Can surgeons optimize range of motion and reduce scapulohumeral impingements in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A computational study

Abstract

Background

Early glenohumeral impingement leads to poor range of motion and notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The aim was to find from planning software which implant configuration provides the best motions in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Patients and Methods

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty planning (Glenosys) was made in 31 patients (12 men, 19 women, 76 ± 6 yo) and impingements were analyzed. Inlay (155°-inclined) and Onlay (145°-inclined) humeral designs were tested. Four configurations were tested for each shoulder: “INLAY”: non-lateralized glenoid-inlay humerus, “BIO-INLAY”: lateralized glenoid (BIO-RSA)-inlay humerus, “ONLAY”: non-lateralized glenoid-onlay humerus, and “BIO-ONLAY”: lateralized (BIO-RSA) glenoid-onlay humerus.

Results

BIO-ONLAY and BIO-INLAY groups presented a significantly better result in all tested motion (p < 0.001 for all tests). BIO-ONLAY allowed a significantly better external rotation, extension and adduction than BIO-INLAY with decreased impingements with the pilar. BIO-INLAY presented a significantly better abduction. In abduction, an abutment of the greater tuberosity against the acromion was associated with a lower range of motion (p < 0.0001) and did not depend on the lateralization.

Conclusion

Glenoid lateralization delays the glenohumeral impingement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and gives the best rotations, adduction and extension when associated with neutral inclination and humeral 145° inclination. Greater tuberosity abutment has to be avoided in abduction and the Inlay design provides the best abduction.

Keywords

Range of motion 3D planning reverse shoulder arthroplasty notching glenoid lateralization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boileau

Watkinson

Hatzidakis

, et al. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14: 147S–161S.

Athwal

MacDermid

Reddy

, et al.

Does bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty decrease scapular notching?

J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24: 468–473.

Boileau

Morin-Salvo

Gauci

M-O

, et al. Angled BIO-RSA (bony-increased offset-reverse shoulder arthroplasty): a solution for the management of glenoid bone loss and erosion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 2133–2142.

Katz

Valenti

Kany

, et al. Does lateralisation of the centre of rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty avoid scapular notching? Clinical and radiological review of one hundred and forty cases with forty five months of follow-up. Int Orthop 2016; 40: 99–108.

Mollon

Mahure

Roche

, et al. Impact of scapular notching on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 476 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 1253–1261.

Boileau

Moineau

Roussanne

, et al. Bony increased-offset reversed shoulder arthroplasty: minimizing scapular impingement while maximizing glenoid fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2558–2567.

Boileau

O’Shea

Moineau

, et al. Bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) for cuff tear arthropathy. Oper Tech Orthop 2011; 21: 69–78.

Berhouet

Kontaxis

Gulotta

, et al. Effects of the humeral tray component positioning for onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty design: a biomechanical analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24: 569–577.

Gauci

Boileau

Baba

, et al. Patient-specific glenoid guides provide accuracy and reproducibility in total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 1080–1085.

10.

Jacquot

Gauci

Chaoui

, et al. Proper benefit of a three-dimensional pre-operative planning software for glenoid component positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2018; 42: 2897–2906.

11.

Boileau

Gauci

M-O

Wagner

, et al. The reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle: a new measurement of glenoid inclination for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28: 1281–1290.

12.

Lädermann

Denard

Boileau

, et al.

What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Int Orthop 2018; 42: 1339–1346.

13.

Werner

Chaoui

Walch

. The influence of humeral neck shaft angle and glenoid lateralization on range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 1726–1731.

14.

Langohr

GDG

Giles

Athwal

, et al. The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24: 972–979.

15.

Berhouet

Garaud

Favard

. Evaluation of the role of glenosphere design and humeral component retroversion in avoiding scapular notching during reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 151–158.

16.

de Wilde

Poncet

Middernacht

, et al. Prosthetic overhang is the most effective way to prevent scapular conflict in a reverse total shoulder prosthesis. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 719–726.

17.

Melis

DeFranco

Lädermann

, et al. An evaluation of the radiological changes around the Grammont reverse geometry shoulder arthroplasty after eight to 12 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93: 1240–1246.

18.

Collin

Liu

Denard

, et al. Standard versus bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 59–64.

19.

Streit

Shishani

Gobezie

. Medialized versus lateralized center of rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2015; 38: e1098–1103.

20.

Greiner

Schmidt

Herrmann

, et al. Clinical performance of lateralized versus non-lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24: 1397–1404.

21.

Feeley

Zhang

Barry

, et al. Decreased scapular notching with lateralization and inferior baseplate placement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with high humeral inclination. Int J Shoulder Surg 2014; 8: 65–71.

22.

Knutson

Choi

, et al. Effects of glenosphere positioning on impingement-free internal and external rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 807–813.

23.

Gutiérrez

Comiskey

Luo

Z-P

, et al. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 2606–2615.

24.

Lädermann

Gueorguiev

Charbonnier

, et al. Scapular notching on kinematic simulated range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty is not the result of impingement in adduction. Medicine 2015; 94: e1615–e1615.