Abstract
Total shoulder arthroplasty has gone through several generations, as instruments and implant designs have given surgeons both more options in the alignment of the components and more guidance in the best choices to make. However, while the measurement of alignment has become more sophisticated, the importance of particular aspects of alignment to actual patient comfort and function has been less completely characterised.
Overstuffing of the joint and proud humeral heads have been most associated with clinical failure. The efforts to avoid this can be divided into two camps: 1.) The anatomic school, who believe an experienced surgeon can divine the correct anatomy that existed before the distortions of arthritis began, and that the surgeon should make free-hand cuts and alignments to restore the normal anatomy. 2.) The cutting-guide school, who believe that average versions and positions avoid error and that soft-tissue balancing requires occasional deviations from “normal” anatomy.
Reverse total shoulder replacement in contrast is a semi-constrained implant, with built-in “internal impingement” at the extremes of motion, which can cause notching and/or instability (levering out). Initial European experience favored placing the humeral component in 0 degrees, but most surgeons have gravitated toward 15–20 degrees of retroversion to allow easy conversion from/to a hemiarthroplasty as needed. Increased retroversion may block internal rotation, and increased anteversion limits external rotation.
