Since the original Grammont design of a reverse shoulder arthroplasty there has been a trend to decrease inclination angle from 155° to 145 or 135°. Furthermore, lateralization on the glenoid side has been advocated. These changes decrease the risk for impingement between humerus and the inferior part of the glenoid (notching). These changes were also made to improve restoration of rotation. However, there is very little evidence that rotation has improved due to these changes. A negative effect of lateralization is that it increases the risk for glenoid loosening. Furthermore, the stress on acromion increases which may lead to more acromion or scapula spine fractures. More randomized studies are needed to define optimal design of a reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
FamaGPozzuoliA. History of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. In: GuminaSGrassiFPaladiniP (eds) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Cham: Springer, 2019, pp.3–23.
2.
BaulotESirveauxFBoileauP. Grammont's idea: the story of Paul Grammont's functional surgery concept and the development of the reverse principle. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 2425–2431.
3.
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: 388–395.
4.
GutierrezSLevyJCLee, 3rdWE, et al.Center of rotation affects abduction range of motion of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2007; 458: 78–82.
5.
NyffelerRWWernerCMGerberC. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2005; 14: 524–528.
6.
RocheCFlurinPHWrightT, et al.An evaluation of the relationships between reverse shoulder design parameters and range of motion, impingement, and stability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 734–741.
7.
ZumsteinMAPinedoMOldJ, et al.Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2011; 20: 146–157.
8.
FriedmanRJBarcelDAEichingerJK. Scapular notching in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2019; 27: 200–209.
9.
de WildeLFPoncetDMiddernachtB, et al.Prosthetic overhang is the most effective way to prevent scapular conflict in a reverse total shoulder prosthesis. Acta Orthop2010; 81: 719–726.
10.
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: 527–540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.003.
11.
FavardLLevigneCNerotC, et al.Reverse prostheses in arthropathies with cuff tear: are survivorship and function maintained over time?Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 2469–2475.
12.
NolanBMAnkersonEWiaterJM. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty improves function in cuff tear arthropathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 2476–2482.
13.
van OchtenJHMvan der PluijmMPouwM, et al.Long-term survivorship and clinical and radiological follow-up of the primary uncemented Delta III reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Orthop2019; 16: 342–346.
14.
CuiHCheongJMcKenzieD, et al.Outcomes of conservative treatment of acromial and scapular spine stress fracture post reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: 2613–2630.
15.
SchenkPAichmairABeelerS, et al.Clinical results of conservative versus operative treatment of acromial and scapular spine fractures following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2022; 31: 2076–2081.
16.
LadermannADenardPJBoileauP, et al.Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop2015; 39: 2205–2213.
17.
GobezieRShishaniYLedermanE, et al.Can a functional difference be detected in reverse arthroplasty with 135 degrees versus 155 degrees prosthesis for the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathy: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: 813–818.
18.
LongoUGGulottaLVDe SalvatoreS, et al.The role of humeral neck-shaft angle in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: 155 degrees versus <155 degrees - a systematic review. J Clin Med2022; 11: 3641.
19.
GiordanoMCCoronaKMorrisBJ, et al.Comparative study of 145 degrees onlay curved stem versus 155 degrees inlay straight stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and radiographic results with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2022; 31: 2089–2095.
20.
OhJHShinSJMcGarryMH, et al.Biomechanical effects of humeral neck-shaft angle and subscapularis integrity in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 1091–1098.
21.
Shimada YONHashimotoEHirosawaN, et al.Effect of the neck-shaft angle on stability in the onlay type of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. Semin Arthroplasty2022; 32: 834–841.
22.
Arenas-MiquelezAMurphyRJRosaA, et al.Impact of humeral and glenoid component variations on range of motion in reverse geometry total shoulder arthroplasty: a standardized computer model study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2021; 30: 763–771.
23.
CostantiniOChoiDSKontaxisA, et al.The effects of progressive lateralization of the joint center of rotation of reverse total shoulder implants. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 1120–1128.
24.
LawrenceCWilliamsGRNamdariS. Influence of glenosphere design on outcomes and complications of reverse arthroplasty: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Surg2016; 8: 288–297.
25.
LiouWYangYPetersen-FittsGR, et al.Effect of lateralized design on muscle and joint reaction forces for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2017; 26: 564–572.
26.
RojasJChoiKJosephJ, et al.Aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBJS Rev2019; 7: e7.
NunesBLinharesDCostaF, et al.Lateralized versus nonlateralized glenospheres in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2021; 30: 1700–1713.
31.
CollottePBercikMVieiraTD, et al.Long-term reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes: the effect of the inferior shifting of glenoid component fixation. Clin Orthop Surg2021; 13: 505–512.
32.
HettrichCMPermeswaranVNGoetzJE, et al.Mechanical tradeoffs associated with glenosphere lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 1774–1781.
33.
RienmullerAMaffiulettiNASchwyzerH-K, et al.Shoulder muscle strength and neuromuscular activation 2 years after reverse shoulder prosthesis-an experimental case control study. J Clin Med2020; 9: 65.
34.
GreinerSSchmidtCHerrmannS, et al.Clinical performance of lateralized versus non-lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 1397–1404.
35.
CollinPLiuXDenardPJ, et al.Standard versus bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 59–64.
36.
SouthamBRBedeirYHJohnsonBM, et al.Clinical and radiological outcomes in lateralized versus nonlateralized and distalized glenospheres in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized control trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: 1420–1431.
37.
DimockRFathi ElabdMImamM, et al.Bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of the available evidence. Shoulder Elbow2021; 13: 18–27.
38.
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: 966–973.
39.
WongMTLangohrGDGAthwalGS, et al.Implant positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty has an impact on acromial stresses. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2016; 25: 1889–1895.
HarmsenSMRobainaJCampbellD, et al.Does lateralizing the glenosphere center of rotation by 4 mm decrease scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135 degrees humeral component?JSES Int2022; 6: 442–446.
42.
WerthelJDWalchGVegehanE, et al.Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice. Int Orthop2019; 43: 2349–2360.
43.
KennonJCSongyCBartelsD, et al.Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: how did medialized and glenoid-based lateralized style prostheses compare at 10 years?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: S23–S31.
44.
NabergojMOnishiSLadermannA, et al.Can lateralization of reverse shoulder arthroplasty improve active external rotation in patients with preoperative fatty infiltration of the infraspinatus and teres minor?J Clin Med2021; 10: 4130.
45.
FreisledererFToftFAudigeL, et al.Lateralized vs. classic Grammont-style reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff deficiency Hamada Stage 1-3: does the design make a difference?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2022; 31: 341–351.
46.
AscioneFKilianCMLaughlinMS, et al.Increased scapular spine fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a humeral onlay short stem: an analysis of 485 consecutive cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 2183–2190.
47.
HaidamousGLadermannAFrankleMA, et al.The risk of postoperative scapular spine fracture following reverse shoulder arthroplasty is increased with an onlay humeral stem. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: 2556–2563.
