Preoperative planning software for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) allows surgeons to virtually perform a reconstruction based off 3D models generated from CT scans of the glenohumeral joint. The purpose of this study was to examine the distribution of chosen glenoid implant as a function of glenoid wear severity, and to evaluate the inter-surgeon variability of optimal glenoid component placement in ATSA. CT scans from 45 patients with glenohumeral arthritis were planned by 8 fellowship trained shoulder arthroplasty specialists using a 3D preoperative planning software, planning each case for optimal implant selection and placement. The software provided three implant types: a standard non-augmented glenoid component, and an 8° and 16° posterior augment wedge glenoid component. The software interface allowed the surgeons to control version, inclination, rotation, depth, anterior- posterior and superior-inferior position of the glenoid components in 1mm and 1° increments, which were recorded and compared for final implant position in each case.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
Preoperative planning software for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) allows surgeons to virtually perform a reconstruction based off 3D models generated from CT scans of the glenohumeral joint. While anatomical studies have defined the range of normal values for glenoid version and inclination, there is no clear consensus on glenoid component selection and position for RTSA. The purpose of this study was to examine the distribution of chosen glenoid implant as a function of glenoid wear severity, and to evaluate the inter-surgeon variability of optimal glenoid component placement in RTSA. CT scans from 45 patients with glenohumeral arthritis were planned by 8 fellowship trained shoulder arthroplasty specialists using a 3D preoperative planning software, planning each case for optimal implant selection and placement. The software provided four glenoid baseplate implant types: a standard non-augmented component, an 8° posterior augment wedged component, a 10° superior augment wedged component, and a combined 8° posterior and 10° superior wedged augment component. The software interface allowed the surgeons to control version, inclination, rotation, depth, anterior-posterior and superior-inferior position of the glenoid components in 1mm and 1° increments, which were recorded and compared for final implant position in each case.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
Aseptic glenoid loosening is a common failure mode of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Achieving initial glenoid fixation can be a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon since rTSA is commonly used in elderly osteoporotic patients and is increasingly used in scapula with significant boney defects. Multiple rTSA baseplate designs are available in the marketplace, these prostheses offer between 2 and 6 screw options, with each screw hole accepting a locking and/or compression screw of varying lengths (between 15 to 50mm). Despite these multiple implant offerings, little guidance exists regarding the minimal screw length and/or minimum screw number necessary to achieve fixation. To this end, this study analyzes the effect of multiple screw lengths and multiple screw numbers on rTSA initial glenoid fixation when tested in a low density (15pcf) polyurethane bone substitute model. This rTSA glenoid loosening test was conducted according to ASTM F 2028–17; we quantified glenoid fixation of a 38mm reverse shoulder (Equinoxe, Exactech, Inc) in a 15 pcf low density polyurethane block (Pacific Research, Inc) before and after cyclic testing of 750N for 10k cycles. To evaluate the effect of both screw fixation and screw number, glenoid baseplates were constructed using 2 and 4, 4.5×18mm diameter poly-axial locking compression screws (both n = 5) and 2 and 4, 4.5×46mm diameter poly-axial locking compression screws (both n = 5). A two-tailed unpaired student's t-test (p < 0.05) compared prosthesis displacements to evaluate each screw length (18 vs 46mm) and each screw number (2 vs 4).Introduction
Methods
Initial fixation of noncemented implants is critical to achieve a stable bone/implant interface during the first few months after surgery to potentiate bone in-growth and avoid aseptic loosening. Numerous reverse shoulder glenoid implant designs have been conceived in an attempt to improve implant performance and decrease the rate of aseptic glenoid loosening, commonly reported to be 5%. Design variations include: baseplate profile, baseplate size, backside geometry, center of rotation, surface finish and coatings, fixation screw diameters, number of fixation screw options, and type of screw fixation. However, little comparative biomechanical data exist to substantiate one design consideration over another. To that end, this study quantified glenoid fixation before and after cyclic loading of simulated abduction of 6 different reverse shoulder glenoid designs when secured to a low density polyurethane bone substitute block. A displacement test quantified fixation of 6 different reverse shoulder designs: 38 mm Equinoxe standard offset (EQ), 38 mm Equinoxe lateral offset (EQL), 36 mm Depuy Delta III (DRS), 36 mm Zimmer, (ZRS), 32 mm neutral DJO RSP (DJO), and a 36 mm Tornier BIO-RSA (BIO), secured to a 0.24 g/cm3 polyurethane block as a shear (357 N) and compressive (50 N) load was applied before and after cyclic loading. (Figure 1) Glenoid displacement was measured relative to the block using dial indicators in the directions of the applied loads along the superior/inferior axis. A cyclic test rotated each glenosphere (n = 7 for each design) about a 55° arc of abduction at 0.5 Hz for 10k cycles as 750N was constantly applied. (Figure 2) Each implant was cycled using a 145° humeral liner of the appropriate diameter to ensure each device is subjected to the same shear load. A two-tailed unpaired student's t-test was used to compare pre- and post-cyclic mean displacements between designs; p < 0.05 denotes significance.Introduction
Methods
Both anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty are the standard of care for various end-stage degenerative conditions of the glenohumeral joint. Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common indication for aTSA while Rotator Cuff Tear Arthropathy (CTA) is the most common indication for rTSA. Worldwide, the usage of both aTSA and rTSA has increased significantly due in part, to the predictability of acceptable outcomes achieved with each prosthesis type. The aim of this study is to quantify outcomes using 5 different metrics and compare results achieved for each indication using one platform total shoulder arthroplasty system which utilizes the same humeral component and instrumentation to perform both aTSA or rTSA. 200 patients (70.9 ± 7.3 yrs) were treated by two orthopaedic surgeons using either aTSA or rTSA. 73 patients received aTSA (67.4 ± 8.0 yrs) for treatment of OA (PHF: 64 patients; YM: 9 patients) and 127 patients received a rTSA (72.9 ± 6.1 yrs) for treatment of CTA (PHF: 53 patients; YM: 74 patients). These patients were scored pre-operatively and at latest follow-up using the SST, UCLA, ASES, Constant, and SPADI metrics; active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation were also measured. The average follow-up for all patients was 31.4 ± 9.7 months (aTSA: 32.5 ± 12.1 months; rTSA: 30.8 ± 8.0 months). A Student's two-tailed, unpaired t-test was used to identify differences in pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post-operative improvements in results, where p < 0.05 denoted a significant difference.Introduction
Methods
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) increases the deltoid abductor moment arm length to facilitate the restoration of arm elevation; however, rTSA is less effective at restoring external rotation. This analysis compares the muscle moment arms associated with two designs of rTSA humeral trays during two motions: abduction and internal/external rotation to evaluate the null hypothesis that offsetting the humerus in the posterior/superior direction will not impact muscle moment arms. A 3-D computer model simulated abduction and internal/external rotation for the normal shoulder, the non-offset reverse shoulder, and the posterior/superior offset reverse shoulder. Four muscles were modeled as 3 lines from origin to insertion. Both offset and non-offset reverse shoulders were implanted at the same location along the inferior glenoid rim of the scapula in 20° of humeral retroversion. Abductor moment arms were calculated for each muscle from 0° to 140° humeral abduction in the scapular plan using a 1.8: 1 scapular rhythm. Rotation moment arms were calculated for each muscle from 30° internal to 60° external rotation with the arm in 30° abduction.Introduction
Methods
The inferior/medial shift in the center of rotation (CoR) associated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) shortens the anterior and posterior shoulder muscles; shortening of these muscles is one explanation for why rTSA often fails to restore active internal/external rotation. This study quantifies changes in muscle length from offsetting the humerus in the posterior/superior directions using an offset humeral tray/liner with rTSA during two motions: abduction and internal/external rotation. The offset and non-offset humeral tray/liner designs are compared to evaluate the null hypothesis that offsetting the humerus in the posterior/superior direction will not impact muscle length with rTSA. A 3-D computer model was developed to simulate abduction and internal/external rotation for the normal shoulder, the non-offset reverse shoulder, and the posterior/superior offset reverse shoulder. Seven muscles were modeled as 3 lines from origin to insertion. Both offset and non-offset reverse shoulders were implanted at the same location along the inferior glenoid rim of the scapula in 20° of humeral retroversion. Muscle lengths were measured as the average of the 3 lines simulating each muscle and are presented as an average length over each arc of motion (0 to 65° abduction with a fixed scapula and 0 to 40° of internal/external rotation with the humerus in 0° abduction) relative to the normal shoulder.Introduction
Methods
Posterior glenoid wear is common in glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Tightening of the subscapularis causes posterior humeral head subluxation and a posterior load concentration on the glenoid. The reduced contact area causes glenoid wear and potentially posterior instability. To correct posterior wear and restore glenoid version, surgeons may eccentrically ream the anterior glenoid to re-center the humeral head. However, eccentric reaming undermines prosthesis support by removing unworn anterior glenoid bone, compromises cement fixation by increasing the likelihood of peg perforation, and medializes the joint line which has implications on joint stability. To conserve bone and preserve the joint line when correcting glenoid version, manufacturers have developed posterior augment glenoids. This study quantifies the change in rotator cuff muscle length (relative to a nonworn/normal shoulder) resulting from three sizes of posterior glenoid defects using 2 different glenoids/reaming methods: 1) eccentric reaming using a standard (nonaugmented) glenoid and 2) off-axis reaming using an 8, 12, and 16° posterior augment glenoid. A 3-D computer model was developed in Unigraphics (Siemens, Inc) to simulate internal/external rotation and quantify rotator cuff muscle length when correcting glenoid version in three sizes of posterior glenoid defects using posterior augmented and non-augmented glenoid implants. Each glenoid was implanted in a 3-D digitized scapula and humerus (Pacific Research, Inc); 3 sizes (small, medium, and large) of posterior glenoid defects were created in the scapula by posteriorly shifting the humeral head and medially translating the humeral head into the scapula in 1.5 mm increments. Five muscles were simulated as three lines from origin to insertion except for the subscapularis which was wrapped. After simulated implantation in each size glenoid defect, the humerus was internally/externally rotated from 0 to 40° with the humerus at the side. Muscle lengths were measured as the average length of the three lines simulating each muscle at each degree of rotation and compared to that at the corresponding arm position for the normal shoulder without defect to quantify the percentage change in muscle length for each configuration.Introduction
Methods
