Does glenoid version and its correction affect outcomes in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Correction of glenoid retroversion is commonly performed in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to increase component contact area and decrease eccentric loading of the glenoid component. Despite demonstrated biomechanical advantages, limited information exists on the clinical benefit of correcting glenoid retroversion. The purpose of this systematic review is to critically evaluate the existing literature on the effect of preoperative and postoperative glenoid retroversion on clinical functional and radiologic outcomes in patients who underwent anatomic TSA. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library evaluating the impact of glenoid retroversion on clinical and radiologic outcomes of TSA. English-language studies of level I through IV evidence were included. Blinded reviewers conducted multiple screens and methodological quality was appraised using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score. RESULTS: Sixteen studies, including 3 level III and 13 level IV studies (1211 shoulders), satisfied all inclusion criteria. To address glenoid retroversion, 9 studies used corrective reaming techniques, and 4 studies used posteriorly augmented glenoids. Two studies used noncorrective reaming techniques. Mean preoperative retroversion ranged from 12.7° to 24° across studies. Eleven studies analyzed the effect of glenoid retroversion on clinical outcomes, including patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), range of motion (ROM), or clinical failure or revision rates. Most studies (8 of 11) did not report any significant association of pre- or postoperative glenoid retroversion on any clinical outcome. Of the 3 studies that reported significant effects, 1 study reported a negative association between preoperative glenoid retroversion and PROs, 1 study reported inferior postoperative abduction in patients with postoperative glenoid retroversion greater than 15°, and 1 study found an increased clinical failure rate in patients with higher postoperative retroversion. Ten studies reported radiographic results (medial calcar resorption, Central Peg Lucency [CPL] grade, Lazarus lucency grade) at follow-up. Only 1 study reported a significant effect of pre- and postoperative retroversion greater than 15° on CPL grade. CONCLUSION: There is currently insufficient evidence that pre- or postoperative glenoid version influences postoperative outcomes independent of other morphologic factors such as joint line medialization. Given that noncorrective reaming demonstrated favorable postoperative outcomes, and postoperative glenoid version was not significantly and consistently found to impact outcomes, there is inconclusive evidence that correcting glenoid retroversion is routinely required.