSR (constant factor of 1.5, standard deviation = 0.2). The mean glenoid version and inclination were -6° ± 4° and 7° ± 5°, respectively. Men and women were found to have significantly different values for inclination (6° vs. 9°, P = .02), but not for version. Humeral subluxation was 59% ± 7%, with a linear correlation with glenoid retroversion (r = -0.70, P < .001) regardless of age. There was a significant and linear correlation between glenoid and humeral orientation and direction (r = 0.72 and r = 0.70, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The 3D geometry of the glenoid and humeral head present distinct limits in normal shoulders that can be set as references in daily practice: version and inclination are -6° and 7°, respectively, and humeral posterior subluxation is 59%; interindividual variations, regardless of the size, are relative to the scapular plane. There exists a strong correlation between the position of the humeral head and the glenoid orientation and direction.

Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice.

INTRODUCTION: Since its first description, the concept of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has evolved. The term lateralization remains unclear and is used to describe implants that lateralize on the glenoid side, the humeral side, or both. The objective of this study was to provide a clear definition of lateralization and to measure the lateralization achieved by the most commonly used implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight different configurations with 22 different implants were analyzed. Glenoid, humeral, and global lateralization was measured on digitized templates. Implant lateralization was normalized to the lateral offset of the Delta III. Each implant was defined as a combination of one of two glenoid categories (medialized glenoid (MG), lateralized glenoid (LG), and one of four humeral categories (medialized humerus (MH), minimally lateralized humerus (LH), lateralized humerus (LH+). In addition, implants were separated in categories of 5-mm increments for global offset (medialized RSA (M-RSA), minimally lateralized RSA (ML-RSA), lateralized RSA (L-RSA), highly lateralized RSA (HL-RSA), and very highly lateralized RSA (VHL-RSA). RESULTS: The global lateral offset of the Delta III was 13.1 mm; global lateral offset of all designs in this study varied between 13.1 and 35.8 mm. Regarding their global lateral offset, five implants are M-RSA (lateral offset < 18.1 mm), five ML-RSA (18.1-23.1 mm), seven L-RSA (23.1-28.1 mm), six HL-RSA (28.1-33.1 mm), and one VHL-RSA (33.1-38.1 mm). CONCLUSION: There is high variability in the amount of lateralization provided by the majority of RSAs currently available. This descriptive analysis can help surgeons understand the features of implants in the market based on their lateralization in order to adapt the surgical technique depending on the expected lateral offset of the design being implanted.

Three-dimensional characterization of the anteverted glenoid (type D) in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The Walch classification describes glenoid morphology in primary arthritis. As knowledge grows, several modifications to the classification have been proposed. The type D, a recent modification, was defined as an anteverted glenoid with or without anterior subluxation. Literature on the anteverted glenoid in primary osteoarthritis is limited. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to analyze the anatomic characteristics of the type D glenoid on radiographs and computed tomography (CT). METHODS: The shoulder arthroplasty databases from 3 institutions were examined to identify patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis and glenoid anteversion (≥5°), with or without anterior subluxation. The type D study cohort consisted of 18 patients (3% of the osteoarthritis cohort) and was a mean of 70 years old, with 11 women and 7 men. All radiographs were reviewed, and computed tomography Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA, USA) data were analyzed on validated 3-dimensional imaging software. Rotator cuff fatty infiltration, glenoid measurements (anteversion and inclination), and humeral head subluxation according to the scapular plane were determined. RESULTS: In the study cohort, the mean glenoid anteversion was 12° (range, 5°-24°), the mean inclination was 0°, and the mean anterior subluxation was 38% (range, 6%-56%). Eight patients (44%) had a biconcave glenoid with a posterosuperiorly positioned paleoglenoid and an anteroinferiorly positioned neoglenoid, and 10 patients had a monoconcave glenoid. Fatty infiltration of the rotator cuff muscles never exceeded Goutallier stage 2. CONCLUSION: The type D glenoid is an addition to the original Walch classification and is characterized by glenoid anteversion (≥5°), anteroinferior humeral head subluxation, and absence of severe subscapularis fatty infiltration.

Proper benefit of a three dimensional pre-operative planning software for glenoid component positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Glenoid loosening after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is influenced by the position of the glenoid component. 3D planning software and patient-specific guides seem to improve positioning accuracy, but their respective individual application and role are yet to be defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of freehand implantation after 3D pre-operative planning and to compare its accuracy to that of a targeting guide. METHOD: Seventeen patients scheduled for TSA for primary glenohumeral arthritis were enrolled in this prospective study. Every patient had pre-operative planning, based on a CT scan. Glenoid component implantation was performed freehand, guided by 3D views displayed in the operating room. The position of the glenoid component was determined by manual segmentation of post-operative CT scans and compared to the planned position. The results were compared to those obtained in a previous work with the use of a patient-specific guide. RESULTS: The mean error for the central point was 2.89 mm (SD ± 1.36) with the freehand method versus 2.1 mm (SD ± 0.86) with use of a targeting guide (p = 0.05). The observed difference was more significant (p = 0.03) for more severely retroverted glenoids (> 10°). The mean errors for version and inclination were respectively 4.82° (SD ± 3.12) and 4.2° (SD ± 2.14) with freehand method, compared to 4.87° (SD ± 3.61) and 4.39° (SD ± 3.36) with a targeting guide (p = 0.97 and 0.85, respectively). CONCLUSION: 3D pre-operative planning allowed accurate glenoid component positioning with a freehand method. Compared to the freehand method, patient-specific guides slightly improved the position of the central point, especially for severely retroverted glenoids, but not the orientation of the component.

What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of different glenoid configurations on arm position and range of motion (ROM) following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The hypothesis was that different glenoid configurations would lead to changes in humeral offset, acromio-humeral distance (AHD), ROM, and rotator cuff muscle length. METHODS: Using a three-dimensional (3D) computer model, implantation of an RSA was simulated with a 145° onlay humeral stem combined with five different glenoid configurations which varied in diameter and centre of rotation. Glenoid offset, the AHD, ROM, and muscle length were evaluated for each configuration. RESULTS: Changing glenoid design led to up to a 10 mm change in offset and a 3 mm change in the AHD. There was 7° of improvement in abduction and flexion between the different glenoid designs. Two of the configurations, the 36 mm centered and the BIO-RSA, had an adduction deficit. In extension and external rotation arm with the arm at side, the eccentric 36 mm glenosphere was the best configuration while the centered 36 mm glenosphere was the worst configuration. The 42 mm glenosphere limited external rotation at 90° of abduction. CONCLUSIONS: Varying the glenosphere configurations leads to ROM and muscle length changes following RSA. With a 145° onlay humeral stem, a 36 eccentric glenosphere theoretically optimizes ROM while limiting scapular notching.

Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The impacts of humeral offset and stem design after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have not been well-studied, particularly with regard to newer stems which have a lower humeral inclination. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of different humeral stem designs on range of motion and humeral position following RSA. METHODS: Using a three-dimensional computer model of RSA, a traditional inlay Grammont stem was compared to a short curved onlay stem with different inclinations (155°, 145°, 135°) and offset (lateralised vs medialised). Humeral offset, the acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and range of motion were evaluated for each configuration. RESULTS: Altering stem design led to a nearly 7-mm change in humeral offset and 4 mm in the AHD. Different inclinations of the onlay stems had little influence on humeral offset and larger influence on decreasing the AHD. There was a 10° decrease in abduction and a 5° increase in adduction between an inlay Grammont design and an onlay design with the same inclination. Compared to the 155° model, the 135° model improved adduction by 28°, extension by 24° and external rotation of the elbow at the side by 15°, but led to a decrease in abduction of 9°. When the tray was placed medially, on the 145° model, a 9° loss of abduction was observed. CONCLUSIONS: With varus inclination prostheses (135° and 145°), elevation remains unchanged, abduction slightly decreases, but a dramatic improvement in adduction, extension and external rotation with the elbow at the side are observed.

Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid component positioning is a key factor for success in total shoulder arthroplasty. Three-dimensional (3D) measurements of glenoid retroversion, inclination, and humeral head subluxation are helpful tools for preoperative planning. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and precision of a novel surgical method for placing the glenoid component with use of patient-specific templates created by preoperative surgical planning and 3D modeling. METHODS: A preoperative computed tomography examination of cadaveric scapulae (N = 18) was performed. The glenoid implants were virtually placed, and patient-specific guides were created to direct the guide pin into the desired orientation and position in the glenoid. The 3D orientation and position of the guide pin were evaluated by performing a postoperative computed tomography scan for each scapula. The differences between the preoperative planning and the achieved result were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean error in 3D orientation of the guide pin was 2.39°, the mean entry point position error was 1.05 mm, and the mean inclination angle error was 1.42°. The average error in the version angle was 1.64°. There were no technical difficulties or complications related to use of patient-specific guides for guide pin placement. Quantitative analysis of guide pin positioning demonstrated a good correlation between preoperative planning and the achieved position of the guide pin. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the reliability and precision of preoperative planning software and patient-specific guides for glenoid component placement in total shoulder arthroplasty.