Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Patients with Cuff Tear Arthropathy: Do Clinical Outcomes Differ by Inlay versus Onlay Design?

BACKGROUND: The influence of position of the humeral tray (inlay or onlay) on clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a topic of debate. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with cuff tear arthropathy treated with RSA systems with inlay or onlay humeral tray design, similar neck-shaft angles, and lateralized glenospheres. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively obtained data from one tertiary care center. We identified all patients who underwent primary RSA between 2009 to 2017 (N=511). We included 102 patients with diagnosed cuff tear arthropathy treated with RSA prostheses with a lateralized glenosphere and 135˚ neck-shaft angle (with either an inlay or onlay humeral tray design) who had a minimum of two years of follow-up (mean, 44 months; range, 24-125 months). Sixty-three patients (62%) had an inlay humeral tray (inlay group) and 39 (38%) had an onlay tray (onlay group). All patients underwent preoperative and postoperative evaluations, including measures of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), shoulder range of motion (ROM) testing, and radiographic imaging. Clinical relevance of changes in PROs and ROM was evaluated using published values for minimal clinically important differences. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ by demographic characteristics except for a higher proportion of women in the inlay group (75%) than in the onlay group (56%) (P=.04). Preoperative PROs and ROM were not significantly different between groups. At final follow-up, PROs and ROM were not different between groups in terms of statistical significance or clinical relevance. We found no significant differences in the rate of baseplate loosening (inlay, 3.2% vs onlay, 5.1%, P=.63), revision surgery (inlay, 0% vs onlay 5.1%, P=.07), acromial stress fracture (inlay, 3.2% vs onlay, 5.1%, P=.63), prosthesis dislocation (inlay, 0% vs onlay, 2.6%, P=.20), or scapular notching (inlay, 21% vs onlay, 7.7%, P=.08). CONCLUSION: At two-year minimum follow-up, the position of the humeral tray in RSA prostheses (either inlay or onlay) for cuff tear arthropathy was not associated with PROs, shoulder ROM, or rates of complications, including baseplate loosening, acromial stress fracture, and scapular notching.

Iatrogenic Excessive Clavicle Resection as a Complication of Arthroscopic Distal Clavicle Excision.

Arthroscopic distal clavicle excision (DCE) is a reliable procedure to treat acromioclavicular joint arthritis. Typically, only 1 to 2 cm of distal clavicle should be removed. Resection of too much bone can lead to instability of the joint or lack of support to the shoulder. We describe 2 patients who had excessive clavicular bone removed arthroscopically, leading to irreparable clavicular pain and dysfunction. The 2 female patients, ages 56 and 60 years, presented to our clinic with continued pain after DCE. Both had pain intractable with nonoperative treatment and loss of range of motion of the shoulder. Radiographs revealed a distal clavicle defect of 7.5 cm in 1 patient. The second patient had a 2-cm distal clavicular defect with an adjacent 2-cm clavicle bone fragment between the defect and residual clavicle shaft. Both underwent surgery with subtotal claviculectomy for pain control. During surgery, 1 patient had a subclavian vein requiring vascular repair. After 1 year of follow-up, both patients had reduced but residual pain and restricted range of motion. Only 1 patient could rejoin her preinjury occupation. Neither patient could continue with preinjury recreational sports. Excessive removal of the distal clavicle during DCE can result in continued pain and disability of the shoulder. Methods to visualize the anatomy of the distal clavicle and its articulation to the acromion should be considered when performing this operation arthroscopically. Reoperation to remove subtotal clavicle has good clinical outcomes but may lead to serious complications due to the proximity to major neurovascular structures. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(1):e57-e60.].

Use of custom glenoid components for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to evaluate a custom reverse total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency, emphasizing the challenges with this approach, including short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications. METHODS: This was a single-institution, retrospective series of 29 patients between January 2017 and December 2022 for whom a custom glenoid component was created for extensive glenoid bone loss. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at intervals for up to 5 years. All received preoperative physical examinations, plain radiographs, and computed tomography (CT). Intra- and postoperative complications are reported. RESULTS: Of 29 patients, delays resulted in only undergoing surgery, and in three of those, the implant did not match the glenoid. For those three, the time from CT scan to implantation averaged 7.6 months (range, 6.1-10.7 months), compared with 5.5 months (range, 2-8.6 months) for those whose implants fit. In patients with at least 2-year follow-up (n=9), no failures occurred. Significant improvements were observed in all patient-reported outcome measures in those nine patients (American Shoulder and Elbow Score, P<0.01; Simple Shoulder Test, P=0.02; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, P<0.01; Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index, P<0.01). Range of motion improved for forward flexion and abduction (P=0.03 for both) and internal rotation up the back (P=0.02). Pain and satisfaction also improved (P<0.01 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged time (>6 months) from CT scan to device implantation resulted in bone loss that rendered the implants unusable. Satisfactory short-term radiographic and clinical follow-up can be achieved with a well-fitting device. Level of evidence: III.

Anatomic glenohumeral arthroplasty: State of the art.

Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty in its modern form where it reproduces the normal shoulder has been utilized clinically for more than half a century. As the technology and the designs have changed to recreate the humeral and glenoid sides of the joint, the sophistication of design has resulted in the growing number of cases annually worldwide. This increase is due in part to the increasing number of indications that the prosthesis can treat with successful results. On the humeral side, there have been design changes to better reflect the proximal humeral anatomy, and humeral stems are increasingly placed safely without cement. Platform systems which allow conversion of a failed arthroplasty to a reverse configuration without stem extraction is another design change. Similarly, there has been increasing utilization of short stem and stemless humeral components. Extensive experience with shorter stem and stemless devices, however, has yet to demonstrate the purported advantages of these devices, as recent studies have demonstrated equivalent blood loss, fracture rates, operative times, and outcome scores. Easier revision with these shorter stems remains to be definitively established, with only one study comparing the ease of revision between stem types. On the glenoid side, hybrid cementless glenoids, inlay glenoids, cementless all-polyethylene glenoids, and augmented glenoids have all been investigated; however, the indications for these devices remain unclear. Lastly, innovative surgical approaches to implanting shoulder arthroplasty and the use of patient specific guides and computerized planning, while interesting concepts, still await validation before they are utilized on a widespread basis. While reverse shoulder arthroplasty has been increasingly used to reconstruct the arthritic shoulder, anatomic glenohumeral replacement maintains a significant role in the armamentarium of the shoulder surgeon.

Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, glenoid bone loss and an intact rotator cuff: an algorithmic approach and review of the literature.

In patients with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) and preserved rotator cuff function who have failed nonoperative treatment, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has historically been the preferred surgical treatment. Shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss setting is technically demanding. Many techniques have been described to deal with glenoid bone loss including eccentric reaming, bone grafting, augmented glenoid baseplates, and patient-specific implants. Still, the decision to perform anatomic TSA or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is often unclear, especially as the use of RTSA increases and evolves, making historical studies less useful when considering modern implant designs. RTSA has been advocated as a solution for patients with severe glenoid bone loss with intact rotator cuff function. Moreover, in appropriately selected patients, good outcomes can be achieved without the use of bone grafting or augmented baseplates. In cases of severe glenoid bone loss, RTSA can be performed with reaming the glenoid flat such that the baseplate rests on native glenoid bone. We have previously reported excellent prosthetic survival with this technique at 5-year follow-up. The purpose of this article is to highlight our suggested treatment algorithm for glenohumeral OA with glenoid bone loss and intact rotator cuff. Specifically, we focus on situations where RTSA may be preferred as opposed to anatomic TSA, and our suggested approach to managing bone loss intraoperatively in this complex patient population.

Narrative review of influence of prosthesis lateralization on clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: glenoid vs. humerus vs. combined.

Background and Objective: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has become a common orthopaedic procedure, with a growing number of cases annually for multiple indications, such as rotator cuff arthropathy, osteoarthritis, or fractures of the proximal humerus, to reduce pain and restore shoulder mobility. Prosthesis design and various recent improvements aim to enhance range of motion (ROM) and stability and to limit component loosening and other potential complications. Many of these well-known issues could theoretically be improved by glenoid, humeral, or combined component lateralization. The objective of this article is to provide an up-to-date literature overview, present available options, and discuss the rationale behind lateralization of certain components, as well as their combined impact on outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: PubMed and Scopus databases from 2003 to 2023 were searched and screened for studies, including systematic reviews, on the influence of glenoid, humeral, and combined component lateralization that served for narrative review of rationale behind such design. Key Content and Findings: Currently, a number of computer simulations, anatomic studies, and limited clinical references aim to support the rationale behind glenoid augmentation, variable humeral neck-shaft angle (NSA), or humeral tray design. Conclusions: The utility of lateralization has not yet been clinically established. Randomized, long-term clinical outcome studies are still needed to reach a verdict going beyond surgeon preference and case-specific indications.

Highly Porous Fluorapatite/ß-1,3-Glucan Composite for Bone Tissue Regeneration: Characterization and In-Vitro Assessment of Biomedical Potential.

A novel fluorapatite/glucan composite ("FAP/glucan") was developed for the treatment of bone defects. Due to the presence of polysaccharide polymer (ß-1,3-glucan), the composite is highly flexible and thus very convenient for surgery. Its physicochemical and microstructural properties were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), mercury intrusion, mechanical testing and compared with the reference material, which was a hydroxyapatite/glucan composite ("HAP/glucan") with hydroxyapatite granules (HAP) instead of FAP. It was found that FAP/glucan has a higher density and lower porosity than the reference material. The correlation between the Young's modulus and the compressive strength between the materials is different in a dry and wet state. Bioactivity assessment showed a lower ability to form apatite and lower uptake of apatite-forming ions from the simulated body fluid by FAP/glucan material in comparison to the reference material. Moreover, FAP/glucan was determined to be of optimal fluoride release capacity for osteoblasts growth requirements. The results of cell culture experiments showed that fluoride-containing biomaterial was non-toxic, enhanced the synthesis of osteocalcin and stimulated the adhesion of osteogenic cells.