Patients receiving reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) often have osseous erosions because of glenohumeral arthritis, leading to increased surgical complexity. Glenoid implant fixation is a primary predictor of the success of RTSA and affects micromotion at the bone-implant interface. Augmented implants which incorporate specific geometry to address superior erosion are currently available, but the clinical outcomes of these implants are still considered short-term. The objective of this study was to investigate micromotion at the glenoid-baseplate interface for a standard, 3 mm and 6 mm lateralized baseplates, half-wedge, and full-wedge baseplates. It was hypothesized that the mechanism of load distribution from the baseplate to the glenoid will differ between implants, and these varying mechanisms will affect overall baseplate micromotion.

Clinical CT scans of seven shoulders (mean age 69 years, 10°-19° glenoid inclinations) that were classified as having E2-type glenoid erosions were used to generate 3D scapula models using MIMICS image processing software (Materialise, Belgium) with a 0.75 mm mesh size. Each scapula was then repeatedly virtually reconstructed with the five implant types (standard,3mm,6mm lateralized, and half/full wedge; Fig.1) positioned in neutral version and inclination with full backside contact. The reconstructed scapulae were then imported into ABAQUS (SIMULIA, U.S.) finite element software and loads were applied simulating 15°,30°,45°,60°,75°, and 90° of abduction based on published instrumented in-vivo implant data. The micromotion normal and tangential to the bone surface, and effective load transfer area were recorded for each implant and abduction angle. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to perform statistical analysis.

Maximum normal micromotion was found to be significantly less when using the standard baseplate (5±4 μm), as opposed to the full-wedge (16±7 μm, p=0.004), 3 mm lateralized (10±6 μm, p=0.017), and 6 mm lateralized (16±8 μm, p=0.007) baseplates (Fig.2). The half-wedge baseplate (11±7 μm) also produced significantly less micromotion than the full-wedge (p=0.003), and the 3 mm lateralized produced less micromotion than the full wedge (p=0.026) and 6 mm lateralized (p=0.003). Similarly, maximum tangential micromotion was found to be significantly less when using the standard baseplate (7±4 μm), as opposed to the half-wedge (12±5 μm, p=0.014), 3 mm lateralized (10±5 μm, p=0.003), and 6 mm lateralized (13±6 μm, p=0.003) baseplates (Fig.2). The full wedge (11±3 μm), half-wedge, and 3 mm lateralized baseplate also produced significantly less micromotion than the 6 mm lateralized (p=0.027, p=012, p=0.02, respectively). Both normal and tangential micromotion were highest at the 30° and 45° abduction angles (Fig.2). The effective load transfer area (ELTA) was lowest for the full wedge, followed by the half wedge, 6mm, 3mm, and standard baseplates (Fig.3) and increased with abduction angle.

Glenoid baseplates with reduced lateralization and flat backside geometries resulted in the best outcomes with regards to normal and tangential micromotion. However, these types of implants are not always feasible due to the required amount of bone removal, and medialization of the bone-implant interface. Future work should study the acceptable levels of bone removal for patients with E-type glenoid erosion and the corresponding best implant selections for such cases.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.

Shoulder arthroplasty humeral stem design has evolved to accommodate patient anatomy characteristics. As a result, stems are available in numerous shapes, coatings, lengths, sizes, and vary by fixation method. This abundance of stem options creates a surgical paradox of choice. Metrics describing stem stability, including a stem's resistance to subsidence and micromotion, are important factors that should influence stem selection, but have yet to be assessed in response to the diametral (i.e., thickness) sizing of short stem humeral implants.

Eight paired cadaveric humeri (age = 75±15 years) were reconstructed with surgeon selected ‘standard’ sized short-stemmed humeral implants, as well as 2mm ‘oversized’ implants. Stem sizing conditions were randomized to left and right humeral pairs. Following implantation, an anteroposterior radiograph was taken of each stem and the metaphyseal and diaphyseal fill ratios were quantified. Each humerus was then potted in polymethyl methacrylate bone cement and subjected to 2000 cycles of 90º forward flexion loading. At regular intervals during loading, stem subsidence and micromotion were assessed using a validated system of two optical markers attached to the stem and humeral pot (accuracy of <15µm).

The metaphyseal fill ratio did not differ significantly between the oversized and standard stems (0.50±0.06 vs 0.50±0.10; P = 0.997, Power = 0.05); however, the diaphyseal fill ratio did (0.52±0.06 vs 0.45±0.07; P < 0.001, Power = 1.0). Neither fill ratio correlated significantly with stem subsidence or micromotion. Stem subsidence and micromotion were found to plateau following 400 cycles of loading. Oversizing stem thickness prevented implant head-back contact in all but one specimen with the least dense metaphyseal bone, while standard sizing only yielded incomplete head-back contact in the two subjects with the densest bone. Oversized stems subsided significantly less than their standard counterparts (standard: 1.4±0.6mm, oversized: 0.5±0.5mm; P = 0.018, Power = 0.748;), and resulted in slightly more micromotion (standard: 169±59µm, oversized: 187±52µm, P = 0.506, Power = 0.094,).

Short stem diametral sizing (i.e., thickness) has an impact on stem subsidence and micromotion following humeral arthroplasty. In both cases, the resulting three-dimensional stem micromotion exceeded, the 150µm limit suggested for bone ingrowth, although that limit was derived from a uniaxial assessment. Though not statistically significant, the increased stem micromotion associated with stem oversizing may in-part be attributed to over-compacting the cancellous bed during broaching, which creates a denser, potentially smoother, interface, though this influence requires further assessment. The findings of the present investigation highlight the importance of proper short stem diametral sizing, as even a relatively small, 2mm, increase can negatively impact the subsidence and micromotion of the stem-bone construct. Future work should focus on developing tools and methods to support surgeons in what is currently a subjective process of stem selection.

Shoulder arthroplasty is effective at restoring function and relieving pain in patients suffering from glenohumeral arthritis; however, cortex thinning has been significantly associated with larger press-fit stems (fill ratio = 0.57 vs 0.48; P = 0.013)1. Additionally, excessively stiff implant-bone constructs are considered undesirable, as high initial stiffness of rigid fracture fixation implants has been related to premature loosening and an ultimate failure of the implant-bone interface2. Consequently, one objective which has driven the evolution of humeral stem design has been the reduction of stress-shielding induced bone resorption; this in-part has led to the introduction of short stems, which rely on metaphyseal fixation. However, the selection of short stem diametral (i.e., thickness) sizing remains subjective, and its impact on the resulting stem-bone construct stiffness has yet to be quantified.

Eight paired cadaveric humeri (age = 75±15 years) were reconstructed with surgeon selected ‘standard’ sized and 2mm ‘oversized’ short-stemmed implants. Standard stem sizing was based on a haptic assessment of stem and broach stability per typical surgical practice. Anteroposterior radiographs were taken, and the metaphyseal and diaphyseal fill ratios were quantified. Each humerus was then potted in polymethyl methacrylate bone cement and subjected to 2000 cycles of compressive loading representing 90º forward flexion to simulate postoperative seating. Following this, a custom 3D printed metal implant adapter was affixed to the stem, which allowed for compressive loading in-line with the stem axis (Fig.1). Each stem was then forced to subside by 5mm at a rate of 1mm/min, from which the compressive stiffness of the stem-bone construct was assessed. The bone-implant construct stiffness was quantified as the slope of the linear portion of the resulting force-displacement curves.

The metaphyseal and diaphyseal fill ratios were 0.50±0.10 and 0.45±0.07 for the standard sized stems and 0.50±0.06 and 0.52±0.06 for the oversized stems, respectively. Neither was found to correlate significantly with the stem-bone construct stiffness measure (metaphysis: P = 0.259, diaphysis: P = 0.529); however, the diaphyseal fill ratio was significantly different between standard and oversized stems (P < 0.001, Power = 1.0). Increasing the stem size by 2mm had a significant impact on the stiffness of the stem-bone construct (P = 0.003, Power = 0.971; Fig.2). Stem oversizing yielded a construct stiffness of −741±243N/mm; more than double that of the standard stems, which was −334±120N/mm.

The fill ratios reported in the present investigation match well with those of a finite element assessment of oversizing short humeral stems3. This work complements that investigation's conclusion, that small reductions in diaphyseal fill ratio may reduce the likelihood of stress shielding, by also demonstrating that oversizing stems by 2mm dramatically increases the stiffness of the resulting implant-bone construct, as stiffer implants have been associated with decreased bone stimulus4 and premature loosening2. The present findings suggest that even a small, 2mm, variation in the thickness of short stem humeral components can have a marked influence on the resulting stiffness of the implant-bone construct. This highlights the need for more objective intraoperative methods for selecting stem size to provide guidelines for appropriate diametral sizing.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.

Total shoulder arthroplasty implants have evolved to include more anatomically shaped components that replicate the native state. The geometry of the humeral head is non-spherical, with the sagittal diameter of the base of the head being up to 6% (or 2.1-3.9 mm) larger than the frontal diameter. Despite this, many TSA humeral head implants are spherical, meaning that the diameter must be oversized to achieve complete coverage, resulting in articular overhang, or portions of the resection plane will remain uncovered. It is suspected that implant-bone load transfer between the backside of the humeral head and the cortex on the resection plane may yield better load-transfer characteristics if resection coverage was properly matched without overhang, thereby mitigating proximal stress shielding.

Eight paired cadaveric humeri were prepared for reconstruction with a short stem total shoulder arthroplasty by an orthopaedic surgeon who selected and prepared the anatomic humeral resection plane using a cutting guide and a reciprocating sagittal saw. The humeral head was resected, and the resulting cortical boundary of the resection plane was digitized using a stylus and an optical tracking system with a submillimeter accuracy (Optotrak,NDI,Waterloo,ON). A plane was fit to the trace and the viewpoint was transformed to be perpendicular to the plane. To simulate optimal sizing of both circular and elliptical humeral heads, both circles and ellipses were fit to the filtered traces using the sum of least squares error method. Two extreme scenarios were also investigated: upsizing until 100% total coverage and downsizing until 0% overhang.

Total resection plane coverage for the fitted ellipses was found to be 98.2±0.6% and fitted circles was 95.9±0.9%Cortical coverage was found to be 79.8 ±8.2% and 60.4±6.9% for ellipses and circles respectively. By switching to an ellipsoid humeral head, a small 2.3±0.3% (P < 0.001) increase in total coverage led to a 19.5±1.3%(P < 0.001) increase in cortical coverage. The overhang for fitted ellipses and circles was 1.7 ±0.7% and 3.8 ±0.8% respectively, defined as a percentage of the total enclosed area that exceeded the bounds of the humerus resections. Using circular heads results in 2.0 ±0.1% (P < 0.001) greater overhang. Upsizing until 100% resection coverage, the ellipse produced 5.4 ±3.5% (P < 0.001) less overhang than the circle. When upsizing the overhang increases less rapidly for the ellipsoid humeral head that the circular one (Figure 1). Full coverage for the head is achieved more rapidly when up-sizing with an ellipsoid head as well. Downsizing until 0% overhang, total coverage and cortical coverage were 7.5 ±2.8% (P < 0.001) and 7.9 ±8.2% (P = 0.01) greater for the ellipse, respectively. Cortical coverage exhibits a crossover point at −2.25% downsizing, where further downsizing led to the circular head providing more cortical coverage.

Reconstruction with ellipsoids can provide greater total resection and cortical coverage than circular humeral heads while avoiding excessive overhang. Elliptical head cortical coverage can be inferior when undersized. These initial findings suggest resection-matched humeral heads may yield benefits worth pursuing in the next generation of TSA implant design.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.

Hemiarthroplasty is a common procedure that is an attractive alternative to total arthroplasty because it conserves natural tissue, allows for quicker recovery, and has a lower cost. One significant issue with hemiarthroplasties is that they lead to accelerated wear of the opposing native cartilage, likely due to the high stiffness of the implant. The purpose of this study was to investigate the range of currently available biomaterials for hemiarthroplasty applications. We employed a finite-element (FE) model of a radial head implant against the native capitellum as our joint model.

The FE model was developed in ABAQUS v6.14 (Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence, RI, USA). A solid axisymmetric concave implant with seven different materials and the native radial head were evaluated, six modelled as elastic materials with different Young's moduli (E) and Poisson's Ratios (ν), and one modelled as a Mooney-Rivlin hyperelastic material. The materials investigated were CoCr (E=230 GPa, ν = 0.3), PEEK (E=3.7 GPa, ν = 0.36), HDPE (E=2.7 GPa, ν = 0.42), UHMWPE (E=0.69 GPa, ν = 0.49), Bionate 75D (E=0.288 GPa, ν = 0.39), Bionate 55D (E=0.039 GPa, ν = 0.45), and Bionate 80A (modelled as a Mooney-Rivlin hyperelastic material). A load of 100 N was applied to the radius through the center of rotation representing a typical load through the radius. The variable of interest was articular contact stress on the capitellum.

The CoCr implant had a maximum contact stress over 114% higher than the native radial head. By changing the material to lower the stiffness of the implant, the maximum contact stress was 24%, 70%, 105%, 111%, 113%, and 113% higher than the native radial head for Bionate 80A, Bionate 55D, Bionate 75D, UHMWPE, HDPE, and PEEK respectively.

This work shows that lowering implant stiffness can reduce the contact stress on cartilage in hemiarthroplasty implants. By changing the material below a Young's modulus of ∼100 MPa elevated stresses on the capitellum can be markedly reduced and hence potentially reduce or prevent degenerative changes of the native articulating cartilage. Low stiffness implant materials are not a novel concept, but to date there have been few that investigate materials (such as Bionate) as a potential load bearing material for implant applications. Further work is required to assess the efficacy of these materials for articular bearing applications.