The Role of Humeral Neck-Shaft Angle in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: 155° versus <155°—A Systematic Review

Does the stemless reverse arthroplasty compare to a conventional stemmed implant? Clinical and radiographic evaluation at 2 years' minimum follow-up

BACKGROUND

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a well-recognized treatment for many shoulder conditions, including rotator cuff arthropathy, primary glenohumeral joint arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis, and can be used in both trauma and revision settings. Over the past 10 years, its popularity in New Zealand has been increasing, with a 6%-7% annual growth rate during this period. Stemless RSA designs have the following proposed advantages: They can preserve humeral bone stock, they can limit periprosthetic fractures, and they can be indicated in patients with abnormal diaphyseal humeral anatomy. To date, only 1 study has evaluated the outcomes of the Lima SMR Stemless implant. We present our data with an aim to report how the stemless reverse arthroplasty compares to a conventional stemmed implant.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients treated at a single institution between 2015 and 2020. The endpoint was defined as final follow-up at a minimum of 2 years. Patients were excluded from the final analysis if they underwent revision. Thirty-three patients were identified as having undergone stemless RSA. Thirty patients had patient-reported outcome measures and radiographs at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Three patients had undergone revision within 2 years. The same sample size of stemmed RSAs (n = 33) was selected for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 30 underwent stemless RSA and 30 underwent stemmed RSA. The demographic characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable except age at operation, which showed a statistically significant difference (P = .001): 77 years (stemmed) vs. 65 years (stemless). The mean Oxford Shoulder Score was 40.1 in the stemless group vs. 40 in the stemmed group. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 72.9 in the stemless group vs. 79 in the stemmed group. Patient-reported outcome measures, pain scores, and satisfaction ratings were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups. In terms of radiographic data, subsidence was observed in 2 patients in the stemless RSA group but the patients had no clinical symptoms. Also in the stemless RSA group, 1 patient had an acromial stress fracture and 1 patient had a superficial wound infection successfully treated with oral antibiotics. In terms of revisions in the stemless RSA group, 1 patient underwent revision owing to chronic infection, 1 underwent revision as a result of a periprosthetic fracture after a fall, and 1 underwent revision for gross instability.

CONCLUSIONS

The early results of sRSA are promising, and the stemless implant shows similar outcomes to a conventional stemmed implant.

Midterm outcomes of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of studies with minimum 5-year follow-up

Background

Excellent short-term outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been reported, but longer term outcomes in the existing literature are sparse and vary widely. The purpose of this study is to systematically assess the existing literature to quantify functional outcomes and complication rates after RSA at a minimum of five years of follow-up.

Methods

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-compliant systematic literature search of the PubMed and Embase databases was undertaken. Studies reporting outcomes after primary RSA for nontrauma-related indications with a minimum of 5-year follow-up were included.

Results

Overall, 20 studies satisfied all inclusion criteria. This represented 1591 shoulders in 1556 patients (32.1% males), with a mean age of 70.2 ± 5.0 years and mean follow-up of 8.8 years, or 106.2 ± 30.1 months (60-243). At final follow-up, the mean reported Constant Murley score was 62.1 ± 5.0 (49.0-83.0). The mean adjusted Constant Murley score was 83.5 ± 12.5 (58-111.9). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81.8 ± 4.6, while the mean subjective shoulder value was 74.6 ± 6.4. Overall, 88% of patients rated their satisfaction as either good or very good. The range of active forward flexion, abduction, external, and internal rotation were respectively, 126° ± 13°, 106° ± 11°, 22° ± 11°, and 6° ± 2°. The overall rate of revision surgery was 4.9% (0%-45.5%). Regarding complications, the rate of prosthetic joint infection was 4.3% (0%-26.7%), shoulder dislocation was 3.7% (0%-20.4%), and acromial fracture was 2.0% (0%-8.8%). At final follow-up, 30.9% of shoulders had some degree of scapular notching.

Conclusion

This systematic review shows that RSA results in high satisfaction rates, good clinical outcomes, as well as modest complication and revision rates at minimum 5-year follow-up.

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.

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).

Narrative review of influence of prosthesis lateralization on clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: glenoid vs. humerus vs. combined

Background and Objective

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has become a common orthopaedic procedure, with a growing number of cases annually for multiple indications, such as rotator cuff arthropathy, osteoarthritis, or fractures of the proximal humerus, to reduce pain and restore shoulder mobility. Prosthesis design and various recent improvements aim to enhance range of motion (ROM) and stability and to limit component loosening and other potential complications. Many of these well-known issues could theoretically be improved by glenoid, humeral, or combined component lateralization. The objective of this article is to provide an up-to-date literature overview, present available options, and discuss the rationale behind lateralization of certain components, as well as their combined impact on outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

PubMed and Scopus databases from 2003 to 2023 were searched and screened for studies, including systematic reviews, on the influence of glenoid, humeral, and combined component lateralization that served for narrative review of rationale behind such design.

Key Content and Findings

Currently, a number of computer simulations, anatomic studies, and limited clinical references aim to support the rationale behind glenoid augmentation, variable humeral neck-shaft angle (NSA), or humeral tray design.

Conclusions

The utility of lateralization has not yet been clinically established. Randomized, long-term clinical outcome studies are still needed to reach a verdict going beyond surgeon preference and case-specific indications.

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

There is increasing interest in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) as a reliable treatment for arthritic, rotator cuff deficient shoulders. Humeral and glenoid version are controversial parameters that can influence internal and external rotation, muscular forces, and implant stability as outcomes of RTSA. The aim of this study was to obtain an overview of the current knowledge on the effect of both humeral component version and glenoid component version and give recommendations on their most optimal degree for RTSA. A comprehensive quantitative review of the published literature on the effect of humeral version and glenoid version in RTSA was performed, to identify its influence on the range of movement, muscle forces, and intrinsic stability of the reverse prosthesis. Eleven studies were included: nine were biomechanical studies, one was a clinical-radiographic study, and one was an implant design consideration. Anterior stability can be improved by implanting the humeral component in neutral or with some anteversion. Glenoid component retroversion has been proven to reduce the likelihood of subluxation, while increasing ER and ROM at the same time. The study was conducted considering 5° anteversion; neutral; and 5°, 10°, and 20° retroversion of the glenoid component. Although a final opinion has not been yet expressed on the matter, the general consensus tends to agree on restoring 0° to 20° of retroversion of the humeral and glenoid component to yield the best outcomes.

Influence of neck shaft angle of humerus in prosthesis design

Background

A better understanding of the proximal humerus is essential for anatomical reconstruction of the glenohumeral joint during prosthetic replacement. The neck-shaft angle is critical for correct calcar screw positioning when fixing a proximal humeral fracture with a locking plate. It's essential for exact implant placement and treatment of any soft-tissue or bone pathology. Improper implants cause discomfort and post-operative complications, therefore understanding the humeral neck shaft angle is fundamental in the design and manufacturing of prostheses. This study looked into the necessity regional data of the humeral neck shaft angle (NSA) and its importance in shoulder prosthesis manufacturing.

Method

This cross-sectional investigation was conducted on 300 dry cadaveric humeri of unknown gender and age that were free of damage or deformity. The Goniometer was used to measure the neck shaft angle. The data was analysed using SPSS software. The standard deviation and mean were calculated. The statistical difference between the right and left humeri was assessed using the students' t' test.

Observations

The NSA of the humerus was 131.265.82° on average. The NSA mean values were substantially higher on the right side. A statistically significant difference between the right and left humeri was revealed by a P value of 0.001.

Conclusion

Success of the shoulder arthroplasty demands anatomical reconstruction of the normal neck-shaft angle of the humerus. Racial variations in the morphometry of the neck-shaft angle needs to be considered in prosthesis design.