The purpose was to evaluate the relationship of component size and position to postoperative range of motion following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The hypothesis was that increased lateralization, larger glenospheres, and a decreased acromiohumeral distance would be associated with excellent postoperative range of motion.
Methods
A retrospective multicenter study was performed at a minimum of one year postoperatively on 160 patients who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° humeral component. Outcomes were stratified based on postoperative forward flexion and external rotation into excellent (n = 42), defined as forward flexion >140° and external rotation > 30°, or poor (n = 36), defined as forward flexion <100° and external rotation < 15°. Radiographic measurements and component features were compared between the two groups.
Results
A larger glenosphere size was associated with an excellent outcome (p = 0.009). A 2-mm posterior offset humeral cup (p = 0.012) and an increased inferior glenosphere overhang (3.1 mm vs 1.4 mm; p = 0.002) were also associated with excellent outcomes. Humeral lateralization and distalization were not associated with an excellent outcome.
Conclusion: Larger glenosphere size and inferior positioning as well as posterior humeral offset are associated with improved postoperative range of motion following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
BoileauPWatkinsonDHatzidakisAM, et al.Neer Award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2006; 15(5): 527–540.
2.
SirveauxFFavardLOudetD, et al.Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff: results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br2004; 86(3): 388–395.
3.
WernerCMSteinmannPAGilbartM, et al.Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87(7): 1476–1486.
4.
JeonYSRheeYG. Factors associated with poor active anterior elevation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27(5): 786–793.
5.
SimovitchRFlurinPHWrightT, et al.Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27(2): 298–305.
6.
BoutsiadisALenoirHDenardPJ, et al.The lateralization and distalization shoulder angles are important determinants of clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27(7): 1226–1234.
7.
RobersonTAShanleyEAbildgaardJT, et al.The influence of radiographic markers of biomechanical variables on outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Open Access2019; 3(1): 59–64.
8.
LädermannADenardPJBoileauP, et al.What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?. Int Orthop2018; 42(6): 1339–1346.
9.
NyffelerRWWernerCMSukthankarA, et al.Association of a large lateral extension of the acromion with rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88(4): 800–805.
10.
FerleMPastorMFHagenahJ, et al.Effect of the humeral neck-shaft angle and glenosphere lateralization on stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28(5): 966–973.
11.
RoyJSMacDermidJCGoelD, et al.What is a successful outcome following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty?. Open Orthop J2010; 4: 157–163.
12.
BerhouetJKontaxisAGulottaLV, et al.Effects of the humeral tray component positioning for onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty design: a biomechanical analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24(4): 569–577.
13.
MollonBMahureSARocheCP, et al.Impact of glenosphere size on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 297 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2016; 25(5): 763–771.
14.
MüllerAMBornMJungC, et al.Glenosphere size in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: is larger better for external rotation and abduction strength?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27(1): 44–52.
15.
SchochBSVasilopoulosTLaChaudG, et al.Optimal glenosphere size cannot be determined by patient height. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29(2): 258–265.
16.
LangohrGDGilesJWAthwalGS, et al.The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24(6): 972–979.
17.
HaggartJNewtonMDHartnerS, et al.Neer Award 2017: wear rates of 32-mm and 40-mm glenospheres in a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty wear simulation model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2017; 26(11): 2029–2037.
18.
BoileauPWalchG. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus: implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br1997; 79(5): 857–865.
19.
BerhouetJGaraudPFavardL. Influence of glenoid component design and humeral component retroversion on internal and external rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaver study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2013; 99(8): 887–894.
20.
GlendayJKontaxisARocheS, et al.Effect of humeral tray placement on impingement-free range of motion and muscle moment arms in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Biomech2019; 62: 136–143.
21.
DedyNJStangenbergMLiemD, et al.Effect of posterior offset humeral components on range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop2011; 35(4): 549–554.
22.
RocheCPDiepPHamiltonM, et al.Impact of inferior glenoid tilt, humeral retroversion, bone grafting, and design parameters on muscle length and deltoid wrapping in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis2013; 71(4): 284–293.
23.
HelmkampJKBullockGSAmiloNR, et al.The clinical and radiographic impact of center of rotation lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27(11): 2099–2107.
24.
GreinerSSchmidtCHerrmannS, et al.Clinical performance of lateralized versus non-lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24(9): 1397–1404.
25.
KeenerJDPattersonBMOrvetsN, et al.Optimizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty component position in the setting of advanced arthritis with posterior glenoid erosion: a computer-enhanced range of motion analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27(2): 339–349.
26.
WernerBSChaouiJWalchG. The influence of humeral neck shaft angle and glenoid lateralization on range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2017; 26(10): 1726–1731.
27.
MerollaGWalchGAscioneF, et al.Grammont humeral design versus onlay curved-stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty: comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27(4): 701–710.
28.
GutiérrezSLevyJCFrankleMA, et al.Evaluation of abduction range of motion and avoidance of inferior scapular impingement in a reverse shoulder model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2008; 17(4): 608–615.
29.
NyffelerRWWernerCMGerberC. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2005; 14(5): 524–528.
30.
LiXDinesJSWarrenRF, et al.Inferior glenosphere placement reduces scapular notching in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics2015; 38(2): e88–e93.
31.
De BiaseCFZiveriGDelcoglianoM, et al.The use of an eccentric glenosphere compared with a concentric glenosphere in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: two-year minimum follow-up results. Int Orthop2013; 37(10): 1949–1955.
32.
Choi CH, Kim SG, Lee JJ, Kwack BH. Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Results According to Glenosphere Position in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Short-term Follow-up Study. Clin Orthop Surg 2017; 9: 83–90. DOI: 10.4055/cios.2017.9.1.83.
33.
LädermannADenardPJBoileauP, et al.Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop2015; 39(11): 2205–2213.
34.
LädermannAEdwardsTBWalchG. Arm lengthening after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop2014; 38(5): 991–1000.
35.
LädermannALübbekeAMélisB, et al.Prevalence of neurologic lesions after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2011; 93(14): 1288–1293.
36.
WerthelJDSchochBSvan VeenSC, et al.Acromial fractures in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a clinical and radiographic analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Arthroplasty2018; 2: 2471549218777628.
37.
LädermannAWalchGLubbekeA, et al.Influence of arm lengthening in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2012; 21(3): 336–341.
38.
JobinCMBrownGDBahuMJ, et al.Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy: the clinical effect of deltoid lengthening and center of rotation medialization. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2012; 21(10): 1269–1277.
39.
SabesanVJLombardoDJosserandD, et al.The effect of deltoid lengthening on functional outcome for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg2016; 100(2): 127–132.
