Impact of constrained humeral liner on impingement-free range of motion and impingement type in reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a computer simulation.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation is a major complication of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The humeral liner may be changed to a constrained type when stability does not improve by increasing glenosphere size or lateralization with implants, and patients, particularly women with obesity, have risks of periprosthetic instability that may be secondary to hinge adduction on the thorax, but there are few reports on its impact on the range of motion (ROM). This study aimed to determine the influence of humeral liner constraint on impingement-free ROM and impingement type using an RSA computer simulation model. METHODS: A virtual simulation model was created using 3D measurement software for conducting a simulation study. This study included 25 patients with rotator cuff tears and rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Impingement-free ROM and impingement patterns were measured during flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, external rotation, and internal rotation. Twenty-five cases with a total of 4 patterns of 2 multiplied by 2, making a total of 100 simulations: glenosphere (38 mm normal type vs. lateralized type) and humeral liner constraint (normal type vs. constrained type). There were 4 combinations: normal glenosphere and normal humeral liner, normal glenosphere and constrained humeral liner, lateralized glenosphere and normal humeral liner, and lateralized glenosphere and constrained humeral liner. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in all impingement-free ROM in 1-way analysis of variance (abduction: P = .01, adduction: P < .01, flexion: P = .01, extension: P = .02, external rotation: P < .01, and internal rotation: P < .01). Tukey's post hoc tests showed that the impingement-free ROM was reduced during abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation with the combination of the normal glenosphere and constrained humeral liner compared with the other combinations, and improved by glenoid lateralization compared with the combination of the lateralized glenosphere and constrained humeral liner. In the impingement pattern, the Pearson χ2 test showed significantly greater proportion of impingement of the humeral liner into the superior part of the glenoid neck in abduction occurring in the combination of the normal glenosphere and constrained humeral liner group compared with the other groups (P < .01). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that the combination of the normal glenosphere and constrained humeral liner was significantly different from that of the lateralized glenosphere and constrained humeral liner (P < .01). Using constrained liners resulted in early impingement on the superior part of the glenoid neck in the normal glenosphere, whereas glenoid lateralization increased impingement-free ROM. CONCLUSION: This RSA computer simulation model demonstrated that constrained humeral liners led to decreased impingement-free ROM. However, using the lateralized glenosphere improved abduction ROM.

Navigation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: how the lateralization of glenosphere can affect the clinical outcome.

INTRODUCTION: One of the main causes of RSA failure is attributable to the malpositioning of the glenoid component. Initial experiences with computer-assisted surgery have shown promising results in increasing the accuracy and repeatability of placement of the glenoid component and screws. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional clinical results, in terms of joint mobility and pain, by correlating them with intraoperative data regarding the positioning of the glenoid component. The hypothesis was that the lateralization more than 25 mm of the glenosphere can led to better stability of the prosthesis but should pay in term of a reduced range of movement and increased pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 50 patients were enrolled between October 2018 and May 2022; they underwent RSA implantation assisted by GPS navigation system. Active ROM, ASES score and VAS pain scale were recorded before surgery. Preoperative data about glenoid inclination and version were collected by pre-op X-Rays an CT. Intraoperative data-inclination, version, medialization and lateralization of the glenoid component-were recorded using computer-assisted surgery. 46 patients had been further clinically and radiographically re-evaluated at 3-months, 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years follow-up. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant correlation between anteposition and glenosphere lateralization value (DM - 6.057 mm; p = 0.043). Furthermore a statistically significant correlation has been shown between abduction movement and the lateralization value (DM - 7.723 mm; p = 0.015). No other statistically significant associations were found when comparing the values of glenoid inclination and version with the range of motion achieved by the patients after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: We observed that the patients with the best anteposition and abduction results had a glenosphere lateralization between 18 and 22 mm. When increasing the lateralization above 22 mm or reducing it below 18 mm, on the other hand, both movements considered decreased their range. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Case Series; Treatment Study.

Posteroinferior relevant scapular neck offset in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: key player for motion and friction-type impingement in a computer model.

BACKGROUND: Range of motion (ROM) and prevention of notching remain a challenge for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Both may be affected by the morphology of the scapula. The purpose of this study was to define anteroinferior (a) and posteroinferior (p) relevant scapular neck offset (RSNO) and to examine the hypothesis that pRSNO is significantly smaller than aRSNO, and influences rigid body motion (RBM). Adapting glenosphere implantation strategies may therefore be of value. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this computer model study, we used deidentified computed tomographic scans of 22 patients (11 male and 11 female; mean age: 72.9 years) with massive cuff tears without joint space narrowing. Eight RSA glenoid configurations were tested with a constant neck-shaft angle (145°). Two baseplate types (25 mm; 25 + 3 mm lateralized) and 4 glenospheres (GS) (36 mm; 36 +2 mm of eccentricity; 39 mm; 39 + 3 mm) were used. RSNO was defined as the standardized measurement of the horizontal distance from the inferior extent of the GS to the bony margin of the scapula after baseplate positioning (flush to inferior glenoid extent; neutral position: 0° inclination and 0° version-both software computed). RESULTS: There was a highly significant difference between pRSNO and aRSNO for both genders (P < .001). pRSNO was always smaller than aRSNO. pRSNO was strongly correlated with external rotation (ERO: 0.84) and extension (EXT: 0.74) and moderately correlated with global ROM (GROM: 0.68). There was a moderately strong correlation between aRSNO and internal rotation (IRO: 0.69). pRSNO was strongly correlated with aRSNO, EXT, ERO, IRO, adduction (ADD) and GROM (0.82, 0.72, 0,8, 0.71, 0.82, 0.76) in female patients and with EXT and ERO (0.82, 0.89) in male patients. The median pRSNO allowing for at least 45° ERO and 40° EXT was 14.2 mm for men and 13.8 mm for women. For all patients and models, pRSNO ≥14 mm increased EXT, ERO, and GROM significantly compared with pRSNO <14 mm (P < .001). The combination of lateralization and inferior overhang (eccentricity) led to the most significant increase of pRSNO for each GS size (P < .001). CONCLUSION: This is one of the first RSA modeling studies evaluating nonarthritic glenoids of both genders. The lateral scapular extent to glenoid relationship is asymmetric. pRSNO is always smaller than aRSNO for both genders and was a critical variable for EXT and ERO, demonstrating additional strong correlation with aRSNO, IRO, ADD, and GROM in female patients. pRSNO ≥14 mm was a safe value to prevent friction-type impingement. Combining increased glenosphere size, lateralization, and inferior overhang gives the best results in this computer-simulated setting.

Influence of subscapularis stiffness with glenosphere lateralization on physiological external rotation limits after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Repair of the subscapularis following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) remains a controversial topic among surgeons. Poor rotator cuff muscle quality is associated with increased musculotendinous stiffness, and the subsequent effect of compromised tissue repair on RSA functional outcomes remains unclear. The objective was to investigate the influence of subscapularis stiffness together with glenoid component lateralization on pre- and postimpingement joint mechanics during external rotation after RSA. METHODS: A validated finite element model incorporating the Zimmer Trabecular Metal reverse system was used. The deltoid and subscapularis tendon were tensioned and wrapped around the joint prior to controlled shoulder external rotation. Baseline subscapularis stiffness, determined from cadaveric testing, was varied to 80%, 120% and 140% of baseline, to simulate a range of pliability associated with fatty infiltration and fibrosis. We evaluated the effects of varying subscapularis stiffness and the corresponding variation in joint tension with varying glenosphere lateralization (2, 4, and 10 mm) on the torque required to externally rotate the shoulder and the impingement/subluxation risk. RESULTS: Prior to any impingement, the torques required to externally rotate the shoulder ranged from 22-47 Nm across the range of parameters studied, with the greatest torques required for the 10-mm glenosphere lateralization. The impact of increasing subscapularis stiffness on torque requirements was most pronounced at the 10-mm lateralization, as well. A 20% increase in subscapularis stiffness necessitated a 7%-14% increase in preimpingement torque, whereas a 40% stiffness increase was associated with a 12%-27% increase in torque. Torque was proportional to lateralization. When lateralization was increased from 2 to 4 mm, the preimpingement torque increased by 10%-13%, whereas a 10-mm lateralization necessitated a 35%-62% torque increase relative to 2 mm of lateralization. Increased subscapularis stiffness did not limit impingement-free range of motion or substantially decrease postimpingement subluxation in this model. DISCUSSION: Mechanical gains achieved through lateralization may be hindered by increased torque demands, especially when a stiffer subscapularis is repaired. As lateralization increases subscapularis tension, greater torque is required to externally rotate the shoulder. The torque required for external rotation has been reported between 15-50 Nm. Subscapularis repair with the simulated increases in stiffness requires relative increases in torque that the reconstructed shoulder may not be able to physically produce to rotate the glenohumeral joint, particularly at 10-mm lateralization. These results suggest that subscapularis repair may not be indicated in cases where a lateralized glenoid component is used and the subscapularis is compromised.

Impact of humeral and glenoid component variations on range of motion in reverse geometry total shoulder arthroplasty: a standardized computer model study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple modifications of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) since the first Grammont design have developed to improve range of motion (ROM) and avoid notching. The effect of these changes in shoulder kinematics and the best compromise for ROM is still under debate. This computer simulation study evaluates the influence of humeral design, humeral neck-shaft angle (NSA), glenoid lateralization, and glenoid eccentricity on ROM of RTSA. METHODS: We created a 3-dimensional computer model from computed tomography scans of 13 patients with primary osteoarthritis simulating implantation of a standardized reverse shoulder arthroplasty. We analyzed the effect of 4 different variables on impingement-free ROM: humeral design (inlay vs. semi-inlay vs. onlay), humeral NSA (135° vs. 145° vs. 155°), glenoid lateralization, and glenoid eccentricity on ROM. RESULTS: The use of different humeral stem designs did not have a significant effect on total global ROM. Reducing NSA demonstrated a significant increase in adduction, and external and internal rotation in adduction, whereas a decrease in abduction and external rotation in abduction. Glenosphere lateralization was the most effective method for increasing total global ROM (P < .0001); however, extreme lateralization (+12 mm) did not show significant benefit compared with moderate lateralization (+4 mm). Glenosphere eccentricity increased only adduction and internal rotation in adduction. CONCLUSION: Only glenoid lateralization has a significant effect on increasing total global ROM in RTSA. The use of the semi-inlay 145° model combined with 4 mm lateralization and 2 mm inferior eccentricity represents the middle ground and the most universal approach in RTSA.

In vivo reverse total shoulder arthroplasty contact mechanics.

BACKGROUND: Several in vitro studies have investigated the biomechanics of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA); however, few in vivo studies exist. The purpose of this study was to examine in vivo RTSA contact mechanics in clinically relevant arm positions. Our hypothesis was that contact would preferentially occur in the inferior region of the polyethylene liner. METHODS: Forty patients receiving a primary RTSA were recruited for a prospective cohort study. All patients received the same implant design with a nonretentive liner. Stereo radiographs were taken at maximal active range of motion. Model-based radiostereometric analysis was used to identify implant position. Contact area between the polyethylene and glenosphere was measured as the geometric intersection of the 2 components and compared with respect to polyethylene liner size, arm position, and relative position within the liner. RESULTS: There were no differences in the proportion of contact area in any arm position between polyethylene liner sizes, ranging from 30% ± 17% to 38% ± 23% for 36-mm liners and 32% ± 21% to 41% ± 25% for 42-mm liners. Contact was equally distributed between the superior and inferior halves of the liner at each arm position (P = .06-.79); however, greater contact area was observed in the outer radius of the liner when the arm was flexed (P = .002). CONCLUSION: This study highlights that contact mechanics are similar between 36- and 42-mm liners. Contact area is generally equally distributed throughout the liner across the range of motion and not preferentially in the inferior region as hypothesized.

Implant positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty has an impact on acromial stresses.

BACKGROUND: Acromial fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been reported to occur in up to 7% of patients. Whereas RSA implant parameters can be configured to alter stability, range of motion, and deltoid mechanical advantage, little is known about the effect of these changes on acromial stresses. The purpose of this finite element study, therefore, was to evaluate the effect of RSA humeral and glenoid implant position on acromial stresses. METHODS: Solid body models of 10 RSA reconstructed cadaveric shoulders (38-mm glenosphere, 155° neck-shaft angle) were input into custom software that calculated the deltoid force required to achieve an abduction arc of motion (0°-120°). The resulting forces were applied to a finite element study model of the scapula to ascertain the acromial stress distribution. This process was repeated for varying glenoid inferiorizations (0, +2.5, +5.0 mm), lateralizations (0, +5.0, +10.0 mm), and humeral lateralizations (-5.0, 0, +5.0 mm). RESULTS: Glenosphere inferiorization decreased maximum principal stress in the acromion by 2.6% (0.7 ± 0.2 MPa; P = .007). Glenosphere lateralization produced a greater effect, increasing stress by 17.2% (4.1 ± 0.9 MPa; P = .001). Humeral lateralization caused an insignificant increase in stress by 1.7% (0.5 ± 0.2 MPa; P = .066), and humeral medialization decreased stress by 1.4% (0.8 ± 0.3 MPa; P = .038). The highest acromial stresses occurred in the region where fractures most commonly occur, Levy type II, at 33.7 ± 3.81 MPa (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Glenosphere positioning has a significant effect on acromial stress after RSA. Inferior and medial positioning of the glenosphere serves to decrease acromial stress, thought to be primarily due to increased deltoid mechanical advantage. The greatest effect magnitudes are seen at lower abduction angles, where the humerus is more frequently positioned.