The subchondral bone layer and glenoid implant design are relevant for primary stability in glenoid arthroplasty

Three-dimensional analysis of biplanar glenoid deformities: what are they and can they be virtually reconstructed with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty implants?

BACKGROUND

Descriptions of glenoid deformities in glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) have focused on the axial plane. Less is known regarding arthritic glenoids with higher amounts of superior inclination and little evidence exists to guide management of inclination or combined version-inclination deformity when performing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). We hypothesized that biplanar deformities (BD) would be present in a higher proportion of GHOA patients than previously appreciated, and these deformities would be difficult to adequately reconstruct with contemporary aTSA implants.

METHODS

A retrospective query was performed of GHOA patients indicated for TSA 2012-2017 with a computed tomography (CT) scan within three months of surgery. Images were uploaded to three-dimensional (3D) software for automated measurements. Glenoids with superior inclination ≥10°, and retroversion ≥20° were considered to have BD. Walch classification was determined, and C-type glenoids were excluded. Rotator-cuff muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured and fatty infiltration was graded. Glenoids with BD were virtually planned for aTSA with correction to neutral inclination and version, then with 5° superior inclination and 10° retroversion.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and sixty-eight shoulders in 250 patients were included; average age was 65 years, 67% male. There were no differences in inclination between Walch types (P = .25). Twenty-nine shoulders with BD were identified (11%). These deformities were not associated with age (P = .47) or gender (P = .50) but were skewed towards Walch B-type, specifically B2 (P = .03). Acromial index and posterior humeral head subluxation were higher in BD patients (P = .04, P < .001, respectively). Biplanar deformities had similar cuff CSA compared to those without but were less frequently associated with fatty infiltration of the subscapularis (P = .05). When correcting to neutral version and inclination, 41% BD could not be reconstructed. Of those that could, 94% required augmented implants. When correcting to 5° superior inclination and 10° retroversion, 10% could not be reconstructed. Of those that could, 58% required augmented implants. With partial correction, augment use was predicted by retroversion >26° (P = .009). Inclination did not predict augment use (P = .90). Final implant position commonly involved unseating in the posterosuperior quadrant and cancellous exposure in the anteroinferior quadrant.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective computed tomography (CT)-based study of 268 shoulders with GHOA found an 11% prevalence of BD. These deformities were commonly associated with Walch B2 wear patterns. Virtual aTSA planning showed a high failure rate (41%) when correcting to neutral version and inclination. Posteriorly augmented implants were frequently required, and often still involved unseating in the posterosuperior quadrant, increased cancellous exposure in the anteroinferior quadrant, and vault perforation.

Glenoid bony morphology of osteoarthritis prior to shoulder arthroplasty: what the surgeon wants to know and why

Shoulder arthroplasty is performed with increasing frequency, and osteoarthritis is the most common indication for this procedure. However, the glenoid side of the joint is widely recognized as a limiting factor in the long-term durability of shoulder replacement, and osteoarthritis leads to characteristic bony changes at the glenoid which can exacerbate this challenge by reducing the already limited glenoid bone stock, by altering biomechanics, and by interfering with operative exposure. This article reviews the Walch classification system for glenoid morphology. Several typical findings of osteoarthritis at the glenoid are discussed including central bone loss, posterior bone loss, retroversion, biconcavity, inclination, osteophyte formation, subchondral bone quality, and bone density. The three primary types of shoulder arthroplasty are reviewed, along with several techniques for addressing glenoid deformity, including eccentric reaming, bone grafting, and the use of augmented glenoid components. Ultimately, a primary objective at shoulder arthroplasty is to correct glenoid deformity while preserving bone stock, which depends critically on characterizing the glenoid at pre-operative imaging. Understanding the surgical techniques and the implications of glenoid morphology on surgical decision-making enables the radiologist to provide the morphologic information needed by the surgeon.

Is preoperative glenoid bone mineral density associated with aseptic glenoid implant loosening in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty?

Background

Aseptic loosening of glenoid implants is the primary revision cause in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). While supported by biomechanical studies, the impact of glenoid bone quality, more specifically bone mineral density (BMD), on aseptic glenoid loosening remains unclear. We hypothesized that lower preoperative glenoid BMD was associated with aseptic glenoid implant loosening in aTSA.

Methods

We retrospectively included 93 patients (69 females and 24 males; mean age, 69.2 years) who underwent preoperative non-arthrographic shoulder computed tomography (CT) scans and aTSA between 2002 and 2014. Preoperative glenoid BMD (CT numbers in Hounsfield unit) was measured in 3D using a reliable semi-automated quantitative method, in the following six contiguous volumes of interest (VOI): cortical, subchondral cortical plate (SC), subchondral trabecular, and three successive adjacent layers of trabecular bone. Univariate Cox regression was used to estimate the impact of preoperative glenoid BMD on aseptic glenoid implant loosening. We further compared 26 aseptic glenoid loosening patients with 56 matched control patients.

Results

Glenoid implant survival rates were 89% (95% confidence interval CI, 81–96%) and 57% (41–74%) at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Hazard ratios for the different glenoid VOIs ranged between 0.998 and 1.004 (95% CI [0.996, 1.007], p≥0.121). Only the SC VOI showed significantly lower CTn in the loosening group (622±104 HU) compared with the control group (658±88 HU) (p=0.048), though with a medium effect size (d=0.42). There were no significant differences in preoperative glenoid BMD in any other VOI between patients from the loosening and control groups.

Conclusions

Although the preoperative glenoid BMD was statistically significantly lower in the SC region of patients with aseptic glenoid implant loosening compared with controls, this single-VOI difference was only moderate. We are thus unable to prove that lower preoperative glenoid BMD is clearly associated with aseptic glenoid implant loosening in aTSA. However, due to its proven biomechanical role in glenoid implant survival, we recommend extending this study to larger CT datasets to further assess and better understand the impact of preoperative glenoid BMD on glenoid implant loosening/survival and aTSA outcome.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-020-03892-0.

Glenoid subchondral bone density in osteoarthritis: A comparative study of asymmetric and symmetric erosion patterns

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown variations in glenoid bone density in asymmetric wear patterns but have yet to analyze non-arthritic or concentrically worn glenoids.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study is to characterize and compare subchondral glenoid bone densities in both non-arthritic and A1, A2, B1, B2 and B3 osteoarthritic glenoids, as well as to assess uniformity in symmetric and asymmetric erosion wear patterns.

METHODS

In all, 150 computerized tomography (CT) scans containing equal numbers of non-arthritic (N), A1, A2, B1, B2 and B3 glenoids were segmented semi-automatically. Each reconstructed glenoid was divided first into anterior and posterior quadrants, and then further subdivided into four quadrants. Volumes of interest (VOI) were defined at depths of 0-2.5mm (Zone A), 2.5-5mm (Zone B) and 5-7.5mm (Zone C). Average bone densities were measured at each VOI depth and in each quadrant.

RESULTS

Osteoarthritic glenoids had higher mean bone densities than N glenoids. Mean bone densities were uniform amongst all quadrants for N glenoids, but not for osteoarthritic glenoids. In A1 glenoids, the antero-superior quadrant was less dense in Zone C. A2 glenoids had increased bone density measured posteriorly in Zones B and C. In B1 and B2 glenoids, Zones B and C demonstrated increased bone densities of posterior quadrants compared to anterior quadrants. B3 glenoids presented similar results as A1 and A2 glenoids. Cystic changes were more pronounced in anterior quadrants of A2, B1, B2 and B3 glenoids.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that osteoarthritic glenoids have greater bone density than non-arthritic glenoids, independent of depth of interest. It also confirms that N glenoids have uniform erosion wear patterns and that B1 and B2 glenoids have irregular wear patterns. It is the first study to reveal that A1, A2 and B3 glenoids, though geometrically symmetrical, have irregular bony densities similar to B2 glenoids. These findings have clinical implications for reaming the glenoid and implant fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Basic Science, Anatomy, Imaging.