Humeral and Glenoid Version in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

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.

Mid-term results of the use of structural humeral head autograft to correct glenoid bone loss in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Native glenoid bone loss presents technical challenges in shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to report the mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with structural humeral head autograft reconstruction of glenoid bone loss in the setting of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA).

Methods

Retrospective review of 30 shoulders in 28 patients undergoing rTSA with a structural humeral head autograft to correct glenoid bone loss. Demographics, comorbidities, anatomic details, and patient-reported outcome measures were collected for analysis.

Results

Range of motion and patient-reported outcome measures were all significantly improved postoperatively (P < .001). Bone grafts were found to incorporate into 100% of shoulders, with no protheses displaying signs of loosening or other structural concerns. No revision procedures were performed, and all patients were satisfied with their shoulder postoperatively. Two patients developed scapular notching on follow-up.

Discussion

The use of a humeral head autograft to reconstruct glenoid bone loss in patients undergoing rTSA is a safe and effective procedure. It allows for a local graft source to be utilized thus avoiding potential comorbidity and complications associated with the use of alternative site autografts or allografts and has the advantage of nearly congruent fit within the defect.

Does forearm referencing using a retroversion guide achieve the targeted retroversion of the humeral component in reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Component positioning affects clinical outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, which necessitates an implantation technique that is reproducible, consistent, and reliable. This study aims to assess the accuracy and precision of positioning the humeral component in planned retroversion using a forearm referencing guide.

METHODS

Computed tomography scans of 54 patients (27 males and 27 females) who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis or cuff tear arthropathy were evaluated. A standardized surgical technique was used to place the humeral stem in 15° of retroversion. Version was assessed intraoperatively visualizing the retroversion guide from above and referencing the forearm axis. Metal subtraction techniques from postoperative computed tomography images allowed for the generation of 3D models of the humerus and for evaluation of the humeral component position. Anatomical humeral plane and implant planes were defined and the retroversion 3D angle between identified planes was recorded for each patient. Accuracy and precision were assessed. A subgroup analysis evaluated differences between male and female patients.

RESULTS

The humeral retroversion angle ranged from 0.9° to 22.8°. The majority (81%) of the measurements were less than 15°. Mean retroversion angle (±SD) was 9.9° ± 5.8° (95% CI 8.4°-11.5°) with a mean percent error with respect to 15° of -34% ± 38 (95% CI -23 to -44). In the male subgroup (n = 27, range 3.8°-22.5°), the mean retroversion angle was 11.9° ± 5.4° (95% CI 9.8°-14.1°) with a mean percent error with respect to 15° of -21% ± 36 (95% CI -6 to -35). In the female subgroup (n = 27, range 0.9°-22.8°), mean retroversion angle was 8.0° ± 5.5° (95% CI 5.8°-10.1°) and the mean percent error with respect to 15° was -47% ± 36 (95% CI -32 to -61). The differences between the 2 gender groups were statistically significant (P = .006).

CONCLUSION

Referencing the forearm using an extramedullary forearm referencing system to position the humeral stem in a desired retroversion is neither accurate nor precise. There is a nonnegligible tendency to achieve a lower retroversion than planned, and the error is more marked in females.

Influence of Lateralization and Distalization on Joint Function after Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

The purpose of this study was to investigate how lateralization shoulder angle (LSA) and distalization shoulder angle (DSA) are related to clinical and kinematic outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Thirty-three patients were evaluated at least six months postoperatively. The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Constant Murley Score (CMS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were used. Shoulder kinematics was evaluated with a stereophotogrammetric system. LSA and DSA inter-rater reliability was analysed through the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Stepwise forward linear regression analysis was conducted between LSA and DSA with clinical scales and kinematic measures, between which a correlation analysis was conducted. The inter-rater reliability for LSA (mean ICC = 0.93) and DSA (mean ICC = 0.97) results were good to excellent. Greater LSA values were associated with higher peaks of internal rotation (p = 0.012, R2 = 0.188) and range of motion (ROM) (p = 0.037, R2 = 0.133). SANE (p = 0.009), CMS (p = 0.031), and SST (0.026) were positively correlated to external rotation, while VAS (p = 0.020) was negatively related. Abduction peaks were positively related to CMS (p = 0.011) and SANE (p = 0.037), as well as abduction ROM (SANE, p = 0.031; CMS, p = 0.014).