Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-25 (517809)

Clipboard (0)

Related Articles

1.  Is Premorbid Glenoid Anatomy Altered in Patients with Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis? 
Restoration of native, premorbid glenoid anatomy may be a goal in component placement during total shoulder arthroplasty. However, if patients with unilateral glenohumeral osteoarthritis are predisposed to the development of arthritis owing to abnormal native glenoid anatomy, this recommendation may be inappropriate.
The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis have abnormal premorbid glenoid version or inclination, thereby predisposing them to subsequent glenoid disorders. We specifically tested whether: (1) premorbid glenoid version or inclination in the pathologic shoulder of patients with unilateral osteoarthritis, as determined by the glenoid vault model, is different from glenoid version or inclination in the contralateral nonpathologic shoulder of these patients; (2) there are differences between glenoid version or inclination in normal cadaver shoulders and the nonpathologic side of patients with unilateral osteoarthritis; and (3) there are differences between glenoid version or inclination in normal cadaver shoulders and the premorbid glenoid version and inclination in the pathologic shoulder of patients with unilateral osteoarthritis, as determined by the glenoid vault model.
Bilateral CT scans were obtained in 27 patients with unilateral glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Thirty normal cadaver control shoulders also underwent CT scans. Premorbid glenoid version and inclination in the pathologic shoulder, as measured by the glenoid vault model, were compared with the contralateral nonpathologic shoulder and the normal cadaver control shoulders. Glenoid version and inclination of the normal shoulders were compared with the nonpathologic side from patients with unilateral osteoarthritis. Measurements were made by two different methods using three-dimensional surgical simulation software: (1) a direct measurement technique and (2) measurements derived from placement of a glenoid vault model. Mean differences in these parameters were compared between shoulder groups using paired and unpaired Student’s t-tests.
Premorbid glenoid version and inclination in the pathologic shoulder as measured by the vault model averaged −7° (SD, 5) and 10° (SD, 6), respectively, compared with −7° (SD, 5) and 12° (SD, 6) as directly measured on the nonpathologic side, and −7° (SD, 4) and 12° (SD, 5) as directly measured in the normal cadaver control shoulders. There were no differences in glenoid version or inclination between the normal shoulders and the nonpathologic side of patients with unilateral osteoarthritis or between these shoulders and the premorbid version and inclination of the arthritic shoulder as measured by the vault model.
Patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis do not appear to have abnormal premorbid glenoid retroversion or inclination. The glenoid vault model can be used to determine premorbid glenoid version and inclination.
Clinical Relevance
The glenoid vault model may be a clinically useful tool to estimate patient-specific premorbid glenoid anatomy, which may help in preoperative or intraoperative surgical planning for total shoulder arthroplasty.
Level of Evidence
Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
PMCID: PMC3734389  PMID: 23686428
2.  Axillary View: Arthritic Glenohumeral Anatomy and Changes After Ream and Run 
The technique and results of shoulder arthroplasty are influenced by glenohumeral pathoanatomy. Although some authors advocate a routine preoperative CT scan to define this anatomy, ordering a CT scan substantially increases the cost and the radiation exposure for the patient.
We asked whether measurements of arthritic shoulders on a standardized axillary view are reliable; if postoperative radiographs can reliably show the changes in glenoid anatomy and glenohumeral relationships after shoulder arthroplasty, and if the axillary view can show differences in glenohumeral pathoanatomy in the different sexes and disease types.
These questions were addressed using cross-sectional studies of 344 shoulders with different types of arthritis and of 128 osteoarthritic shoulders having a ream and run arthroplasty (a glenohumeral arthroplasty that combines a noncemented humeral hemiarthroplasty with concentric reaming of the glenoid bone without implantation of a prosthetic glenoid component). Measurements of glenoid type, glenoid version, and glenohumeral contact were made on standardized axillary radiographs. Interobserver reliability was calculated, preoperative and postoperative measurements were compared, and morphologic differences were compared as stratified by sex and disease type.
The measurements on axillary views showed a high degree of interobserver reliability and sensitivity to the changes effected by arthroplasty. The ream and run substantially corrected the glenoid type and point of glenohumeral contact. Male shoulders and shoulders with osteoarthritis had more type B glenoids (ie, those with posterior erosion and biconcavity of the glenoid), more retroversion, and a greater degree of posterior displacement of the point of glenohumeral contact.
The axillary view provides a practical method of characterizing glenohumeral anatomy before and after surgery that is less costly and exposes the patient to less radiation than a CT scan.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, diagnostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
PMCID: PMC3916619  PMID: 24136806
3.  Humeral surface replacement for osteoarthritis 
Acta Orthopaedica  2013;84(5):468-472.
Background and purpose
Humeral resurfacing has shown promising results for osteoarthritis, but revisions for glenoid erosion have been reported frequently. We investigated the hypothesis that preoperative glenoid wear and postoperative progress of glenoid erosion would influence the clinical outcome.
We reviewed 61 resurfacing hemiarthroplasties (55 patients) for primary osteoarthritis. 6 patients were lost to follow-up and 5 had undergone revision arthroplasty. This left 50 shoulders in 44 patients (mean age 66 years) that were followed for mean 30 (12–44) months. Complications, revisions, and the age- and sex-related Constant score were assessed. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening and glenoid erosion according to Walch.
Of the 50 shoulders that were functionally assessed, the average age- and sex-related Constant score was 73%. In patients with preoperative type-B2 glenoids, at 49% it was lower than in type-A1 glenoids (81%, p = 0.03) and in type-B1 glenoids (84%, p = 0.02). The average age- and sex-related Constant score for patients with type-A2 glenoids (60%) was lower than for type-A1 and -B1 glenoids and higher than for type-B2 glenoids, but the differences were not statistically significant. In the total population of 61 shoulders, the radiographs showed postoperative glenoid erosion in 38 cases and no humeral prosthetic loosening. Revision arthroplasty was performed in 11 cases after 28 (7–69) months. The implant size had no statistically significant influence on the functional outcome. The size was considered to be adequate in 28 of the 50 functionally assessed shoulders. In 21 cases, the implant size was too large and in 1 case it was too small.
We found frequent postoperative glenoid erosion and a high rate of revision arthroplasty after humeral resurfacing for primary osteoarthritis. Oversizing of the implants was common, but it had no statistically significant influence on the functional outcome. Inferior results were found in the presence of increased eccentric preoperative glenoid wear. Total shoulder arthroplasty should be considered in these patients.
PMCID: PMC3822131  PMID: 24032525
4.  Computed tomography measurement of glenoid vault version as an alternative measuring method for glenoid version 
The conventional measuring method for glenoid version is greatly influenced by the scapular body shape that varies widely between patients. We postulated that the glenoid vault version could be more useful than the conventional glenoid version in clinical cases.
The purposes of this study were to compare the values of glenoid version measured with the conventional method to those with the vault method and to investigate the feasibility of the glenoid vault version.
Computed tomography scans of 150 normal shoulders and 150 arthritic shoulders were analyzed. Three-dimensionally corrected slices were reconstructed from the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) data, and glenoid version was measured with both the conventional and vault methods. After determining intra- and interrater reliabilities, differences in glenoid version values between the conventional and vault methods were assessed. In the normal shoulder group, side-to-side differences of glenoid version values were also evaluated in both methods.
Both measuring methods demonstrated high intra- and interrater reliabilities. The normal glenoid had 1.1° ± 3.2° retroversion with the conventional method and 8.9° ± 2.7° retroversion with the vault method. The average glenoid retroversion of arthritic shoulders was 10.8° ± 9.3° measured with the conventional method and 18.2° ± 9.1° with the vault method. The vault method showed significantly larger glenoid retroversion than the conventional method in both normal and arthritic shoulder groups. Both conventional glenoid retroversion and glenoid vault retroversion were significantly larger on dominant sides than on nondominant sides in the normal shoulders.
The glenoid vault version could be used as an alternative measuring method for glenoid version with high reliability. In clinical use, the glenoid vault version appears to be more useful than the conventional glenoid version to assess the severity of arthritis and difficulty of glenoid replacement. The glenoid vault is not symmetric, but usually retroverted in both normal and arthritic shoulders.
PMCID: PMC3995775  PMID: 24618285
Glenoid vault; Glenoid version; Glenoid retroversion; Shoulder arthroplasty; Glenoid component; Glenoid replacement; Glenoid morphology
5.  Accuracy of Glenoid Component Placement in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Its Effect on Clinical and Radiological Outcome in a Retrospective, Longitudinal, Monocentric Open Study 
PLoS ONE  2013;8(10):e75791.
The success of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA) is believed to depend on the restoration of the natural anatomy of the joint and a key development has been the introduction of modular humeral components to more accurately restore the patient’s anatomy. However, there are no peer-reviewed studies that have reported the degree of glenoid component mal-position achieved in clinical practice and the clinical outcome of such mal-position. The main purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of glenoid implant positioning during TSA and to relate it to the radiological (occurrence of radiolucent lines and osteolysis on CT) and clinical outcomes.
68 TSAs were assessed with a mean follow-up of 38+/−27 months. The clinical evaluation consisted of measuring the mobility as well as of the Constant Score. The radiological evaluation was performed on CT-scans in which metal artefacts had been eliminated. From the CT-scans radiolucent lines and osteolysis were assessed. The positions of the glenoid and humeral components were also measured from the CT scans.
Four position glenoid component parameters were calculated The posterior version (6°±12°; mean ± SD), the superior tilt (12°±17°), the rotation of the implant relative to the scapular plane (3°±14°) and the off-set distance of the centre of the glenoid implant from the scapular plane (6±4 mm). An inferiorly inclined implant was found to be associated with higher levels of radiolucent lines while retroversion and non-neutral rotation were associated with a reduced range of motion.
this study demonstrates that glenoid implants of anatomic TSA are poorly positioned and that this malposition has a direct effect on the clinical and radiological outcome. Thus, further developments in glenoid implantation techniques are required to enable the surgeon to achieve a desired implant position and outcome.
PMCID: PMC3793002  PMID: 24116075
6.  Management of failed metal-backed glenoid component in patients with bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty 
Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is successful in providing pain relief and functional improvements for patients with shoulder arthritis. Outcomes are directly correlated with implant position and fixation, which ultimately affects wear and longevity. Metal-backed glenoid components were introduced as an alternative to the standard cemented glenoid fixation. Early loosening and cavitary glenoid bone loss has been reported as a major complication associated with these metal-backed glenoids, which presents the surgeon with a challenging revision situation. Furthermore, failure of bilateral TSA in patients with metal-backed glenoids is extremely rare. We present two patients with early failure of bilateral TSA secondary to loosening of the metal-backed glenoids. Both patients had significant glenoid bone loss and were treated with four different types of revision techniques. A description of treatments and outcomes of both patients are reported along with the simple shoulder test and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. One patient underwent revision to bilateral reverse prosthesis and experienced a much-improved outcome in comparison to the patient revised to a hemiarthroplasty and resection arthroplasty, for each shoulder respectively. In patients who present with failed TSA, revision to a reverse prosthesis with or without staged glenoid bone graft should be considered as an option of treatment. It is also important to rule out infection with intraoperative tissue biopsy before proceeding to revision surgery. However, in patients with catastrophic glenoid bone loss, both hemiarthroplasty and resection arthroplasty can provide an alternative treatment option, but they are associated with a poorer functional outcome and pain relief.
PMCID: PMC3883189  PMID: 24403762
Custom reverse; hemiarthroplasty; illiac crest bone graft; reverse shoulder arthroplasty; revision; total shoulder arthroplasty
7.  In vitro measurement of temperature changes during implantation of cemented glenoid components 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(2):211-215.
Background and purpose It is unclear whether the increase in temperature during cement curing may cause osteonecrosis, leading to loosening of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. We therefore analyzed the temperature during implantation of cemented glenoid implants.
Methods 8 keeled and 8 pegged glenoids were implanted in standardized fashion in 8 pairs of scapulas. Temperature and pressure sensors were implanted at the bone-cement interface in the glenoid. Real-time measurements were made of temperature and pressure within the glenoid vault.
Results In no case was the temperature reached high enough to endanger the surrounding bone. The mean increase in temperature was 5° (0.5–6.9) in the keeled group and 2.7° (1.7–3.6) in the pegged group. The mean maximum pressure in the keeled group was 50 kPa (20–100) and in the pegged group it was 113 kPa (60–181). Both differences were statistically significant.
Interpretation The temperatures that occur during implantation of cemented components are low and probably not high enough to cause osteonecrosis in the surrounding bone.
PMCID: PMC2895340  PMID: 20367412
8.  Projection of the Glenoid Center Point Within the Glenoid Vault 
Correct identification of the center point of the glenoid surface guides glenoid component placement. It is unknown whether the center point on the glenoid surface corresponds to the center of the glenoid vault at the medial extent of the glenoid prosthesis. We reviewed 20 consecutive computed tomography scans obtained preoperatively in patients with primary osteoarthritis. A glenoid center point was chosen on the glenoid surface and then projected back into the glenoid vault along the scapular axis and perpendicular to glenoid inclination. The difference from the projection of the glenoid surface center point to the center point at a 1.5-cm depth into the glenoid vault was then measured. The mean deviation of the glenoid center point at a depth of 1.5 cm from the center point at the glenoid articular surface was 1.7 mm anterior and 3.9 mm inferior. The most common deviation of the center point of the glenoid vault at the projected medial limit of the glenoid prosthesis was slightly anterior and inferior to the center point on the glenoid surface. Identifying the center of the glenoid surface coupled with alignment of the glenoid prosthesis in neutral version and anatomic inclination provides a reliable means to guide placement of glenoid components.
PMCID: PMC2505216  PMID: 18264846
9.  Arthroscopic Removal of a Polyethylene Glenoid Component in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty 
Arthroscopy Techniques  2015;4(2):e149-e152.
We present a technique for arthroscopic glenoid removal in a case of glenoid loosening after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The presented technique is technically feasible and may be useful if 1-stage surgery with glenoid reimplantation is not indicated. To exclude low-grade infection, the presented technique allows for an intraoperative infection workup such as intraoperative cultures. However, glenoid loosening in TSA is a well-known problem and has been described before. The advantages of the presented technique include minimally invasive surgery, decreased pain, preservation of the subscapularis tendon, and assurance of exclusion of low-grade infection before reimplantation of a new glenoid implant. In this case a 73-year-old patient was treated with a TSA for severe osteoarthritis of the right shoulder in April 2014. Because of persistent anterior shoulder pain postoperatively, radiographic evaluation was performed and showed signs of glenoid loosening 6 months after surgery without any clinical signs of infection. To exclude low-grade infection, arthroscopy of the right shoulder was performed. Arthroscopy showed a totally loosened glenoid component leading to arthroscopic glenoid removal by use of a special forceps.
PMCID: PMC4454821  PMID: 26052492
10.  Total Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Glenohumeral Arthritis According to Preoperative Glenoid Erosion 
Orthopedic Reviews  2015;7(2):5923.
Clinical studies on primary osteoarthritis have shown better results of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) compared to hemiarthroplasty (HA) regarding the function, revision rate and postoperative pain relief. However, a clear recommendation for implantation of TSA or HA, depending on the glenoid type of erosion, does not exist. The aim of the study was to compare the results of TSA and HA with respect to the preoperative glenoid type. In this study, 41 patients were examined retrospectively; among them, 25 patients were treated with stemmed anatomic TSA and 16 with stemmed anatomic HA. The degree of osteoarthritis was determined according to Samilson and the glenoid erosion was classified according to Walch. The clinical outcome of the patients was determined by using the Constant Score (CS) and the Simple Shoulder Test at final follow-up. Patients after TSA demonstrated a significantly improved internal rotation compared to HA patients. Patients with preoperative B1 glenoid showed better pain relief after TSA compared to HA. For patients with preoperative type A2 glenoid a significantly higher CS was found after TSA compared to HA. We were able to show good short-term results after TSA and HA. Our findings suggest a better internal rotation for TSA compared to HA, superior clinical outcome for patients with preoperative A2 glenoid and lower pain level for patients with a preoperative B1 glenoid. However, these results need to be confirmed by further studies.
PMCID: PMC4508560  PMID: 26330995
Total shoulder arthroplasty; hemiarthroplasty; glenoid type
11.  Hip-inspired implant for revision of failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty with severe glenoid bone loss 
Acta Orthopaedica  2014;85(2):171-176.
Background and purpose
Glenoid reconstruction and inverted glenoid re-implantation is strongly advocated in revisions of failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Nevertheless, severe glenoid deficiency may preclude glenoid reconstruction and may dictate less favorable solutions, such as conversion to hemiarthropasty or resection arthropasty. The CAD/CAM shoulder (Stanmore Implants, Elstree, UK), a hip arthroplasty-inspired implant, may facilitate glenoid component fixation in these challenging revisions where glenoid reconstruction is not feasible. We questioned (1) whether revision arthroplasty with the CAD/CAM shoulder would alleviate pain and improve shoulder function in patients with failed RSA, not amenable to glenoid reconstruction, (2) whether the CAD/CAM hip-inspired glenoid shell would enable secure and durable glenoid component fixation in these challenging revisions.
Patients and methods
11 patients with failed RSAs and unreconstructable glenoids underwent revision with the CAD/CAM shoulder and were followed-up for mean 35 (28–42) months. Clinical outcomes included the Oxford shoulder score, subjective shoulder value, pain rating, physical examination, and shoulder radiographs.
The average Oxford shoulder score and subjective shoulder value improved statistically significantly after the revision from 50 to 33 points and from 17% to 48% respectively. Pain rating at rest and during activity improved significantly from 5.3 to 2.3 and from 8.1 to 3.8 respectively. Active forward flexion increased from 25 to 54 degrees and external rotation increased from 9 to 21 degrees. 4 patients required reoperation for postoperative complications. No cases of glenoid loosening occurred.
The CAD/CAM shoulder offers an alternative solution for the treatment of failed RSA that is not amenable to glenoid reconstruction.
PMCID: PMC3967260  PMID: 24650026
12.  Outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty revision with glenoid reconstruction and bone grafting 
International Orthopaedics  2013;38(4):775-782.
Extensive glenoid bone loss after failed shoulder arthroplasty represents a challenge for revision arthroplasty. Treatment options vary widely and have been a source of controversy among experts.
Between 2004 and 2010, a total of 17 patients underwent glenoid reconstruction surgery using an autologous iliac crest bone graft and secondary revision arthroplasty due to extensive glenoid bone loss after failed previous total shoulder arthroplasty. The outcomes were assessed by means of clinical examination, Constant score, and bi-plane radiography as well as pre-, postoperative and follow-up CT.
Before the revision surgery, the mean Constant score was 24 ± 17 and improved to 40 ± 13 after the glenoid rebuilding and revision arthroplasty. CT imaging revealed adequate glenoid bone stock restoration with no relevant graft resorption or loosening of the glenoid. The average postoperative antero-posterior diameter of the glenoid was 28 ± 3 mm which had decreased to 25 ± 3 mm at follow-up. The average postoperative version of the glenoid was 95.7° ± 6° and had decreased to 98.5° ± 4° at follow-up. Both the glenoid version and diameter had changed significantly (P < 0.001) comparing postoperative and follow-up CT-scans.
Glenoid reconstruction surgery using an iliac crest bone-block autograft prior to revision arthroplasty represents a valuable salvage procedure in cases of extensive glenoid bone loss after primary shoulder arthroplasty. Sufficient glenoid bone stock restoration is indispensable for reliable fixation of glenoid components and in turn a satisfactory clinical outcome.
PMCID: PMC3971263  PMID: 24323349
Glenoid loosening; Glenoid bone loss; Glenoid reconstruction; Iliac crest bone-block autograft; Shoulder arthroplasty; Revision surgery
13.  Bony Increased-offset Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty: Minimizing Scapular Impingement While Maximizing Glenoid Fixation 
Scapular notching, prosthetic instability, limited shoulder rotation and loss of shoulder contour are associated with conventional medialized design reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Prosthetic (ie, metallic) lateralization increases torque at the baseplate-glenoid interface potentially leading to failure.
We asked whether bony lateralization of reverse shoulder arthroplasty would avoid the problems caused by humeral medialization without increasing torque or shear force applied to the glenoid component.
Patients and Methods
We prospectively followed 42 patients with rotator cuff deficiency treated with bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty. A cylinder of autologous cancellous bone graft, harvested from the humeral head, was placed between the reamed glenoid surface and baseplate. Graft and baseplate fixation was achieved using a lengthened central peg (25 mm) and four screws. Patients underwent clinical, radiographic, and CT assessment at a minimum of 2 years after surgery.
The humeral graft incorporated completely in 98% of cases (41 of 42) and partially in one. At a mean of 28 months postoperatively, no graft resorption, glenoid loosening, or postoperative instability was observed. Inferior scapular notching occurred in 19% (eight of 42). The absolute Constant-Murley score improved from 31 to 67. Thirty-six patients (86%) were able to internally rotate sufficiently to reach their back over the sacrum.
Grafting of the glenoid surface during reverse shoulder arthroplasty effectively creates a long-necked scapula, providing the benefits of lateralization. Bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty is associated with low rates of inferior scapular notching, improved shoulder rotation, no prosthetic instability and improved shoulder contour. In contrast to metallic lateralization, bony lateralization has the advantage of maintaining the prosthetic center of rotation at the prosthesis-bone interface, thus minimizing torque on the glenoid component.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
PMCID: PMC3148388  PMID: 21286887
14.  A CT scan protocol for the detection of radiographic loosening of the glenoid component after total shoulder arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2014;85(1):91-96.
Background and purpose
It is difficult to evaluate glenoid component periprosthetic radiolucencies in total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) using plain radiographs. This study was performed to evaluate whether computed tomography (CT) using a specific patient position in the CT scanner provides a better method for assessing radiolucencies in TSA.
Following TSA, 11 patients were CT scanned in a lateral decubitus position with maximum forward flexion, which aligns the glenoid orientation with the axis of the CT scanner. Follow-up CT scanning is part of our routine patient care. Glenoid component periprosthetic lucency was assessed according to the Molé score and it was compared to routine plain radiographs by 5 observers.
The protocol almost completely eliminated metal artifacts in the CT images and allowed accurate assessment of periprosthetic lucency of the glenoid fixation. Positioning of the patient within the CT scanner as described was possible for all 11 patients. A radiolucent line was identified in 54 of the 55 observed CT scans and osteolysis was identified in 25 observations. The average radiolucent line Molé score was 3.4 (SD 2.7) points with plain radiographs and 9.5 (SD 0.8) points with CT scans
(p = 0.001). The mean intra-observer variance was lower in the CT scan group than in the plain radiograph group (p = 0.001).
The CT scan protocol we used is of clinical value in routine assessment of glenoid periprosthetic lucency after TSA. The technique improves the ability to detect and monitor radiolucent lines and, therefore, possibly implant loosening also.
PMCID: PMC3940998  PMID: 24286563
15.  An optimised method for quantifying glenoid orientation 
A robust quantification method is essential for inter-subject glenoid comparison and planning of total shoulder arthroplasty. This study compared various scapular and glenoid axes with each other in order to optimally define the most appropriate method of quantifying glenoid version and inclination.
Six glenoid and eight scapular axes were defined and quantified from identifiable landmarks of twenty-one scapular image scans. Pathology independency and insensitivity of each axis to inter-subject morphological variation within its region was tested. Glenoid version and inclination were calculated using the best axes from the two regions.
The best glenoid axis was the normal to a least-square plane fit on the glenoid rim, directed approximately medio-laterally. The best scapular axis was the normal to a plane formed by the spine root and lateral border ridge. Glenoid inclination was 15.7° ± 5.1° superiorly and version was 4.9° ± 6.1°, retroversion.
The choice of axes in the present technique makes it insensitive to pathology and scapular morphological variabilities. Its application would effectively improve inter-subject glenoid version comparison, surgical planning and design of prostheses for shoulder arthroplasty.
PMCID: PMC2840818  PMID: 20300307
Version; inclination; morphology
16.  Bone Grafting Severe Glenoid Defects in Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty 
During revision total shoulder arthroplasty, bone grafting severe glenoid defects without concomitant reinsertion of a glenoid prosthesis may be the only viable reconstructive option. However, the fate of these grafts is unknown. We questioned the durability and subsidence of the graft and the associated clinical outcomes in patients who have this procedure. We retrospectively reviewed 11 patients with severe glenoid deficiencies from aseptic loosening of a glenoid component who underwent conversion of a total shoulder arthroplasty to a humeral head replacement and glenoid bone grafting. Large cavitary defects were grafted with either allograft cancellous chips or bulk structural allograft, depending on the presence or absence of glenoid vault wall defects, without prosthetic glenoid resurfacing. Clinical outcomes (Penn Shoulder Score, maximum 100 points) improved from 23 to 57 at a minimum 2-year followup (mean, 38 months; range, 24–73 months). However, we observed substantial graft subsidence in all patients, with eight of 11 patients having subsidence greater than 5 mm; the magnitude of graft resorption did not correlate with clinical outcome scores. Greater subsidence was seen with structural than cancellous chip allografts. Bone grafting large glenoid defects during revision shoulder arthroplasty can improve clinical outcome scores, but the substantial resorption of the graft material remains a concern.
Level of Evidence: Level III Prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
PMCID: PMC2505297  PMID: 18196386
17.  Complications with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and recent evolutions 
International Orthopaedics  2013;37(5):843-851.
Since its description by Paul Grammont from Dijon, France, several tens of thousands of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSA) have been performed for diverse conditions. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the complications of this procedure in the literature and in clinical practice. A total of 240 papers concerning RTSA published between 1996 and 2012 have been identified. Over 80 papers describe complications associated with this type of implant. A list of prostheses satisfying European and US standards, CE and FDA approved, has been produced on the basis of information provided by the manufacturers. Data from the literature do not support a meta-analysis. The inventory of best practices shows excellent results in the short and medium term in specific indications, while the number of complications varies between 10 and 65 % in long-term series. Complications can be classified into (A) non-specific including infections (superficial and deep), phlebitis, haematoma, neurological complications of the suprascapular, radial and axillary nerves and (B) specific complications associated with RTSA including (1) on the glenoid side: intraoperative fracture of the glenoid and acromion, late fracture of the scapula, impingement at the scapular neck (notching), glenoid loosening, dissociation of the glenoid component (snatching of the glenosphere) and fractures of the glenoid baseplate; (2) on the humeral side: metaphyseal deterioration, humeral loosening, instability of the shoulder, stiffness with limitation of external and/or internal rotation; and (3) muscular complications with fatty degeneration of the deltoid. Additionally we have identified specific situations related to the type of implant such as the disassembly of the humeral or the glenoid component, dissociation of the polyethylene humeral plate, dissociation of the metaphysis and osteolysis of the tuberosities. The integration of results from different clinical series is difficult because of the lack of a database and the multitude of implants used.
PMCID: PMC3631489  PMID: 23456086
18.  Effectiveness of glenoid osteotomy in atraumatic posterior instability of the shoulder associated with excessive retroversion and flatness of the glenoid 
International Orthopaedics  1999;23(2):95-99.
 In this investigation, patients with atraumatic posterior instability of the shoulder were appraised in order to evaluate the effectiveness of glenoid osteotomy in the correction of excessive retroversion and flatness of the glenoid. In a series of 32 patients, 17 with posterior instability had no history of trauma. Posterior glenoid osteotomy was performed to correct excessive retroversion and to deepen the glenoid; 95% were re-examined after 5 years. In 81% the results were rated as good or excellent (Constant-Murley and Rowe scores), only 12,5% having had a recurrence. The glenoid could be deepened and on average the angle could be altered from −9.35° to −4,62°. In comparison, 50 volunteers had average angles of −4,4°, thus differing significantly from the preoperative group. Twenty-five per cent of the patiens showed postoperative degenerative changes in the glenohumeral joint. The study shows that excessive retroversion and flatness of the glenoid in persons with atraumatic posterior instability can be successfully treated by a posterior glenoid osteotomy. Nevertheless, the high rate of postoperative degenerative changes must be taken into account.
PMCID: PMC3619788  PMID: 10422024
19.  Intraoperative CT navigation for glenoid component fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty 
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics  2013;47(1):104-106.
CT navigation has been shown to improve component positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. The technique can be useful in achieving strong initial fixation of the metal backed glenoid in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. We report a 61 years male patient who underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff arthropathy. CT navigation was used intraoperatively to identify best possible glenoid bone and to maximize the depth of the fixation screws that anchor the metaglene portion of the metal backed glenoid component. Satisfactory positioning of screws and component was achieved without any perforation or iatrogenic fracture in the scapula. CT navigation can help in maximizing the purchase of the fixation screws that dictate the initial stability of the glenoid component in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The technique can be extended to improve glenoid component position [version and tilt] with the availability of appropriate software.
PMCID: PMC3601224  PMID: 23531710
Computer-assisted surgery; CT navigation; reverse shoulder arthroplasty; rotator cuff arthropathy
20.  Scapular Notching in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Is It Important to Avoid It and How? 
Scapular notching, erosion of the scapular neck related to impingement by the medial rim of the humeral cup during adduction, is a radiographic sign specific to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Its clinical and radiological consequences remain unclear.
Therefore, we: (1) determined the incidence of notching in a large series, (2) described the natural history of notching, (3) determined whether notching is related to functional scores or (4) radiographic signs of failure, and (5) identified factors related to notch development.
Patients and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed 448 patients who underwent a Grammont-type RSA (461 shoulders) with a mean followup of 51 months (range, 24–206 months). RSA was implanted for cuff tear arthropathy or osteoarthritis with cuff deficiency. We assessed scapular notching using AP views standardized under fluoroscopy. Clinical assessment included Constant-Murley score and range of motion. Aside from notching, radiographic assessment included evaluation of humeral and glenoid radiolucent lines.
Notching occurred in 68% of cases. It appeared early, but its later evolution was variable. Notching was associated with followup, strength, passive and active elevation, humeral radiolucent lines, and glenoid lucent lines. It also correlated with a higher rate in patients with preoperative superior erosion.
Scapular notching is frequent, generally progresses, and is associated with deterioration of some clinical parameters and radiolucent lines. We believe the preoperative pattern of glenoid erosion is of particular importance due to its influence on the surgeon’s glenoid preparation and base-plate positioning. It is crucial to avoid cranial position and superior tilt.
Levels of Evidence
Level IV, Therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
PMCID: PMC3148391  PMID: 21116754
21.  Scapular Notching: Recognition and Strategies to Minimize Clinical Impact 
Scapular notching is a unique complication of Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. While reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has revolutionized the treatment of pseudoparalysis secondary to cuff tear arthropathy, the implications of scapular notching with regard to patient function and implant stability remain unclear.
We reviewed literature to determine the etiology and incidence, radiographic progression and effect on implant stability, relationship with postoperative function, and risk factors for the development of scapular notching.
We reviewed PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE with the terms “reverse total shoulder arthroplasty” and “scapular notching.” Inclusion criteria were a level of evidence of IV (or better). Twenty-four articles were selected after manual review.
Scapular notching after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is due to repetitive contact between the polyethylene of the humeral component and the inferior scapular neck during adduction, leading to erosion of the scapular neck, polyethylene wear, joint inflammation, and potential implant loosening. Scapular notching appears between 6 and 14 months postoperatively, with an incidence of 44% to 96%. Radiographic progression and effect on patient function remain controversial. Predictors of scapular notching include surgical approach, glenoid wear, preoperative diagnosis, infraspinatus muscle quality, cranial–caudal positioning, and tilt of the glenosphere.
Improved understanding of the etiology and risk factors for scapular notching will lead to refinement in implant technology and surgical technique that may translate into improved patient function and implant longevity for Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
PMCID: PMC3148378  PMID: 21128030
22.  Symptomatic Glenoid Loosening Complicating Total Shoulder Arthroplasty 
HSS Journal  2010;6(1):52-56.
Glenoid component loosening is one of the most common causes of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. Previous reports indicate that it is desirable to reimplant the glenoid component during revision shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of our study was to retrospectively evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing glenoid revision (reimplantation or resection) following total shoulder replacement specifically for symptomatic glenoid loosening. Twenty-eight shoulders that developed symptomatic glenoid loosening following primary total shoulder arthroplasty were included in the study. Patients were retrospectively evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Patients either underwent resection followed by reimplantation of the glenoid component (13) or resection of the component with or without bone grafting (15). Each patient was evaluated with the UCLA Shoulder Scale and the Constant–Murley Shoulder Assessment. There were seven excellent, 13 good, five fair and three poor results on the UCLA score. Functional outcome scores trended higher in the reimplantation group but were not statistically significant. Both groups reported equal pain relief and satisfaction. Five out of 15 patients underwent arthroscopic resection of the glenoid, and these patients scored as well on the UCLA and Constant scores as the reimplantation group. When symptomatic glenoid loosening is the indication for revision total shoulder replacement, patients tend to achieve good to excellent results. Though functional scores were slightly higher in the reimplantation group, satisfaction was equally high in both groups. Resection, when indicated, should be performed arthroscopically as this improved functional outcome in our series.
PMCID: PMC2821493  PMID: 21283508
revision shoulder arthroplasty; glenoid; loosening; reimplantation
23.  Glenoid Reconstruction in Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty 
Failed shoulder arthroplasty associated with glenoid bony deficiency is a difficult problem. Revision surgery is complex with unpredictable outcome. We asked whether revision shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid bone grafting could lead to good outcome. We retrospectively reviewed 21 patients who underwent glenoid bone grafting using corticocancellous bone grafting or impaction grafting using cancellous bone graft. Three patients underwent revision TSA, five patients hemiarthroplasty, 10 patients hemiarthroplasty with biologic resurfacing of the glenoid, and three patients revision to reverse TSA. The patients had minimum 25 months followup (average, 45 months; range, 25–92 months). All patients had improvement in their range of motion and the Constant-Murley score. Most improvement occurred in patients with glenoid reimplantation. Patients who underwent revision reverse TSA had improvement in shoulder flexion but decrease in external rotation motion. We conclude revision shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid bone grafting can produce good short-term outcome and glenoid component reinsertion should be attempted whenever possible.
Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
PMCID: PMC2505201  PMID: 18213509
24.  Prognostic Factors in Arthroplasty in the Rheumatoid Shoulder 
HSS Journal  2010;7(1):29-36.
Total shoulder arthroplasty is commonly considered a good option for treatment of the rheumatoid shoulder. However, when the rotator cuff and glenoid bone stock are not preserved, the clinical outcome of arthroplasty in the rheumatoid patients remains unclear. Aim of the study is to explore the prognostic value of multiple preoperative and peroperative variables in total shoulder arthroplasty and shoulder hemiarthroplasty in rheumatoid patients. Clinical Hospital for Special Surgery Shoulder score was determined at different time points over a mean period of 6.5 years in 66 rheumatoid patients with total shoulder arthroplasty and 75 rheumatoid patients with shoulder hemiarthroplasty. Moreover, radiographic analysis was performed to assess the progression of humeral head migration and glenoid loosening. Advanced age and erosions or cysts at the AC joint at time of surgery were associated with a lower postoperative Clinical Hospital for Special Surgery Shoulder score. In total shoulder arthroplasty, status of the rotator cuff and its repair at surgery were predictive of postoperative improvement. Progression of proximal migration during the period after surgery was associated with a lower clinical score over time. However, in hemiarthroplasty, no relation was observed between the progression of proximal or medial migration during follow-up and the clinical score over time. Status of the AC joint and age at the time of surgery should be taken into account when considering shoulder arthroplasty in rheumatoid patients. Total shoulder arthroplasty in combination with good cuff repair yields comparable clinical results as total shoulder arthroplasty when the cuff is intact.
PMCID: PMC3026101  PMID: 21423883
rheumatoid arthritis; rheumatoid shoulder; shoulder joint; prosthesis; shoulder prosthesis; shoulder arthroplasty; total shoulder prosthesis; humeral head prosthesis; hemiarthroplasty; glenoid component; loosening; outcome measurement; rotator cuff
25.  Cadaveric and three-dimensional computed tomography study of the morphology of the scapula with reference to reversed shoulder prosthesis 
The purpose of this study is to analyze the morphology of the scapula with reference to the glenoid component implantation in reversed shoulder prosthesis, in order to improve primary fixation of the component.
Seventy-three 3-dimensional computed tomography of the scapula and 108 scapular dry specimens were analyzed to determine the anterior and posterior length of the glenoid neck, the angle between the glenoid surface and the upper posterior column of the scapula and the angle between the major craneo-caudal glenoid axis and the base of the coracoid process and the upper posterior column.
The anterior and posterior length of glenoid neck was classified into two groups named "short-neck" and "long-neck" with significant differences between them. The angle between the glenoid surface and the upper posterior column of the scapula was also classified into two different types: type I (mean 50°–52°) and type II (mean 62,50°–64°), with significant differences between them (p < 0,001). The angle between the major craneo-caudal glenoid axis and the base of the coracoid process averaged 18,25° while the angle with the upper posterior column of the scapula averaged 8°.
Scapular morphological variability advices for individual adjustments of glenoid component implantation in reversed total shoulder prosthesis. Three-dimensional computed tomography of the scapula constitutes an important tool when planning reversed prostheses implantation.
PMCID: PMC2584061  PMID: 18847487

Results 1-25 (517809)