The risk of postoperative scapular spine fracture following reverse shoulder arthroplasty is increased with an onlay humeral stem

Low acromial insufficiency fracture rate in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with distal clavicle excision

Background

This study investigated the rate of acromial insufficiency fractures (AIF) in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with concomitant distal clavicle excision (DCE).

Methods

Patients who underwent primary RSA with DCE by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2021 were identified. Exclusion criteria included revision RSA, RSA for fracture, or cases utilizing an augmented baseplate or bone graft. AIF was defined as a radiographically proven acromion or scapular spine fracture. Pain without an identifiable fracture on imaging was defined as an acromial insufficiency reaction. Patient demographics, implant information, and radiograph measurements were compared between patients with and without acromial pathology.

Results

One hundred and seventy-five patients were included. Mean age was 72.8 years, and 67% of patients were female. There were 3/174 acromial insufficiency fractures (1.7%). AIF occurred at a mean of 9.3 months after surgery. Twelve patients had insufficiency reactions (6.9%). Patients with acromial pathology were more likely to be female (p = .003) and have a diagnosis of osteoporosis (p = .047) and inflammatory arthritis (p = .049). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of other factors.

Conclusion

The AIF rate in patients who underwent RSA with DCE was 1.7%. These findings suggest that DCE in the setting of RSA may have a protective role against AIF.

Inlay vs. onlay humeral components in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biorobotic shoulder simulator study

BACKGROUND

Both inlay and onlay humeral implants are available for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), but biomechanical data comparing these components remain limited. This study investigated the effects of inlay and onlay rTSA humeral components on shoulder biomechanics using a biorobotic shoulder simulator.

METHODS

Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested before and after rTSA with either an inlay or onlay humeral implant. Comparisons were performed between the most commonly implanted configurations for each implant (baseline) and with a modification to provide equivalent neck-shaft angles (NSAs) for the inlay and onlay configurations. Specimens underwent passive range-of-motion (ROM) assessment with the scapula held static, and scapular-plane abduction was performed, driven by previously collected human-subject scapulothoracic and glenohumeral kinematics. Passive ROM glenohumeral joint angles were compared using t tests, whereas muscle force and excursion data during scapular-plane elevation were evaluated with statistical parametric mapping and t tests.

RESULTS

Maximum passive elevation was reduced for the inlay vs. onlay humeral components, although both implants caused reduced passive elevation vs. the native joint. Inlay rTSA also demonstrated reduced passive internal rotation at rest and increased external rotation at 90° of humerothoracic elevation vs. the native joint. All preoperative planning estimates of ROM differed from experiments. Rotator cuff forces were elevated with an onlay vs. inlay humeral implant, but simulated muscle excursions did not differ between systems. Compared with the native joint, rotator cuff forces were increased for both inlay and onlay implants and deltoid forces were reduced for inlay implants. Muscle excursions were dramatically altered by rTSA vs. the native joint. Comparisons of inlay and onlay humeral implants with equivalent NSAs were consistent with the baseline comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Rotator cuff forces required to perform scapular-plane abduction increase following rTSA using both inlay and onlay implants. Rotator cuff forces are lower with inlay implants compared with onlay implants, although inlay implants also result in reduced passive-elevation ROM. Deltoid forces are lower with inlay implants in comparison to the native joint but not with onlay implants. The differences between inlay and onlay components are largely unaffected by NSA, indicating that these differences are inherent to the inlay and onlay designs. In those patients with an intact rotator cuff, decreased rotator cuff forces to perform abduction with an inlay humeral implant compared with an onlay implant may promote improved long-term outcomes owing to reduced deltoid muscle fatigue when using an inlay implant.

Robert H. Cofield, MD, Award for Best Oral Presentation 2023: Up to 8 mm of glenoid-sided lateralization does not increase the risk of acromial or scapular spine stress fracture following reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° inlay humeral component

BACKGROUND

Glenoid-sided lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) decreases bony impingement and improves rotational range of motion, but has been theorized to increase the risk of acromial or scapular spine fractures (ASFs). The purpose of this study was to assess if glenoid-sided lateralization even up to 8 mm increases the risk for stress fracture following RSA with a 135° inlay humeral component.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed from a multicenter prospectively collected database on patients who underwent primary RSA from 2015 to 2021. All RSAs were performed with a 135° inlay humeral component. Varying amounts of glenoid lateralization were used from 0 to 8 mm. Preoperative radiographs were reviewed for the presence of acromial thinning, acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and inclination. Postoperative implant position (distalization, lateralization, and inclination) as well as the presence of ASF was evaluated on minimum 1-year postoperative radiographs. Regression analyses were performed on component and clinical variables to assess for factors predictive of ASF.

RESULTS

Acromial or scapular spine fractures were identified in 26 of 470 shoulders (5.5%). Glenoid-sided lateralization was not associated with ASF risk (P = .890). Furthermore, the incidence of fracture did not vary based on glenoid-sided lateralization (0-2 mm, 7.4%; 4 mm, 5.6%; 6 mm, 4.4%; 8 mm, 6.0%; P > .05 for all comparisons). RSA on the dominant extremity was predictive of fracture (odds ratio [OR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-5.75; P = .037), but there was no relationship between patient age, sex, preoperative acromial thinning, or diagnosis and risk of fracture. Although there was no difference in mean postoperative AHD between groups (P = .443), the pre- to postoperative delta AHD was higher in the stress fracture group (2.0 ± 0.7 cm vs. 1.7 ± 0.7 cm; P = .015). For every centimeter increase in delta AHD, there was a 121% increased risk for fracture (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.33-3.68; P = .012). Additionally, for every 1-mm increase in inferior glenosphere overhang, there was a 19% increase in fracture risk (P = .025).

CONCLUSION

Up to 8 mm of glenoid-sided metallic lateralization does not appear to increase the risk of ASF when combined with a 135° inlay humeral implant. Humeral distalization increases the risk of ASF, particularly when there is a larger change between pre- and postoperative AHD or higher inferior glenosphere overhang. In cases of pronounced preoperative superior humeral migration, it may be a consideration to avoid excessive postoperative distalization, but minimizing bony impingement via glenoid-sided lateralization appears to be safe.

Variations in the Anatomic Morphology of the Scapular Spine and Implications on Fracture After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the role of anatomic scapular morphology in acromion and scapular spine fracture (SSAF) risk after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

METHODS

Twelve scapular measurements were captured based on pilot study data, including scapular width measurements at the acromion (Z1), middle of the scapular spine (Z2), and medial to the first major angulation (Z3). Measurements were applied to 3D-CT scans from patients who sustained SSAF after RSA (SSAF group) and compared with those who did not (control group). Measurements were done by four investigators, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated. Regression analysis determined trends in fracture incidence.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-nine patients from two separate surgeons (J.L., A.M.) were matched by age and surgical indication of whom 51 sustained SSAF after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Average ages for the SSAF and control cohorts were 78.6 and 72.1 years, respectively. Among the SSAF group, 15 were Levy type I, 26 Levy type II, and 10 Levy type 3 fractures. The intraclass correlation coefficient of Z1, Z2, and Z3 measurements was excellent (0.92, 0.92, and 0.94, respectively). Zone 1 and 3 measurements for the control group were 18.6 ± 3.7 mm and 3.2 ± 1.0 mm, respectively, compared with 22.5 ± 5.9 mm and 2.0 ± 0.70 mm in the SSAF group, respectively. The fracture group trended toward larger Z1 and smaller Z3 measurements. The average scapular spine proportion (SSP), Z1/Z3, was significantly greater in the control 6.20 ± 1.80 versus (12.60 ± 6.30; P < 0.05). Regression analysis showed a scapular spine proportion of ≤5 was associated with a fracture risk <5%, whereas an SSP of 9.2 correlated with a 50% fracture risk.

DISCUSSION

Patients with a thicker acromions (Z1) and thinner medial scapular spines (Z3) have increased fracture risk. Understanding anatomic scapular morphology may allow for better identification of high-risk patients preoperatively.

Rates of subacromial notching are low following reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° inlay humeral component and a lateralized glenoid

Background

Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) decreases bony impingement and improves rotational range of motion, but has been theorized to increase the risk of subacromial notching (SaN). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the presence of SaN following RSA and its relationship with lateralization with a 135° inlay humeral component. The secondary purpose was to assess the association of SaN with functional outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed from a multicenter prospectively collected database on patients who underwent primary RSA from 2015 to 2021. All RSAs were performed with a 135° inlay humeral component. SaN was defined as bony erosion with sclerotic margins on the undersurface of the acromion on final follow-up radiographs not present preoperatively. Postoperative implant positioning (inclination, distalization, and lateralization) were evaluated on minimum 1-year postoperative radiographs. Regression analyses were performed on implant and clinical variables to assess for risk factors. A separate analysis was performed to determine the association of SaN with clinical outcomes.

Results

SaN was identified in 13 out of 442 shoulders (2.9%). Age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, diabetes mellitus, arm dominance had no relationship with SaN. Neither glenoid sided lateralization nor humeral offset were associated with SaN risk. Other implant characteristics such as distalization, glenosphere size, and postoperative inclination did not influence SaN risk. The presence of SaN did not affect patient-reported outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons: P = .357, Visual Analog Scale: P = .210) or range of motion.

Conclusion

The rate of SaN is low and not associated with glenoid or humeral prosthetic lateralization when using a 135° inlay humeral component. When SaN occurs, it is not associated with functional outcomes or range of motion at short-term follow-up.

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

» 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.» 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.» 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.» 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.

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.

Incidence, risk factors, and complications of acromial stress fractures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

An acromial stress fracture (ASF) is an uncommon complication after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) that can have severe clinical consequences on shoulder function. Although patient-specific factors have been identified to influence the risk of ASF, it is unclear whether modifying these factors can minimize risk. Moreover, there is limited information on the treatment outcomes of these fractures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine modifiable risk factors for ASFs and the complication and revision rates of conservatively and operatively managed ASFs.

METHODS

The PearlDiver database was queried to identify a cohort of patients who underwent RTSA with minimum 2-year follow-up. Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes were used to compare the demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use of patients with and without ASFs. Surgical complication and revision rates were compared between operatively and conservatively treated fractures.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of ASFs was 1.4%. Patient-specific factors that were independently associated with the occurrence of an ASF included osteoporosis, rheumatologic disease, shoulder corticosteroid injection within 3 months before surgery, and chronic oral corticosteroid use. Among patients with osteoporosis, the initiation of physical therapy within 6 weeks after surgery also increased the risk of ASF. Patients who underwent surgical treatment of ASFs had a revision arthroplasty rate of 7.0% compared to a rate of 3.2% among those with conservatively managed fractures.

CONCLUSION

ASFs are infrequent complications that can occur after RTSA. Preoperative factors that affect the quality of bone independently increase the fracture risk. Moreover, this risk can be minimized by avoiding shoulder corticosteroid injections 3 months before surgery and delaying physical therapy exercises among patients with osteoporosis. Surgical fixation of these fractures should be reserved for instances when conservative management has failed given high rates of infection, instability, and revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Outcomes of conservative treatment of acromial and scapular spine stress fracture post reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Acromial and scapular spine stress fractures are common complications post reverse shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the clinical outcomes of conservatively treated acromial and scapular spine stress fractures post reverse shoulder arthroplasty in comparison to nonfracture control.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched on September 9, 2022, using various terms related to fracture, acromion, scapula, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was performed on common outcome scores. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tools for case-controlled studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed for imputed standard deviations and studies with <20 participants.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with a total of 339 fracture and 3142 control patients were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed on 12 studies assessing active forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, Constant-Murley score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, pain score, Simple Shoulder Test, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Fracture patients experienced significantly poorer functional outcome compared with control patients when the fractures were managed conservatively. Levy III fractures tend to experience worse outcomes. Pain score did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the fracture and nonfracture cohort.

DISCUSSION

Currently, literature regarding surgical management is lacking, partially because of a dearth of high-quality literature but also hindered by a lack of standardized techniques. This review was limited by inclusion of studies of low evidence, small sample sizes, and inconsistency in outcome measurement and follow-up period. Overall, patients with acromial and scapular spine stress fractures treated conservatively are expected to have reduced shoulder function compared to nonfracture patients, with the spine of scapula fracture patients suffering the poorest outcomes. Future studies should aim to use the same sets of outcomes parameters to assess the patients at fixed time intervals and report outcomes stratified by Levy classification. This will enable interinstitutional collaboration and pooling of results.

Mitigating Fracture of the Acromion and Scapular Spine After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Critical Analysis Review of Patient and Surgical Risk Factors

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V. Narrative Review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Two-year clinical outcomes and complication rates in anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty implanted with Exactech GPS intraoperative navigation

INTRODUCTION

We compared the 2-year clinical outcomes of both anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA and RTSA) using intraoperative navigation compared to traditional positioning techniques. We also examined the effect of glenoid implant retroversion on clinical outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS

In both ATSA and RTSA, computer navigation would be associated with equal or better outcomes with fewer complications. Final glenoid version and degree of correction would not show outcome differences.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 216 ATSAs and 533 RTSAs were performed using preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Matched cohorts (2:1) for age, gender, and follow-up for cases without intraoperative navigation were compared using all standard shoulder arthroplasty clinical outcome metrics. Two subanalyses were performed on navigated cases comparing glenoids positioned greater or less than 10° of retroversion and glenoids corrected more or less than 15°.

RESULTS

For ASTA, no statistical differences were found between the navigated and non-navigated cohorts for postoperative complications, glenoid implant loosening, or revision rate. No significant differences were seen in any of the ATSA outcome metrics besides higher internal and external rotation in the navigated cohort. For RTSA, the navigated cohort showed an ARR of 1.7% (95% CI 0%, 3.4%) for postoperative complications and 0.7% (95% CI 0.1%, 1.2%) for dislocations. No difference was found in the revision rate, glenoid implant loosening, acromial stress fracture rates, or scapular notching. Navigated RTSA patients demonstrated significant improvements over non-navigated patients in internal rotation, external rotation, maximum lifting weight, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) scores. For the navigated subcohorts, ATSA cases with a higher degree of final retroversion showed significant improvement in pain, Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), SST, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLA), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores. No significant differences were found in the RTSA subcohort. Higher degrees of version correction showed improvement in external rotation, SST, and Constant scores for ATSA and forward elevation, internal rotation, pain, SST, Constant, ASES, UCLA, SPADI, and SAS scores for RTSA.

CONCLUSION

The use of intraoperative navigation shoulder arthroplasty is safe, produces at least equally good outcomes at 2 years as standard instrumentation does without any increased risk of complications. The effect of final implant position above or below 10° of glenoid retroversion and correction more or less than 15° does not negatively impact outcomes.

Why is female gender associated with poorer clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of gender-specific research after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Although previous studies have documented worse outcomes in women, a more thorough understanding of why outcomes may differ is needed. We therefore asked: (1) Are there gender-specific differences in preoperative and postoperative clinical scores, complications, surgery-related parameters, and demographics? (2) Is female gender an independent risk factor for poorer clinical outcomes after RTSA? (3) If so, why is female gender associated with poorer outcomes after RTSA?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2005 and 2019, 987 primary RTSAs were performed in our institution. After exclusion criteria were applied, data of 422 female and 271 male patients were analyzed. Clinical outcomes (absolute/relative Constant Score [a/rCS] and Subjective Shoulder Value [SSV]), complications (intra- and/or postoperative fracture, loosening), surgery-related parameters (indication, implant-related characteristics), and demographics (age, gender, body mass index, and number of previous surgeries) were evaluated. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were analyzed (critical shoulder angle, deltoid-tuberosity index, reverse shoulder angle, lateralization shoulder angle, and distalization shoulder angle).

RESULTS

Preoperative clinical scores (aCS, rCS, SSV, and pain level) and postoperative clinical outcomes (aCS and rCS) were significantly worse in women. However, the improvement between preoperative and postoperative outcomes was significantly higher in female patients for rCS (P = .037), internal rotation (P < .001), and regarding pain (P < .001). Female patients had a significantly higher number of intraoperative and postoperative fractures (24.9% vs. 11.4%, P < .001). The proportion of female patients with a deltoid-tuberosity index <1.4 was significantly higher than males (P = .01). Female gender was an independent negative predictor for postoperative rCS (P = .047, coefficient -0.084) and pain (P = .017, coefficient -0.574). In addition to female sex per se being a predictive factor of worse outcomes, females were significantly more likely to meet 2 of the 3 most significant predictive factors: (1) significantly worse preoperative clinical scores and (2) higher rate of intra- and/or postoperative fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Female sex is a very weak, but isolated, negative predictive factor that negatively affects the objective clinical outcome (rCS) after RTSA. However, differences did not reach the minimal clinically important difference, and it is not a predictor for the subjective outcome (SSV). The main reason for the worse outcome in female patients seems to be a combination of higher preoperative disability and higher incidence of fractures. To improve the outcome of women, all measures that contribute to the reduction of perioperative fracture risk should be used.

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.

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.

Mid-term comparative study between the glenoid and humerus lateralization designs for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: which lateralization design is better?

INTRODUCTION

The complications of the conventional medialized design for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are increased scapular notching, and decreased external rotation and deltoid wrapping. Currently, lateralization design RSA, which avoid scapular notching and improve impingement-free range of motion, is commonly used. Especially, humeral lateralization design was most commonly used and glenoid lateralization design was preferred for glenoid abnormities. We compared mid-term clinical and radiologic outcomes of glenoid and humeral lateralization RSA in an Asian population in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled 124 shoulders of 122 consecutive patients (mean age 73.8 ± 6.8 years) who received glenoid or humeral lateralization RSA from May, 2012 to March, 2019. We divided these patients into two groups according to RSA using either glenoid or humeral lateralization design. These different designs were introduced consecutively in Korea. The clinical and radiological results of 60 glenoid lateralization RSA (Group I, 60 patients) and 64 humeral lateralization RSA (Group II, 62 patients) were retrospectively evaluated and also were compared between the two groups. All patients were followed for mean 3 years.

RESULTS

The clinical and radiologic outcomes of the two groups did not differ significantly, including scapular notching (p = 0.134). However, humeral lateralization RSA showed a larger glenoid-tuberosity (GT) distance (p = 0.000) and less distalization shoulder angle (DSA) (p = 0.035). The complication rate did not differ significantly either. But, revision surgery was performed for 2 humeral loosening in the Group II.

CONCLUSION

The clinical and radiologic outcomes of the two groups did not differ significantly, including scapular notching at mid-term follow-up. However, humeral lateralization design showed larger GT distance and less DSA. Humeral lateralization design RSA could preserve the normal shoulder contour due to a larger GT distance (more lateralization) and provide less deltoid tension due to less DSA (less distalization of COR).

Evaluation of the Painful Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Despite the overall success of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (aTSA and rTSA), some patients continue to have or develop pain postoperatively. As the number of shoulder arthroplasties continues to increase in the United States, it is important that surgeons are able to recognize, diagnose, and treat the various pathologies. Some painful etiologies are specific to either aTSA or rTSA, and others can occur with both implant types. Infections, stiffness, neurologic syndromes, polyethylene wear, aseptic implant loosening, and metal allergies occur, regardless of implant choice. However, after an aTSA, subscapularis repair failure, superior rotator cuff tear, and joint overstuffing can result in shoulder pain. After a rTSA, specific causes of postoperative pain include instability, scapular notching, acromial or scapular spine fractures, subcoracoid pain, and neurologic injury. Regardless of the diagnosis, the surgeon must be methodical in the evaluation and, when appropriate, use blood work, advanced imaging studies, joint aspirations, shoulder arthroscopy, and nerve studies. Once diagnosed, appropriate treatment should be undertaken to resolve the cause of the pain or at least minimize the effect of the pain on the patient's outcome.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty using an onlay humeral prosthesis, offset humeral tray, and augmented glenoid baseplate: surgical technique and review of the impact of prosthesis design on scapular fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the most utilized form of arthroplasty of the shoulder. Acromial stress fractures and scapular spine stress fractures are rare, yet well-recognized complications of RSA with ongoing studies identifying whether patient factors or prosthetic designs serve as risk factors. Specifically, it remains unclear if or how the position of the humeral tray (inlay or onlay) in RSA affects rates of periscapular fractures. The purpose of this article is to describe our technique for RSA using an onlay prosthesis, a variable-offset humeral tray, and an augmented glenoid baseplate, as well as to review the published results of acromial and scapular spine fractures after RSA based on humeral implant design.

[Conversion of anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty : Does it make sense?]

We can observe increasing numbers for the implantation of shoulder endoprostheses in developed industrial countries. This is accompanied by a certain number of revision surgeries. The conversion to reverse arthroplasty systems is by far the most common revision procedure. Depending on the primary implant and the individual situation, the surgical effort and consumption of resources can be substantial. Particularly favorable revision scenarios exist in the conversion of stemless primary implants that are part of a platform system and allow a partial exchange and easy conversion from anatomical to reverse implants.

Inlay versus onlay humeral design for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of the Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the humeral stem design has been modified with improved clinical outcomes. Two distinct humeral designs have been used extensively: the inlay design, in which the humeral tray is seated within the metaphysis, and the onlay design, in which the humeral tray sits on the metaphysis at the level of the humeral neck cut. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether there are differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates between these designs.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to perform this systematic review. A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase was performed to identify all studies comparing the clinical results of both humeral designs. Primary outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures, shoulder range of motion, and incidence of complications.

RESULTS

From the 156 identified publications, 12 studies were included in the final review. A total of 1447 patients were included, with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. At final follow-up, both implants demonstrated significant improvements in comparison to preoperative baseline. On comparison of the inlay vs. onlay groups, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was higher in the inlay group (mean difference, 2.53 [95% confidence interval, 0.27-4.78]; P = .03). Postoperative motion, even if statistically greater in the onlay group (differences of 5° in forward flexion [P < .001], 3° in abduction [P = .003], and 4° in external rotation [P < .001]), was not clinically different. On comparison of complications, the inlay group showed more instances of scapular notching (93 of 322 patients vs. 70 of 415 patients; odds ratio, 0.35; P < .001) but fewer scapular spine fractures (26 of 727 patients vs. 21 of 559 patients, P = .09).

DISCUSSION

Inlay and onlay humeral tray designs in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty demonstrate similar clinical improvements postoperatively. Onlay implants have a low rate of scapular notching but a higher rate of scapular spine fracture. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 humeral tray designs is important to provide surgeons with options to tailor surgical plans for high-risk patients.

[Current trends in reverse fracture arthroplasty]

The reliable results of reverse arthroplasty have made this the preferred treatment method for non-reconstructable proximal humeral fractures. The individual consideration of the patient and the morphological features of the fractures are essential. Computed tomography (CT) images provide crucial information on the perfusion of the humeral head relevant for the prognosis and treatment. In this context a differentiation must be made between hard and soft criteria against a reconstruction. Tuberosities should be reduced whenever possible, because reverse arthroplasty with healed tuberosities provides a better range of motion and more strength for external rotation and anteversion, less complications and longer survival rates. In recent years the trend has been towards anatomical designs of prostheses with a humeral inclination of 135°. Revision rates for primary fracture prostheses are overall low with instability as the main reason for revision surgery, followed by periprosthetic fractures and infections. Reverse fracture arthroplasty has comparable or better clinical results compared to conservative treatment, osteosynthesis for geriatric patients, hemiarthroplasty and prosthesis implantation by elective surgery. Reverse arthroplasties, which were implanted in conditions of fracture sequelae, did not achieve significantly poorer clinical outcome at mid-term follow-up and can significantly improve shoulder function.

A Comparison of Central Screw versus Post for Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Glenoid Design

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a lateralized glenoid construct with either a central screw or post. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted of reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) with minimum 2-year clinical followup. All RSAs implanted had a 135° neck shaft angle (NSA) and a modular circular baseplate. The patients were divided into two cohorts based on the type of central fixation for their glenoid baseplates (central post (CP) vs. central screw (CS)). The clinical outcomes, rates of revisions, and available radiographs were evaluated. Results: In total, 212 patients met the study criteria. Postoperatively, both groups improved over their preoperative baseline. There were no significant differences between the cohorts in any PROs at 2 years postoperatively. No findings of gross loosening were identified in either cohort. Implant survival was 98.6% at 2 years. Conclusions: When using a lateralized glenoid implant with a 135° NSA inlay humeral component, both central post and central screw baseplate fixation provide good clinical outcomes, survivorship, and improvements in ROM at 2 years. There is no difference in loosening or revision rates between the types of baseplate fixation at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively.

Acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty: the role of the acromial morphology and a comparison of clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

The purpose was to evaluate the relationship between acromial morphology and the location of acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty and determine whether fracture location and displacement impact clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective review of reverse shoulder arthroplasties complicated by acromial fractures. Radiographs were compared to determine the differences in acromial morphology, as well as fracture orientation and pattern, between patients with Levy type I (n = 17) and Levy type II (n = 25) fractures. Patients with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were selected to examine the association between clinical outcomes and fracture location and displacement. Twenty-two patients were stratified based on whether they achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (20 points). The groups were then compared regarding fracture location and displacement using measurements such as the acromiohumeral distance.

RESULTS

The Levy type I group had a higher acromial slope than the Levy type II group (127° vs. 117°, P < .001). Levy type I fractures had a transverse pattern occurring in the coronal plane, whereas Levy type II fractures had an oblique pattern occurring in the sagittal plane (P < .001). At final follow-up, 12 of 22 patients (55%) achieved the MCID. Those who did not achieve the MCID had more displaced fractures including a lower acromiohumeral distance (8 mm vs. 20 mm, P = .007). There was no difference in the distribution of Levy type I and type II fractures based on the MCID cutoff (P = .093).

CONCLUSION

An increased acromial slope is associated with transverse fractures in the Levy I region, whereas a lower acromial slope is associated with oblique fractures in the Levy II region. Overall, 55% of patients achieved the MCID at mid-term follow-up. The outcomes of those who did not achieve the MCID became worse postoperatively, and this was associated with increased fracture displacement.

Innovations in Shoulder Arthroplasty

Innovations currently available with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty include shorter stem designs and augmented/inset/inlay glenoid components. Regarding reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), metal augmentation, including custom augments, on both the glenoid and humeral side have expanded indications in cases of bone loss. In the setting of revision arthroplasty, humeral options include convertible stems and newer tools to improve humeral implant removal. New strategies for treatment and surgical techniques have been developed for recalcitrant shoulder instability, acromial fractures, and infections after RSA. Finally, computer planning, navigation, PSI, and augmented reality are imaging options now available that have redefined preoperative planning and indications as well intraoperative component placement. This review covers many of the innovations in the realm of shoulder arthroplasty.

Factors Associated with Internal Rotation After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) leads to improvement in pain and function with a durable outcome in most cases. While improvement in forward flexion and to a lesser degree external rotation is predictably seen after RSA, restoration of internal rotation (IR) is much less predictable. The purpose of this review was to provide a narrative of the modifiable factors, including prosthetic design and surgical factors, that may impact postoperative IR after RSA. Overall, the available data suggest that postoperative IR is improved with a lower humeral neck shaft angle and lateralization of the glenoid. Decreasing humeral retroversion to 20° or less improves IR at the cost of decreasing active external rotation. Increasing glenosphere diameter improves IR but often within the setting of additional variables. The association between subscapularis repair is less clear but overall suggests that IR is improved postoperatively when it is repaired.

Lateralized glenosphere reverse shoulder arthroplasty: inlay and onlay designs have similar clinical outcomes in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Whether or how the position of the humeral tray (inlay or onlay) in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) affects outcomes is unclear. Our goal was to compare the clinical and radiographic results of RSA systems with inlay vs. onlay designs but with similar neck shaft angles (NSAs) and lateralized glenospheres.

METHODS

We screened the institutional database at our tertiary academic center for patients who underwent primary RSA (with a lateralized glenosphere and a 135° NSA) from 2009 through 2017. The indication for surgery was glenohumeral osteoarthritis with glenoid bone loss (Walch classification A2, B2, B3, or C) and an intact rotator cuff. All patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 47 months; range, 24-123 months). The humeral tray design was inlay for 79 patients and onlay for 71. All patients underwent preoperative and postoperative evaluations, including physical examination, radiography, and patient-reported outcome measures (visual analog scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index).

RESULTS

Compared with preoperative values, both groups achieved minimal clinically important differences in range of motion and patient-reported outcomes at the final follow-up. We found no significant differences between groups in any of these measures at the final follow-up. Rates of revision (inlay, 3.8% vs. onlay, 1.4%), scapular notching (inlay, 5.1% vs. onlay, 7.0%), acromial stress fracture (inlay, 0% vs. onlay, 2.8%), and tuberosity resorption (inlay, 25% vs. onlay, 27%) were not significantly different between groups (all, P > .05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis with glenoid bone loss and an intact rotator cuff who underwent RSA using a lateralized glenosphere prosthesis with a 135° NSA, there were no significant differences between the inlay and onlay groups for range of motion, patient-reported outcomes, or complication rates. These findings are limited to this off-label indication for RSA.

Scapular Fractures After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

With the increased use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, the complication of postoperative scapular fracture is increasingly recognized. The incidence is variable and dependent on a combination of factors including patient age, sex, bone mineral density, diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis, acromial thickness, and implant-related factors. Acromial stress reactions are a clinical diagnosis based on a history and physical examination. These are treated successfully with 4 to 6 weeks of immobilization. Acromial stress fractures are visible on imaging studies and are classified based on anatomic location by the classification systems of Crosby and Levy. In approximately 20% of fractures, a CT scan is necessary to make the diagnosis. Treatment is typically nonsurgical that leads to a high rate of nonunion or symptomatic malunion. Scapular spine fractures (type III) can be treated with either nonsurgical or surgical management; however, obtaining fracture union is challenging, and the outcomes are typically inferior to that of type I and II fractures. Although the nonsurgical and surgical treatment of acromial stress fractures improves the clinical outcomes from the patient's preoperative state, the outcomes of a control group undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty without fracture are better. The exception to this is oftentimes the displaced and angulated type III fracture.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Biomechanics

The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) prosthesis has been demonstrated to be a viable treatment option for a variety of end-stage degenerative conditions of the shoulder. The clinical success of this prosthesis is at least partially due to its unique biomechanical advantages. As taught by Paul Grammont, the medialized center of rotation fixed-fulcrum prosthesis increases the deltoid abductor moment arm lengths and improves deltoid efficiency relative to the native shoulder. All modern reverse shoulder prostheses utilize this medialized center of rotation (CoR) design concept; however, some differences in outcomes and complications have been observed between rTSA prostheses. Such differences in outcomes can at least partially be explained by the impact of glenoid and humeral prosthesis design parameters, surgical technique, implant positioning, patient-specific bone morphology, and usage in humeral and glenoid bone loss situations on reverse shoulder biomechanics. Ultimately, a better understanding of the reverse shoulder biomechanical principles will guide future innovations and further improve clinical outcomes.

Influence of scapular neck length on the extent of impingement-free adduction after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, a short scapular neck length (SNL) decreases postoperative impingement-free adduction, and impingement between the neck of the scapula and the humeral polyethylene cup may cause scapular notching. However, no reports have evaluated the influence of SNL on impingement-free adduction. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the influence of SNL on impingement-free adduction and to examine the effect of glenoid component lateralization and inferiorization on impingement-free adduction.

METHODS

By use of 3-dimensional templating software, a virtual reverse total shoulder arthroplasty model was created in 15 patients who had no osteoarthritic change or any other bony deformity. We measured SNLs separately before implant placement (preoperative SNL) and after implant placement (postoperative SNL). The implant used was the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA), and baseplate bony lateralization of 0, 5, and 10 mm, with inferior eccentricity of 0.5 or 4.5 mm, was tested for impingement-free adduction. Correlations between the preoperative and postoperative SNLs and impingement-free adduction were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative SNL was 8.2 ± 1.9 mm (range, 5.0-11.7 mm), and the mean postoperative SNL was 6.0 ± 2.0 mm (range, 2.1-9.8 mm). There was a moderate correlation between the preoperative SNL and impingement-free adduction (r = 0.628, P = .12) and a strong correlation between the postoperative SNL and impingement-free adduction (r = 0.771, P = .001). Use of the model with 10 mm of bony lateralization and 4.5 mm of inferior eccentricity provided the best results in terms of impingement-free adduction.

CONCLUSION

There were correlations between both the preoperative and postoperative SNLs and impingement-free adduction. Although the lateralized and inferiorized center of rotation may increase the risk of loosening of the glenoid component, this offset significantly increased impingement-free adduction.

Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Indications for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA) have been extended over the last 25 years, and RSA has become the most frequently implanted shoulder arthroplasty worldwide. The initial Grammont design with medialization of the joint center of rotation (JCOR), placement of the JCOR at the bone–implant interface, distalization and semi-constrained configuration has been associated with drawbacks such as reduced rotation and range of motion (ROM), notching, instability and loss of shoulder contour. This review summarizes new strategies to overcome these drawbacks and analyzes the use of glenoid-sided, humeral-sided or global bipolar lateralization, which are applied differently by surgeons and current implant manufacturers. Advantages and drawbacks are discussed. There is evidence that lateralization addresses the initial drawbacks of the Grammont design, improving stability, rates of notching, ROM and shoulder contour, but the ideal extent of lateralization of the glenoid and humerus remains unclear, as well as the maximal acceptable joint reaction force after reduction. Overstuffing and spine of scapula fractures are potential risks. CT-based 3D planning as well as artificial intelligence will help surgeons with planning and execution of appropriate lateralization in RSA. Long-term follow-up of lateralization with new implant designs and implantation strategies is needed.

Complications of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Computational Modelling Perspective

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is an established treatment for elderly patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears, complex proximal humerus fractures, and revision arthroplasty; however, with the increasing indications for RTSA over the last decade and younger implant recipients, post-operative complications have become more frequent, which has driven advances in computational modeling and simulation of reverse shoulder biomechanics. The objective of this study was to provide a review of previously published studies that employed computational modeling to investigate complications associated with RTSA. Models and applications were reviewed and categorized into four possible complications that included scapular notching, component loosening, glenohumeral joint instability, and acromial and scapular spine fracture, all of which remain a common cause of significant functional impairment and revision surgery. The computational shoulder modeling studies reviewed were primarily used to investigate the effects of implant design, intraoperative component placement, and surgical technique on postoperative shoulder biomechanics after RTSA, with the findings ultimately used to elucidate and mitigate complications. The most significant challenge associated with the development of computational models is in the encapsulation of patient-specific anatomy and surgical planning. The findings of this review provide a basis for future direction in computational modeling of the reverse shoulder.

Glenoid lateralization influences active internal rotation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Improvement in internal rotation (IR) is not reliably achieved after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between postoperative IR and glenoid-sided lateralization following RSA in an implant using metallic lateralization.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study of RSAs with minimum 1-year clinical follow-up was performed. Patients were stratified based on the amount of glenoid-sided implant lateralization into 4 groups: 0-2 mm (n = 57), 4 mm (n =238), 6 mm (n = 95), and 8 mm (n = 65). The primary study outcome was active IR at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively, measured both by spinal level and in degrees with the shoulder abducted to 90°. Secondary outcomes were active forward flexion and external rotation, belly press strength, and subjective patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Comparisons were made with 1-way analyses of variance. Linear regression analyses evaluating for the association of glenoid lateralization with active IR were also performed to control for additional confounders, including demographics and other implant variables such as glenosphere diameter, humeral lateralization, humeral version, and whether the subscapularis was repaired.

RESULTS

A total of 455 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 69 years, and 48% of patients were male. IR differences varied by the method of measurement (spinal level vs. IR in degrees with arm abducted). Overall, patients with 8 mm of glenoid lateralization had significantly improved IR compared with all other lateralization groups. Patients with 6 mm of glenoid lateralization had significantly improved IR compared with the 0-2- and 4-mm groups. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes or PROs between lateralization groups. In the regression analysis, glenoid lateralization was the only implant-related variable that was significantly associated with improved IR for both measurement methods. Glenosphere diameter and humeral version were both significantly associated with IR measured in degrees with the arm abducted but not spinal level.

CONCLUSIONS

For the studied implant system, glenoid lateralization of 6-8 mm was associated with improved active IR at 1 year compared to patients with less glenoid lateralization with no significant differences in active forward flexion, external rotation, or PROs. In a multivariable analysis, increased humeral retroversion was associated with increased IR at 90° and increasing glenosphere diameter was associated with decreased IR at 90°, whereas BMI, subscapularis repair, and humeral lateralization did not significantly affect active IR.

Mechanical complications and fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty related to different design types and their rates: part I

The initial reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), designed by Paul Grammont, was intended to treat rotator cuff tear arthropathy in elderly patients. In the early experience, high complication rates (up to 24%) and revision rates (up to 50%) were reported.The most common complications reported were scapular notching, whereas clinically more relevant complications such as instability and acromial fractures were less commonly described.Zumstein et al defined a 'complication' following RSA as any intraoperative or postoperative event that was likely to have a negative influence on the patient's final outcome.High rates of complications related to the Grammont RSA design led to development of non-Grammont designs, with 135 or 145 degrees of humeral inclination, multiple options for glenosphere size and eccentricity, improved baseplate fixation which facilitated glenoid-sided lateralization, and the option of humeral-sided lateralization.Improved implant characteristics combined with surgeon experience led to a dramatic fall in the majority of complications. However, we still lack a suitable solution for several complications, such as acromial stress fracture. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1097-1108. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210039.

Biomechanics of anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty

The biomechanics of the shoulder relies on careful balancing between stability and mobility. A thorough understanding of normal and degenerative shoulder anatomy is necessary, as the goal of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is to reproduce premorbid shoulder kinematics.With reported joint reaction forces up to 2.4 times bodyweight, failure to restore anatomy and therefore provide a stable fulcrum will result in early implant failure secondary to glenoid loosening.The high variability of proximal humeral anatomy can be addressed with modular stems or stemless humeral components. The development of three-dimensional planning has led to a better understanding of the complex nature of glenoid bone deformity in eccentric osteoarthritis.The treatment of cuff tear arthropathy patients was revolutionized by the arrival of Grammont's reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The initial design medialized the centre of rotation and distalized the humerus, allowing up to a 42% increase in the deltoid moment arm.More modern reverse designs have maintained the element of restored stability but sought a more anatomic postoperative position to minimize complications and maximize rotational range of motion. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:918-931. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210014.

Problems, complications, and reinterventions in 4893 onlay humeral lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasties: a systematic review (part I-complications)

Background

Several modifications to the original Grammont reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) design have been proposed to prevent distinctive issues, such as both glenoid and humeral lateralization. The aim of this systematic review was to determine rates of problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions after onlay lateralized humeral stem RSA, hypothesizing that these are design related.

Methods

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement guidelines. A literature search was conducted (01.01.2000–14.04.2020) using PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, Scopus, and Google Scholar employing several combinations of keywords: “reverse shoulder arthroplasty,” “reverse shoulder prosthesis,” “inverse shoulder arthroplasty,” “inverse shoulder prosthesis,” “problems,” “complications,” “results,” “outcomes,” “reoperation,” “revision.”

Results

Thirty-one studies with 4893 RSA met inclusion criteria. The 892 postoperative problems and 296 postoperative complications represented overall problem and complication rates of 22.7% and 7.5%, respectively. Forty-one reoperations and 63 revisions resulted, with an overall reoperation rate of 1.7% and overall revision rate of 2.6%.

Conclusions

Problem, complication, and reintervention rates proved acceptable when implanting a high humeral lateralization stem in RSA. The most frequent problem was scapular notching (12.6%), and the most common postoperative complication was scapular stress fracture (1.8%). An overall humeral complication rate of 1.9% was identified, whereas short stems reported no humeral fractures or stem loosening. Infections (1.3%) proved to be the most common reason for component revision, and instability had a complication rate of 0.8%.

Level of evidence

Systematic review IV

Acromion and Scapular Spine Fractures Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) continues to see tremendous growth as the indications have expanded. A variety of complications have been described, including fractures of the acromion or scapular spine. These fractures are painful and can compromise shoulder stability and functional outcomes following RSA. Multiple studies have recently investigated the incidence, risk factors, and treatment strategies for these injuries. In this article, the authors review current literature and discuss the incidence, cause, associated risk factors, treatment options, and outcomes following fractures of the acromion or scapular spine after RSA.

Factors Influencing Appropriate Implant Selection and Position in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has increased in popularity and has provided improved but somewhat variable results. These variable outcomes may be related to many factors, including implant design, component positioning, specific indication, and patient anatomy. The original Grammont design provided a solution to the high failure rate at the time but was found to have a high rate of scapular notching and poor restoration of rotation. Modern lateralized designs are more consistent in reducing scapular notching while improving range of motion, especially in regards to external rotation. This review article summarizes the effects of modern reverse shoulder prostheses on outcomes.

Primary reverse shoulder replacement with a short stem: A systematic literature review

Background

Total shoulder arthroplasty implant designs have continued to evolve over the years. One recent change has been the shortening of the humeral component to preserve bone stock and to facilitate revision surgery. Despite promising clinical results, radiographic bone adaptions occur frequently in short-stem total shoulder arthroplasty, and limited data exist on short-stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this systematic review was to provide an overview about the functional and radiographic outcomes after an uncemented short-stem RSA, as well as identify areas of clinical importance that are underreported in the current literature.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Clinical outcome studies reporting on short-stem RSA outcomes with evidence level I-IV were included. Demographics, clinical and radiological outcomes, as well as complications and revision data were systematically analyzed and described.

Results

Ten studies, published between 2014 and 2019, reporting on 555 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 32 months (range, 20-99.6 months) met the inclusion criteria. For all studies cuff tear arthropathy was the main indication for RSA (36%), followed by primary osteoarthritis (20%). Clinical outcome was reported in nine of ten studies, with range of motion improving in all studies. Six of the seven studies that used the Constant score (CS) demonstrated significant improvement (27.9 points to 69.3 points in weighted means). All studies reported on radiographic changes and bone adaptions. Among these, scapular notching was the most commonly observed (60 out of 327 cases, 18%) but without any described implication on clinical outcomes. No stem loosening was recorded at any final follow-up. A total of 63 complications (12.9%) were reported, with scapula fractures being the most commonly reported complication. Revision surgery was necessary in 24 cases (4.9%).

Conclusion

Good clinical results, comparable with long-stem RSAs, are reported at short-term follow-up for short-stem RSAs. Humeral bone adaptions occur frequently but aseptic stem loosening is not a matter of concern at short-term follow-up. An area of clinical importance that is under-reported is the relation between filling ratio and stem alignment in short-stem RSA.