Biomechanical Characteristics of Glenosphere Orientation Based on Tilting Angle and Overhang Changes in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Background: Glenoid position and inclination are important factors in protecting against scapular notching, which is the most common complication that directly affects the longevity of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical characteristics of glenosphere orientation, comparing neutral tilt, inferior overhang with an eccentric glenosphere at the same placement of baseplate, and inferior tilt after 10° inferior reaming in the lower part of the glenoid in RSA. Methods: Nine cadaveric shoulders were tested with 5 combinations of customized glenoid components: a centric glenosphere was combined with a standard baseplate (group A); an eccentric glenosphere to provide 4-mm inferior overhang than the centric glenosphere was combined with a standard baseplate (group B); a centric glenosphere was combined with a wedge-shaped baseplate tilted inferiorly by 10° with the same center of rotation (group C); an eccentric glenosphere was attached to a wedge-shaped baseplate (group D); and 10° inferior reaming was performed on the lower part of the glenoid to apply 10° inferior tilt, with a centric glenosphere secured to the standard baseplate for simulation of clinical tilt (group E). Impingement-free angles for adduction, abduction, forward flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation were measured. The capability of the deltoid moment arm for abduction and forward flexion, deltoid length, and geometric analysis for adduction engagement were evaluated. Results: Compared with neutral tilt, inferior tilt at the same position showed no significant difference in impingement-free angle, moment arm capability, and deltoid length. However, group D resulted in better biomechanical properties than a central position, regardless of inferior tilt. Group E demonstrated a greater range of adduction, internal and external rotation, and higher abduction and forward flexion capability with distalization, compared to corresponding parameters for inferior tilt with a customized wedge-shaped baseplate. Conclusions: A 10° inferior tilt of the glenosphere, without changing the position of the baseplate, had no benefit in terms of the impingement-free angle and deltoid moment arm. However, an eccentric glenosphere had a significant advantage, regardless of inferior tilt. Inferior tilt through 10° inferior reaming showed better biomechanical results than neutral tilt due to the distalization effect.

The Influence of Component Design and Positioning on Soft-Tissue Tensioning and Complications in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Review.

¼ Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was designed to function in the rotator cuff deficient shoulder by adjusting the glenohumeral center of rotation (COR) to maximize deltoid function.¼ Adjustments in the COR ultimately lead to changes in resting tension of the deltoid and remaining rotator cuff, which can affect implant stability and risk of stress fracture.¼ Soft-tissue balance and complication profiles can be affected by humeral component (version, neck shaft angle, and inlay vs. onlay) and glenoid component (sagittal placement, version, inclination, and lateralization) design and application.¼ A good understanding of the effects on soft-tissue balance and complication profile is critical for surgeons to best provide optimal patient outcomes.

Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy - the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility.

BACKGROUND: The two major reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs are the Grammont design and the lateralized design. Even if the lateralized design is biomechanically favored, the classic Grammont prosthesis continues to be used. Functional and subjective patient scores as well as implant survival described in the literature so far are comparable to the lateralized design. A pure comparison of how the RSA design influences outcome in patients has not yet been determined. The aim of this study was a comparison focused on patients with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). METHODS: We analyzed registry data from 696 CTA patients prospectively collected between 2012 and 2020 in two specialized orthopedic centers up to 2 years post-RSA with the same follow-up time points (6,12 24 months). Complete teres minor tears were excluded. Three groups were defined: group 1 (inlay, 155° humeral inclination, 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (n = 50)), group 2 (inlay, 135° humeral inclination, 36 + 4 mm lateralized glenosphere (n = 141)) and group 3 (onlay, 145° humeral inclination, + 3 mm lateralized base plate, 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (n = 35)) We compared group differences in clinical outcomes (e.g., active and passive range of motion (ROM), abduction strength, Constant-Murley score (CS)), radiographic evaluations of prosthetic position, scapular anatomy and complications using mixed models adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: The final analysis included 226 patients. The overall adjusted p-value of the CS for all time-points showed no significant difference (p = 0.466). Flexion of group 3 (mean, 155° (SD 13)) was higher than flexion of group 1 (mean, 142° (SD 18) and 2 (mean, 132° (SD 18) (p < 0.001). Values for abduction of group 3 (mean, 145° (SD 23)) were bigger than those of group 1 (mean, 130° (SD 22)) and group 2 (mean, 118° (SD 25)) (p < 0.001). Mean external rotation for group 3 (mean, 41° (SD 23)) and group 2 (mean, 38° (SD 17)) was larger than external rotation of group 1 (mean, 24° (SD 16)) (p < 0.001); a greater proportion of group 2 (78%) and 3 (69%) patients reached L3 level on internal rotation compared to group 1 (44%) (p = 0.003). Prosthesis position measurements were similar, but group 3 had significantly less scapular notching (14%) versus 24% (group 2) and 50% (group 1) (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome scores of different RSA designs for CTA revealed comparable results. However, CTA patients with a lateralized and distalized RSA configuration were associated with achieving better flexion and abduction with less scapular notching. A better rotation was associated with either of the lateralized RSA designs in comparison with the classic Grammont prosthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III.

Mid-term outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty now exceeds the incidence of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Previous mid-to-long-term studies on rTSA have reported a decrease in shoulder function as follow-up increased. The purpose of this study was to provide data on mid-term outcomes and implant survival in a series focusing on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographic information such as age at surgery, revision surgery status, BMI, and smoking status were recorded. The clinical endpoints measured in this study were range of motion scores (forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation) and patient reported outcomes (VAS, ASES, SST). Radiographic variables captured included preoperative glenoid morphology, humeral lucency, and glenoid loosening. RESULTS: Fifty-six shoulders were included in this study. The overall mean age at surgery was 72.5 ± 7.2 years with an average follow-up time of 6.8 ± 3.5 years. The mean BMI was 28.1 ± 5.5. All measurements of range of motion saw significant and sustained improvements. Overall, forward elevation improved from 82° preoperatively to 133° postoperatively (p < 0.01). External rotation improved from 23° preoperatively to 36° (p < 0.01), while internal rotation improved from L3 to L1 (p = 0.05). ASES scores improved from 31 preoperatively to 70 postoperatively (p < 0.01). SST scores improved from 2 preoperatively to 7 (p < 0.01). VAS pain index scores improved from 6 to 2 following surgery (p < 0.01). Postoperative scapular notching was seen in 18 patients at final follow-up. Glenoid loosening was seen in 3 shoulders. Humeral loosening was seen in 18 shoulders. Tuberosity resorption was seen in 8 shoulders. The 5 year survival estimate was 98%, and the 10 year survival estimate was 83%. CONCLUSION: In this series, we found that rTSA provides mid-term improvements in range of motion in patients while reducing pain levels. When considered together, this demonstrates that most patients undergoing rTSA can have excellent use of their shoulder from age at surgery to end-of-life.

Mini-augmented glenoid baseplate and mini-humeral tray reverse total shoulder arthroplasty implant comparisons: two-year clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Augmented glenoid baseplate and offset humeral tray reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) implants may decrease the mechanical impingement that creates scapular notching and improve shoulder function. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of three different RTSA glenoid baseplate and offset humeral tray combinations for patient-reported shoulder function, pain and instability, radiographic imaging evidence of glenoid baseplate or humeral stem subsidence and migration, bony changes associated with implant loosening, and scapular notching over the initial 2 years post-RTSA. Primary outcomes included active shoulder mobility, perceived function, pain, instability, scapular notching, and implant survival. METHODS: Sixty-seven patients from 6 research sites received one of three different glenoid baseplate and humeral tray combinations. Group 1 (n = 21) received a mini-augmented glenoid baseplate with a standard humeral tray; Group 2 (n = 23) received a standard glenoid baseplate and a mini-humeral tray with 3 trunnion offset options; Group 3 (n = 23) received both a mini-augmented glenoid baseplate and a mini-humeral tray with 3 trunnion offset options. Subjects underwent radiologic evaluation, completed the ASES scale, the EQ-5D-5L quality of life scale, VAS shoulder pain and instability questions, and active shoulder mobility measurements pre-operatively, and 6-weeks, 6-months, 1-2 years post-RTSA. RESULTS: Improved active shoulder mobility, quality of life, perceived function, decreased shoulder pain and instability, excellent implant survival and minimal scapular notching were observed for all groups. Group 3 had better overall active shoulder mobility than the other groups and better perceived function than Group 1. CONCLUSION: The group that received the mini-augmented glenoid baseplate and mini-humeral tray combination had better overall active shoulder flexion, external rotation at 90° abduction, and internal rotation. This group also had better perceived shoulder function compared to the group that received a mini-augmented glenoid baseplate with a standard humeral tray.

Lateralization and distalization shoulder angles do not predict outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: In reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), there are a plethora of measurements regarding implant lateralization and distalization to optimize the center of rotation. Two specific measurements known as the "lateralization shoulder angle" (LSA) and "distalization shoulder angle" (DSA) have been the recent focus of studies to assess their association with RSA and postoperative function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic clinical value of the LSA and DSA in a large cohort of patients with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) who were treated with different RSA systems. METHODS: Two local shoulder arthroplasty registries were reviewed for all RSA patients documented to have undergone a radiologic assessment and complete 2-year follow-up examination. The main inclusion criterion was primary RSA in patients with CTA. Patients with either a complete teres minor tear, os acromiale, or acromial stress fracture reported between the time of surgery and the 24-month follow-up were excluded. Five RSA implant systems with 4 neck-shaft angles (NSAs) were assessed. The Constant score, Subjective Shoulder Value, and range of motion at 2 years were correlated with both the LSA and DSA assessed on 6-month anteroposterior radiographs. Linear and parabolic univariable regressions were calculated for both shoulder angles, for each prosthesis system, and for the entire patient cohort. RESULTS: Between May 2006 and November 2019, there were a total of 630 CTA patients who had undergone primary RSA. Of this large cohort of patients, 270 were treated with the Promos Reverse prosthesis system (NSA, 155°); 44, Aequalis Reversed II (NSA, 155°); 62, Lima SMR Reverse (NSA, 150°); 25, Aequalis Ascend Flex (NSA, 145°); and 229, Univers Revers (NSA, 135°). The mean LSA was 78° (standard deviation [SD], 10°; range, 6°-107°), and the mean DSA was 51° (SD, 10°; range, 7°-91°). The average Constant score at 24 months' follow-up was 68.1 points (SD, 13 points; range, 13-96 points). Neither the linear nor parabolic regression calculations for the LSA or DSA revealed significant associations with any of the clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Different patients may achieve different clinical outcomes despite having identical LSA and DSA values. There is no association between angular radiographic measurements and 2-year functional outcomes after RSA.

Radiographic comparison of eccentric stemmed vs. concentric stemless prosthetic humeral head positioning after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining premorbid proximal humeral positioning is an essential consideration of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), as malposition of the prosthetic humeral head can result in poor clinical outcomes. Stemless aTSA prosthetic heads are usually concentric, while stemmed aTSA prosthetic heads are typically eccentric in nature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the ability to restore native humeral head position between stemmed (eccentric) vs. stemless (concentric) aTSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Postoperative anteroposterior radiographs of 52 stemmed and 46 stemless aTSAs were analyzed. A best-fit circle was created using previously published and validated techniques to represent the premorbid humeral head position and axis of rotation. This circle was juxtaposed with another circle following the arc of the implant head. Next, the offset in center of rotation (COR), radius of curvature (RoC), and humeral head height above the greater tuberosity (HHH) were measured. Additionally, based on prior studies, an offset of >3 mm at any point between the implant head surface and premorbid best-fit circle was considered significant and further classified as overstuffed or understuffed. RESULTS: RoC deviation was significantly greater in the stemmed cohort than the stemless cohort (1.19 ± 1.37 mm vs. 0.65 ± 1.17 mm, P = .025). There was no statistically significant difference in deviation from premorbid humeral head between the stemmed and stemless cohorts for COR (3.20 ± 2.28 mm vs. 3.23 ± 2.09 mm, P = .800) or HHH (1.12 ± 3.27 mm vs. 0.92 ± 2.70 mm, P = .677). When comparing overstuffed implants to appropriately placed implants, there was a significant difference in overall COR deviation in stemmed implants (3.93 ± 2.51 mm vs. 1.92 ± 1.05 mm, P < .001). Superoinferior COR deviation (stemmed: 2.38 ± 3.01 mm vs. -0.61 ± 1.59 mm, P < .001; stemless: 2.70 ± 1.75 mm vs. -0.16 ± 1.87 mm, P < .001), mediolateral COR deviation (stemmed: 0.79 ± 2.65 mm vs. -0.62 ± 1.27 mm, P = .020; stemless: 0.40 ± 1.41 mm vs. -1.13 ± 1.96 mm, P = .020), and HHH (stemmed: 3.61 ± 2.73 mm vs. 0.50 ± 1.31 mm, P < .001; stemless: 3.98 ± 1.18 mm vs. 0.53 ± 1.41 mm, P < .001) were significantly different between overstuffed implants and appropriate implants in both the stemmed and stemless cohorts. DISCUSSION: Stemless and stemmed aTSA implants have similar rates of reproducing satisfactory postoperative humeral head COR with both producing COR deviation most commonly in the superomedial direction. Deviation in HHH contributes to overstuffing in both stemmed and stemless implants, COR deviation contributes to overstuffing in stemmed implants, while RoC (humeral head size) is not associated with overstuffing. Based on this study, it appears that neither eccentric nor concentric prosthetic heads are superior in recreating premorbid humeral head position.

Impact of humeral stem length on calcar resorption in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Use of standard-length anatomic total shoulder (TSA) humeral stems has been associated with high rates of medial calcar bone loss. Calcar bone loss has been attributed to stress shielding, debris-induced osteolysis, and undiagnosed infection. Short stem and canal-sparing humeral components may provide more optimal stress distribution and thus lower rates of calcar bone loss related to stress shielding. The purpose of this study is to determine whether implant length will affect the rate and severity of medial calcar resorption. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on TSA patients treated with three different-length humeral implants (canal-sparing, short, and standard-length designs). Patients were matched 1:1:1 based on both gender and age (±4 years), resulting in 40 patients per cohort. Radiographic changes in medial calcar bone were evaluated and graded on a 4-point scale, from the initial postoperative radiographs to those at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS: The presence of any degree of medial calcar resorption demonstrated an overall rate of 73.3% at one year. At 3 months, calcar resorption was observed in 20% of the canal-sparing cohort, while the short and standard designs demonstrated resorption in 55% and 52.5%, respectively (P = .002). At 12 months, calcar resorption was seen in 65% of the canal-sparing design, while both the short and standard designs had a 77.5% rate of resorption (P = .345). The severity of calcar resorption for the canal-sparing cohort was significantly lower at all time points when compared to the short stem (3 months, P = .004; 6 months, P = .003; 12 months, P = .004) and at 3 months when compared to the standard-length stem (P = .009). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with canal-sparing TSA humeral components have significantly lower rates of early calcar resorption with less severe bone loss when compared to patients treated using short and standard-length designs.

Medium-term results of inlay vs. onlay humeral components for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a New Zealand Joint Registry study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare medium-term results of inlay and onlay humeral components in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Specifically, we report differences in revision rate and functional outcomes between the 2 designs. METHODS: The 3 most used inlay (in-RSA) and onlay (on-RSA) implants by volume from the New Zealand Joint Registry were included in the study. In-RSA was defined as having a humeral tray that recessed within the metaphyseal bone, whereas on-RSA was defined as having a humeral tray that rested on the epiphyseal osteotomy surface. The primary outcome was revision up to 8 years postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), implant survival, and revision cause for in-RSA and on-RSA as well as individual prostheses. RESULTS: There were 6707 patients (5736 in-RSA; 971 on-RSA) included in the study. For all causes, in-RSA demonstrated a lower revision rate compared to on-RSA (revision rate/100 component years: in-RSA 0.665, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.569-0.768; on-RSA 1.010, 95% CI 0.673-1.415). However, the mean 6-month OSS was higher for the on-RSA group (mean difference 2.20, 95% CI 1.37-3.03; P < .001). However, this was not clinically significant. At 5 years, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to the OSS. CONCLUSION: The medium-term survival of in-RSA was higher than that of on-RSA. However, functional outcomes at 6 months were better for on-RSA compared to in-RSA. Further follow-up is required to understand the long-term survivorship and functional outcomes between these designs.

A survey and biomechanical analysis of the feasibility of the thumb test for determining the cancellous bone quality for stemless shoulder prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of the thumb test for assessing the cancellous bone quality at the resection plane of the proximal humerus on determining the application of a stemless shoulder prosthesis remains unclear. This study was conducted to survey the current utilization of the thumb test among surgeons and to investigate biomechanical features of the thumb test. METHOD: A survey among shoulder surgeons who had experience with stemless prostheses was conducted to investigate the current utilization of preoperative assessments and intraoperative thumb test when applying stemless prosthesis. Biomechanical experiments for the thumb test using artificial bone models were performed to assess the compression force, contact pressure and area. According to the preliminary survey, three compression techniques were assessed: compression perpendicular to the surface with thumb pad (P-pad technique) or tip of the thumb (P-tip technique), or compression in the vertical direction simulating compression along the longitudinal axis of the humeral shaft with tip-pad of the thumb (H-axis technique). The contact area was separated into three subregions (proximal, middle and distal) to assess the distribution of contact pressure. RESULTS: Among 38 surgeons, 66% utilized the thumb test intraoperatively. The P-pad technique was more frequently applied than the P-tip or H-axis techniques (80%, 4% and 16%, respectively). Although with wide variation among the examiners, biomechanical assessments revealed the P-pad technique showed larger contact area and less compression force than the P-tip technique. The P-pad technique provided no significant localized differences in the mean contact pressure on the compressed plane, whereas the P-tip and H-axis techniques showed significant differences among subregions. CONCLUSION: This survey demonstrated relatively frequent application of the thumb test on applying the stemless shoulder prosthesis. Biomechanical assessment revealed the thumb test can hinder objective reproducibility among examiners; therefore, further investigations to identify feasible assessments of the bone quality is required.

Implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of data from worldwide arthroplasty registries and clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty is a rare complication after aseptic loosening, infection or persistent pain, resulting in malfunction of the components requiring revision surgery. This correlates with a high burden for the patient and increasing costs. Specific data of complication rates and implant breakage are available in detailed arthroplasty registries, but due to the rare occurrence and possibly underestimated value rarely described in published studies. The aim of this systematic review was to point out the frequency of implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty. We hypothesized that worldwide arthroplasty registry datasets record higher rates of implant breakage than clinical trials. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were utilized for this systematic review using the items "(implant fracture/complication/breakage) OR (glenoid/baseplate complication/breakage) AND (shoulder arthroplasty)" according to the PRISMA guidelines on July 3rd, 2023. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted according to the Cochrane standards. Case reports and experimental studies were excluded to reduce bias. The breakage rate per 100,000 observed component years was used to compare data from national arthroplasty registries and clinical trials, published in peer-reviewed journals. Relevant types of shoulder prosthetics were analyzed and differences in implant breakage were considered. RESULTS: Data of 5 registries and 15 studies were included. Rates of implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty were reported with 0.06-0.86% in registries versus 0.01-6.65% in clinical studies. The breakage rate per 100,000 observed component years was 10 in clinical studies and 9 in registries. There was a revision rate of 0.09% for registry data and 0.1% for clinical studies within a 10-year period. The most frequently affected component in connection with implant fracture was the glenoid insert. CONCLUSION: Clinical studies revealed a similar incidence of implant failure compared to data of worldwide arthroplasty registries. These complications arise mainly due to breakage of screws and glenospheres and there seems to be a direct correlation to loosening. Periprosthetic joint infection might be associated with loosening of the prosthesis and subsequent material breakage. We believe that this analysis can help physicians to advise patients on potential risks after shoulder arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

[The shoulder prosthesis in the past 7 years: increasingly used, with good results]. / De schouderprothese in de afgelopen 7 jaar.

The shoulder prosthesis is increasingly used as a solution for various shoulder problems. On the basis of a few cases, an overview is given of the various situations in which a shoulder prosthesis can be used, with a small risk of complications, a high risk of pain reduction and a long survival. In addition, a shoulder prosthesis improves the quality of life and is cost-effective. It is important, however, to set the correct indication with an eye for various psychosocial factors. The individual end result depends on patient-related factors such as pathology, general condition, activity and expectations. But the type of prosthesis and surgical expertise and experience also play a role.

The association between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with stratification based on measurement method and implant design. METHODS: This systematic review was performed using PRISMA-P guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Trials, and Embase were queried for articles evaluating the relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes inclusive of range of motion (ROM), strength, outcome scores, and pertinent complications (acromial and scapular spine fractures, nerve injury) after RSA. The relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes was reported descriptively overall and stratified by measurement method and implant design (globally medialized vs. lateralized). A positive association was defined as increased humeral lengthening being associated with greater ROM, outcome scores, or a greater incidence of complications, whereas a negative association denoted that increased humeral lengthening was associated with poorer ROM, outcome scores, or a lower incidence of complications. Meta-analysis was performed to compare humeral lengthening between patients with and without fractures of the acromion or scapular spine. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. Humeral lengthening was assessed as the acromiohumeral distance (AHD), the distance from the acromion to the greater tuberosity (AGT), the acromion to the deltoid tuberosity (ADT), and the acromion to the distal humerus (ADH). Of 11 studies that assessed forward elevation, a positive association with humeral lengthening was found in 6, a negative association was found in 1, and 4 studies reported no association. Of studies assessing internal rotation (n = 9), external rotation (n = 7), and abduction (n = 4), all either identified a positive or lack of association with humeral lengthening. Studies assessing outcome scores (n = 11) found either a positive (n = 5) or no (n = 6) association with humeral lengthening. Of the studies that assessed fractures of the acromion and/or scapular spine (n = 6), 2 identified a positive association with humeral lengthening, 1 identified a negative association, and 3 identified no association. The single study that assessed the incidence of nerve injury identified a positive association with humeral lengthening. Meta-analysis was possible for AGT (n = 2) and AHD (n = 2); greater humeral lengthening was found in patients with fractures for studies using the AGT (mean difference 4.5 mm, 95% CI 0.7-8.3) but not the AHD. Limited study inclusion and heterogeneity prohibited identification of trends based on method of measuring humeral lengthening and implant design. CONCLUSION: The relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after RSA remains unclear and requires future investigation using a standardized assessment method.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: State-of-the-art.

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty conceived by Paul Grammont in 1985 has gradually gained popularity as a treatment for multiple shoulder diseases. Unlike previous reverse shoulder prosthesis characterized by unsatisfactory results and a high glenoid implant failure rate, the Grammont design has immediately shown good clinical outcomes. This semi constrained prosthesis solved the issues of the very first designs by medializing and distalizing the center of rotation with an increased stability of the replacement of the component. The indication was initially limited to cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). It has then been expanded to irreparable massive cuff tears and displaced humeral head fractures. The most frequent problems of this design are a limited postoperative external rotation and scapular notching. Different modifications to the original Grammont design have been proposed with the aim of decreasing the risk of failure and complications and improving the clinical outcomes. Both the position and version/inclination of the glenosphere and the humeral configuration (e.g. neck shaft angle) influence the RSA outcomes. A lateralized glenoid (whether with bone or metal) and a 135° Inlay system configuration leads to a moment arm which is the closest to the native shoulder. Clinical research will focus on implant designs reducing bone adaptations and revision rate, strategies to prevent more effectively infections. Furthermore, there is still room for improvement in terms of better postoperative internal and external rotations and clinical outcomes after RSA implanted for humeral fracture and revision shoulder arthroplasty.

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.

Subacromial notching after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Scapular notching is a well-known postoperative complication of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). However, subacromial notching (SaN), a subacromial erosion caused by repeated abduction impingement after RTSA, has not been previously reported in a clinical setting. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the risk factors and functional outcomes of SaN after RTSA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 125 patients who underwent RTSA with the same design between March 2014 and May 2017 and had at least 2 years of follow-up. SaN was defined as subacromial erosion observed at the final follow-up but not on the X-ray 3 months after surgery. Radiologic parameters representing the patient's native anatomy and degrees of lateralization and/or distalization during surgery were evaluated using preoperative and 3 months postoperative X-rays. The visual analogue scale of pain, active range of motion, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were assessed preoperatively and at the final follow-up to evaluate the functional outcomes of SaN. RESULTS: SaN occurred in 12.8% (16/125) of enrolled patients during the study period. Preoperative center of rotation-acromion distance (P = .009) and postoperative humerus lateralization offset, which evaluated the degree of lateralization after RTSA (P = .003), were risk factors for SaN. The preoperative center of rotation-acromion distance and postoperative humerus lateralization cutoff values were 14.0 mm and 19.0 mm, respectively. The visual analogue scale of pain (P = .01) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P = .04) at the final follow-up were significantly worse in patients with SaN. CONCLUSIONS: SaN might adversely affect postoperative clinical outcomes. As SaN correlated with patients' anatomical characteristics and degree of lateralization during RTSA, the implant's degree of lateralization should be adjusted according to the patient's own anatomical characteristics.

Outcomes and survivorship of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: current concepts.

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has been the gold standard of care for end-stage glenohumeral arthritis. Outcomes are varied and have been affected by both patient and implant characteristics. Patient factors, such as age, preoperative diagnosis, and preoperative glenoid morphology, can affect the outcomes after TSA. Similarly, the different glenoid and humeral component designs significantly affect the survivorship of TSA. Significant evolution has occurred in the design of the glenoid component with the aim of decreasing the glenoid-sided causes of failure in TSA. On the other hand, focus on the humeral component has been increasing as well, with a trend towards using shorter humeral stems. This article aims to look at the outcomes of TSA as affected by the various patient characteristics and design options for the glenoid and the humeral components. This review also aims to compare survivorship data from global literature and the Australian joint replacement registry and to provide insights into the implant combination that may provide the best patient outcome.

Clinical and radiological outcomes in lateralized versus nonlateralized and distalized glenospheres in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Lateralization in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has been used to theoretically offer the potential benefits of reduced scapular notching rates and improved stability and range of motion (ROM), particularly external rotation. The aim of this study was to compare ROM and clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients who underwent RTSA with a lateralized vs. a nonlateralized and distalized glenosphere. METHODS: A single-surgeon randomized control trial was conducted comparing 27 patients with a lateralized glenosphere and 26 patients with a nonlateralized and distalized glenosphere. A total of 66 patients were enrolled, 2 patients died before 2-year follow-up, 4 patients withdrew from the study, and 7 patients were lost to follow-up. All patients in the lateralized group received 6 mm of lateralization through the glenosphere. Participants represented a population presenting to an orthopedics sports medicine clinic with any indication for RTSA including revision arthroplasty. Patients completed preoperative and routine postoperative functional outcome measures 3, 6, 12, and a minimum of 24 months postoperatively, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity, and Activities of Daily Living Requiring Active External and Internal Rotation assessments. Patients were also evaluated with ROM and radiographic measurements. The primary outcome of interest in this study was ROM, particularly external rotation. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, both groups had significant improvement in their American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity, and Activities of Daily Living Requiring Active External and Internal Rotation scores with no significant difference observed between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in incidence of scapular notching or acromial stress fractures. ROM in both groups improved significantly at their 2-year assessment with the only exception to this being external rotation at 90° of abduction in the nonlateralized and distalized group (39° ± 31° vs. 48° ± 24°, P = .379). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of glenosphere lateralization status, patients in both groups had significant improvement in functional outcome scores and ROM, and there were no significant differences observed between the groups at 2-year follow-up. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the effect of implant design on late complications, long-term outcomes, and implant retention.

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.