Structural glenoid allograft reconstruction during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Non-vascularized coracoid process autograft for glenoid reconstruction in revision shoulder arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To report the radiological and clinical outcomes of non-vascularized coracoid process autografts used for glenoid reconstruction during revision shoulder arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This is a retrospective, monocentric study from January 2016 to October 2022 targeting patients treated with a coracoid bone graft for glenoid reconstruction during revision of shoulder arthroplasty. The primary outcome measures were coracoid graft union rate and graft-implant osseointegration. Secondary outcome measures included clinical and CT-scan identified radiological complications and functional outcomes as measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Range of Motion (ROM), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Constant score (absolute and ponderate), and ASES score.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (9 males, 6 females; mean age 66.9 years, range 38-85) were included. At a mean follow-up of 20.9 months (range 12-56 months), 93.3% achieved complete graft integration. One case of partial lysis without baseplate loosening was noted. Regarding range of motion, the mean forward elevation was 130° (range 90°-170°), external rotation at the side 25° (range 10°-40°), external rotation in 90° of abduction 45° (range 10°-80°), and internal rotation 52° (range 10-80°). The mean VAS for pain was 1.1 (range 0-8), mean SSV 67.3% (range 40-90%), mean ASES score 85.5 (range 65-98.3), mean Absolute Constant score 58.6 (range 21-83), and mean Ponderate Constant score 77.5% (range 28.8-110.7%). No neurological injuries were reported.

CONCLUSION

Utilizing a non-vascularized coracoid graft during shoulder arthroplasty revision is a safe, reproducible, and time-efficient technique that demonstrated satisfactory osseointegration, implant stability, good functional results, and a low complication rate.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes and Graft Incorporation Rate Assessed by CT Scan After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty With Glenoid Structural Bone Graft Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) with structural bone graft has been described as a technique in addressing glenoid bony defects. Studies have demonstrated acceptable outcomes with structural autograft or allograft. However, most of these studies are relatively small and rarely evaluate bone graft incorporation with CT scan. The aim of this study was to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes and report graft incorporation assessed on CT scan after RTSA where structural bone autograft or allograft was used to reconstruct the glenoid.

METHODS

From May 2011 through June 2016, 38 patients underwent RTSA with structural bone graft. Of these, 35 were available for a minimum 2-year follow-up and retrospectively enrolled. From July 2016 through February 2019, 32 patients undergoing RTSA with structural bone graft were prospectively enrolled. Preoperative and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and visual analog scale (for pain) scores and radiographs were obtained. CT scan was obtained at least 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were enrolled retrospectively (52.2%) and 32 prospectively (47.8%). Autograft was used in 46 cases (68.7%) and allograft in 21 cases. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 33.1 (SD 18.5) to 78.2 (SD 22.4), with P < 0.0001. On postoperative radiographs, 63 cases (94.0%) showed stable RTSA constructs while four cases (6.0%) developed glenoid baseplate subsidence. Postoperative CT scan demonstrated complete graft incorporation in 45 cases (90.0%) while partial incorporation was noted in 4 cases (8.0%), and in 1 case (2.0%), there was no graft incorporation. No correlation was observed between baseplate subsidence and graft type (autograft versus allograft) or primary versus revision surgery.

DISCUSSION

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with structural bone autograft and allograft is reliable for glenoid augmentation in patients undergoing RTSA in both primary and revision settings. Bony incorporation of autograft and allograft as evaluated on CT scan is predictably high.

Glenoid structural bone grafting in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and radiographic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Current options for reconstruction of large glenoid defects in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) include structural bone grafting, use of augmented components, or 3D-printed custom implants. Given the paucity in the literature on structural bone grafts in RTSA, this study reflects our experience on clinical and radiographic outcomes of structural bone grafts used for glenoid defects in RTSA.

METHODS

We identified 33 consecutive patients who underwent RTSA using structural bone grafts for glenoid bone loss between 2008 and 2019. Twenty-six patients with a mean clinical follow-up of 4.4 ± 3.9 years and a mean radiographic follow-up of 2.7 ± 3.2 years were included. Patient demographic data, perioperative functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes, complications, and reoperation rates were determined.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2019, 26 RTSAs were performed using structural autograft or allograft for glenoid defects. There were 20 females (77%) and 6 males (23%), with a mean presenting age of 68 years (range 41-86), mean BMI of 29 (range 21-44), and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 (range 0-8). There were 19 cases of central glenoid defects, and 7 were combined central and peripheral defects. Structural grafts included humeral head autograft (7), proximal humerus autograft (7), iliac crest autograft (7), distal clavicle autograft (2), and femoral head allograft (3). All 18 revision RTSA cases had simultaneous humeral-sided revision. There was significant postoperative improvement in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form scores (27.0 ± 12.6 preoperation vs. 59.8 ± 24.1 postoperation; P < .001) and visual analog scale scores (8.1 ± 3.6 preoperation vs. 3.0 ± 3.2 postoperation; P < .001). Range of motion improved significantly for active forward elevation (63° ± 36° preoperation vs. 104° ± 36° postoperation; P < .001) and external rotation (21° ± 20° preoperation vs. 32° ± 23° postoperation, P = .036). Eighty-eight percent of cases (23 of 26) had successful reconstruction of the glenoid, defined as no visible radiolucent lines nor glenoid component migration at final follow-up. The reoperation rate was 19% (5 of 26). Postoperative complications included 2 cases of acromial stress fractures that were treated nonoperatively, for a total complication rate (including reoperation) of 27% (7 of 26 cases).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of structural bone autografts and allografts in RTSA was associated with improved outcome scores and range of motion. A reoperation rate of 19% and total complication rate of 27% were reported for these challenging cases. However, 86% of these complications were not related to structural glenoid reconstruction failure. Structural grafts are a reasonable option for glenoid reconstruction in RTSA cases with glenoid bone loss.

Primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a patient-matched glenoid implant for severe glenoid bone deficiency

BACKGROUND

Severe glenoid bone loss in the setting of both primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continues to remain a significant challenge. The purpose of this study was to report on radiographic and clinical outcomes of primary and revision rTSA using a patient-matched, 3-dimensionally printed metal glenoid implant to address severe glenoid bone deficiency. This is a follow-up study to previously reported preliminary results.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on 62 patients with severe glenoid bone deficiency who underwent either primary or revision rTSA using the Comprehensive Vault Reconstruction System (VRS) (Zimmer Biomet) at a single institution. Preoperative and postoperative values for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores as well as active range of motion (ROM) were collected and compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test with the level of statistical significance set at P < .05. The percentage of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) was also calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-five of 62 shoulders (88.7%) were able to be contacted at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, with 47 of 62 (75.8%) having complete clinical and radiographic follow-up with a mean age of 67.5 years (range, 48-85 years) and follow-up of 39.2 months (range, 25-56 months). There were 19 primary and 28 revision rTSAs. Significant improvements were seen in mean active forward flexion (63.1° ± 30.3° to 116.8° ± 35°), abduction (48.1° ± 16.1 to 76.2° ± 13.4°) (P < .001), external rotation (16° ± 23.7° to 32.1° ± 24.5°) (P < .005), DASH (59.9 ± 17.7 to 35.7 ± 24.3), Constant (23.4 ± 13.1 to 53.1 ± 17.4), ASES (27.8 ± 16.2 to 69.1 ± 25.2), SST (3.3 ± 2.5 to 7.6 ± 3.5), SANE (28.9 ± 18.3 to 66.7 ± 21.2), and VAS pain (7.1 ± 2.4 to 1.8 ± 2.6) scores (P < .001). MCID and SCB was achieved in a majority of patients postoperatively. The overall complication rate was 29.1%, with only 1 baseplate failure.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates promising evidence that the VRS implant can be used as a viable option to achieve clinically important improvement in a majority of patients treated for severe glenoid bone deficiency with rTSA in both the primary and revision setting.

The Use of Glenoid Structural Allografts for Glenoid Bone Defects in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Background: The use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a primary and revision implant is increasing. Advances in implant design and preoperative surgical planning allow the management of complex glenoid defects. As the demand for treating severe bone loss increases, custom allograft composites are needed to match the premorbid anatomy. Baseplate composite structural allografts are used in patients with eccentric and centric defects to restore the glenoid joint line. Preserving bone stock is important in younger patients where a revision surgery is expected. The aim of this article is to present the assessment, planning, and indications of femoral head allografting for bony defects of the glenoid. Methods: The preoperative surgical planning and the surgical technique to execute the plan with a baseplate composite graft are detailed. The preliminary clinical and radiological results of 29 shoulders which have undergone this graft planning and surgical technique are discussed. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue score of pain (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Constant-Murley score (CS), satisfaction before and after operation, and active range of motion. Radiological outcomes included graft healing and presence of osteolysis or loosening. Results: The use of composite grafts in this series has shown excellent clinical outcomes, with an overall graft complication rate in complex bone loss cases of 8%. Conclusion: Femoral head structural allografting is a valid and viable surgical option for glenoid bone defects in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Femoral head allograft for glenoid bone loss in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: functional and radiologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Several techniques have been adopted during primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) to manage glenoid bone defect. Among bone grafts, humeral head autograft is currently the mainstream option. However, autologous humeral heads may be unavailable or inadequate, and allografts may be a viable alternative. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the functional and radiologic outcomes of femoral head allografts for glenoid bone defects in primary RSA.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study with prospective data collection enrolling 20 consecutive patients who underwent RSA with femoral head allografts for glenoid bone defects. Indications for surgery were eccentric cuff tear arthropathy in 10 cases (50%), concentric osteoarthritis in 9 cases (45%), and fracture sequelae in 1 case (5%). Each patient was evaluated preoperatively and at follow-up by radiologic and computed tomography (CT) and by assessing the range of motion (ROM) and the Constant-Murley score (CMS). A CT-based software, a patient-specific 3D model of the scapula, and patient-specific instrumentation were used to shape the graft and to assess the position of K-wire for the central peg. Postoperatively, CT scans were used to identify graft incorporation and resorption.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 26.5 months (24-38), ROM and CMS showed a statistically significant improvement (all P = .001). The median measures of the graft were as follows: 28 mm (28-29) for diameter, 22° (10°-31°) for angle, 4 mm (2-8 mm) for minimum thickness, and 15 mm (11-21 mm) for maximum thickness. Before the surgery, the median glenoid version was 21.8° (16.5°-33.5°) for the retroverted glenoids and -13.5° (-23° to -12°) for the anteverted glenoids. At the follow-up, the median postoperative baseplate retroversion was 5.7° (2.2°-1.5°) (P = .001), and this value was close to the 4° retroversion planned on the preoperative CT-based software. Postoperative major complications were noted in 4 patients: 2 dislocations, 1 baseplate failure following a high-energy trauma, and 1 septic baseplate failure. Partial graft resorption without glenoid component failure was observed in 3 cases that did not require revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

The femoral head allograft for glenoid bone loss in primary RSA restores shoulder function, with CMS values comparable to those of sex- and age-matched healthy individuals. A high rate of incorporation of the graft and satisfactory correction of the glenoid version can be expected after surgery. The management of glenoid bone defects remains a challenging procedure, and a 15% risk of major complication must be considered.

Mini-augmented glenoid baseplate and mini-humeral tray reverse total shoulder arthroplasty implant comparisons: two-year clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Augmented glenoid baseplate and offset humeral tray reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) implants may decrease the mechanical impingement that creates scapular notching and improve shoulder function. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of three different RTSA glenoid baseplate and offset humeral tray combinations for patient-reported shoulder function, pain and instability, radiographic imaging evidence of glenoid baseplate or humeral stem subsidence and migration, bony changes associated with implant loosening, and scapular notching over the initial 2 years post-RTSA. Primary outcomes included active shoulder mobility, perceived function, pain, instability, scapular notching, and implant survival.

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients from 6 research sites received one of three different glenoid baseplate and humeral tray combinations. Group 1 (n = 21) received a mini-augmented glenoid baseplate with a standard humeral tray; Group 2 (n = 23) received a standard glenoid baseplate and a mini-humeral tray with 3 trunnion offset options; Group 3 (n = 23) received both a mini-augmented glenoid baseplate and a mini-humeral tray with 3 trunnion offset options. Subjects underwent radiologic evaluation, completed the ASES scale, the EQ-5D-5L quality of life scale, VAS shoulder pain and instability questions, and active shoulder mobility measurements pre-operatively, and 6-weeks, 6-months, 1-2 years post-RTSA.

RESULTS

Improved active shoulder mobility, quality of life, perceived function, decreased shoulder pain and instability, excellent implant survival and minimal scapular notching were observed for all groups. Group 3 had better overall active shoulder mobility than the other groups and better perceived function than Group 1.

CONCLUSION

The group that received the mini-augmented glenoid baseplate and mini-humeral tray combination had better overall active shoulder flexion, external rotation at 90° abduction, and internal rotation. This group also had better perceived shoulder function compared to the group that received a mini-augmented glenoid baseplate with a standard humeral tray.

The base plate orientation angle: a plain radiographic technique for designing the base plate's inclination in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Superior inclination of the base plate in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is underestimated and may lead to major setbacks in terms of functional outcomes due to the altered biomechanics. Joint instability, scapular notching, and loosening of the glenoid component are considered the most serious sequelae. Therefore, a thorough preoperative radiological assessment of the affected shoulder joint and customized design of the prosthesis according to the glenoid morphology are decisive and directly correlated to the outcome. In this article, we propose a simple radiographic technique to assess the inclination of the glenoid preoperatively, which identifies the need for intraoperative correction.

Materials and Methods

One hundred inconspicuous shoulder radiographs were included in the control group (CG) to define the normal ranges of the base plate orientation angle (BOA) and the base plate correction angle (BCA). Further, both angles were measured on 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography scans of patients with proximal humerus fractures as well as radiographs, 2D and 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography scans of patients with cuff tear arthropathy who underwent RSA between 2018 and 2021. The interobserver reliability among three independent testers was evaluated by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient. In cuff tear arthropathy cases, the BOA and BCA measurements on different imaging modalities were compared using the Wilcoxon test. Possible variations of both angles' values based on glenoid erosion types, according to the Favard classification, were also investigated.

Results

Regardless of the imaging modality used, the interobserver reliability was excellent among three independent observers. In the CG, the mean BOA and BCA values were 118° ± 6° and 17° ± 5°, respectively. The mean corrected BOA values of the CG and fracture group were 136° ± 5° and 140° ± 5°, respectively. In contrast to the BCA values, the BOA measurements on radiographs showed a statistically significant difference compared to those obtained on 2D- and 3D scans in the cuff arthropathy group. Further, both angles' values varied according to the extent and location of the glenoid erosion. The lowest mean BOA and highest mean BCA values were observed in cases with Favard glenoid type E3.

Conclusions

The BOA and the BCA are reliable tools proposed to aid in precisely positioning the glenoid component in RSA in the preoperative setting. Whereas, the BOA determines the inclination of the inferior glenoid segment, the BCA represents the extent of correction required to obtain a neutral inclination of the base plate. Glenoid type E3 of the Favard classification with superior wear is particularly susceptible to base plate superior tilt.

Trends in prevalence and implant types in the Nova Scotia Joint Database Registry between 2005 and 2021

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in incidence rate of shoulder arthroplasty, indications, and surgeon volume trends associated with these procedures between January 2003 and April 2021 in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada.

Methods

A total of 1,545 patients between 2005 and 2021 were analyzed. Patients operated on between 2003 and 2004 were excluded due to a lack of electronic records. Overall, 84.1% of the surgeries (n = 1,299) were performed by two fellowship-trained upper limb surgeons, with the remainder performed by one of the 14 orthopaedic surgeons working in the province.

Results

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) was the most frequent procedure (32.17%; n = 497), followed by stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) (27.7%; n = 428). The most frequent indication for primary shoulder arthroplasty was degenerative osteoarthritis (58.1%; n = 882), followed by acute proximal humerus fracture in 15.11% (n = 245), and rotator cuff arthropathy in 14.18% (n = 220). The overall rate of revision was 7.7% (2.8% to 11.2%). The number of TSAs and reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) has been increasing since 2016. The amount of revision cases is proportional to the number of operations performed in the same year throughout the study period.

Conclusion

The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the Maritime Provinces has increased over the last 16 years. Revision rates are similar the those found in other large database registries. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty prevalence has increased since 2016.

Comparison of glenoid bone grafting vs. augmented glenoid baseplates in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Management of bone loss and glenoid deformity can present a significant challenge to surgeons. The purpose of this review was to compare outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using either bone graft or augmented baseplates for the management of glenoid bone loss and deformity.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane indices was performed for studies reporting clinical outcomes following primary RSA with bone grafting or use of augmented baseplates. Pooled and frequency-weighted means, standard deviations, and ranges were calculated and reported for comparison.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 studies and 652 patients with bone grafting (n = 401) and augmented baseplates (n = 251) were included in the study. Mean patient age and gender were 70.3 ± 3.1 years and 47% female in the bone grafting group and 72.9 ± 3.7 years and 59.0% female in the augmented baseplate group. Mean follow-up for the augmented baseplate group was 23.1 ± 8.2 months and 29.5 ± 10.1 months for the bone grafting group. Overall complication and revision rates were 11.7% and 4.5% for the bone grafting group and 11.8% and 3.7% for the augmented baseplate group. Range of motion as well as patient-reported and functional outcome scores were similar between both techniques. Infections, component loosening, and notching were 1.9%, 3.6%, and 24.6% in the bone grafting group and 0.7%, 1.6%, and 4.7% in the augmented baseplate group.

CONCLUSIONS

Glenoid bone grafting and augmented baseplates are effective treatment options for the management of bone loss and glenoid deformity. Both treatments improve overall clinical outcomes with relatively low complication rates and revision rates.

[Bony glenoid reconstruction in revision arthroplasty]

Glenoid pathologies are one of the main indications for shoulder arthroplasty revisions. In most cases, the glenoid bone defect is associated with insufficiency of the rotator cuff, so that only reverse total shoulder arthroplasty can be considered as a revision implant. For stable permanent fixation of the reverse glenoid component, to avoid inferior glenoid notching, and to achieve optimal function, physiological restoration of three-dimensional glenoid anatomy is necessary. In order to approach the individual glenoid pathologies in a differentiated and optimal manner, it is important to classify the defects. A basic distinction must be made between centric contained and eccentric uncontained defects. Combinations often occur. It is also important to consider the severity, depth, and three-dimensional orientation of the defect. Therefore, a CT analysis of the glenoid is essential preoperatively. The data obtained should serve as the basis for computer-assisted planning to determine the optimal position of the glenoid baseplate and the type and shape of the bone graft for the reconstruction. For patients with good bone quality, we recommend defect reconstruction with autologous iliac crest. The type of graft configuration and fixation and the decision between a one- and two-stage procedure depend on the type and severity of the defect. With technically correct reconstruction and proper prosthesis implantation, sufficient integration of the bone graft and durable fixation of the glenoid component can be expected with satisfactory clinical results. After bony reconstruction of the defects, repeated treatment with a reverse arthroplasty is possible in the long term in the event of renewed glenoid problems.

Survivorship of Allologous Structural Bone Graft at a Minimum of 2 Years When Used to Address Significant Glenoid Bone Loss in Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Computed Tomographic and Clinical Review

Background

This study assesses outcomes in revision shoulder replacements where the glenoid bone loss was managed using a structural allograft (donated femoral head) in combination with a trabecular titanium (TT) implant.

Methods

We contacted patients who had undergone revision shoulder arthroplasty using the Lima Axioma TT metal-backed glenoid with an allologous bone graft as a composite who were over 2 years since surgery. Patients underwent computerd tomography evaluation, clinical review, and scoring preoperatively, at 6 months and the latest follow-up.

Results

Fifteen patients were included with a mean age of 59 (33-76). The average follow-up period was 40.5 months (24-51). 80% showed satisfactory bone graft incorporation and peg integration at the latest follow-up. Three had signs of significant bone graft resorption, although in 2 patients the pegs were still soundly fixed in the host bone. Clinically all patients showed a statistically significant improvement in pain relief, movement, and function. No unusual complications were reported.

Conclusion

Results show femoral head structural allograft in combination with TT metal-backed glenoid baseplate is a viable option for revision total shoulder replacement in the context of massive glenoid bone loss. We do, however, acknowledge that this resorption rate is higher than in other reported series where autograft is used.

Management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Aims

Rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continue to grow. Glenoid bone loss and deformity remains a technical challenge to the surgeon and may reduce improvements in patients’ outcomes. However, there is no consensus as to the optimal surgical technique to best reconstruct these patients’ anatomy. This review aims to compare the outcomes of glenoid bone grafting versus augmented glenoid prostheses in the management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated study-level data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We performed searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed from their dates of inception to January 2022. From included studies, we analyzed data for preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported functional outcomes, and complication rates.

Results

A total of 13 studies (919 shoulders) were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients at initial evaluation was 72.2 years (42 to 87), with a mean follow-up time of 40.7 months (24 to 120). Nine studies with 292 rTSAs evaluated the use of bone graft and five studies with 627 rTSAs evaluated the use of augmented glenoid baseplates. One study was analyzed in both groups. Both techniques demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures and ROM assessment, with augmented prostheses outperforming bone grafting on improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score. There was a higher complication rate (8.9% vs 3.5%; p < 0.001) and revision rate among the bone grafting group compared with the patients who were treated with augmented prostheses (2.4% vs 0.6%; p = 0.022).

Conclusion

This review provides strong evidence that both bone graft and augmented glenoid baseplate techniques to address glenoid bone loss give excellent ROM and functional outcomes in primary rTSA. The use of augmented base plates may confer fewer complications and revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1334–1342.

Hemi-reverse revision arthroplasty in the setting of severe glenoid bone loss

BACKGROUND

Glenoid bone loss is one of the main challenges in revision of failed shoulder arthroplasties. The concept of a hemi-reverse procedure is to implant a glenoid baseplate and glenosphere to protect the glenoid reconstruction to allow it to heal and to preserve the joint space for a potential second-stage humeral component implantation. The purpose of this study was to report the results of hemi-reverse procedures.

METHODS

Revision to a hemi-reverse procedure was performed in 15 patients: 8 with a failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, 3 with a failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty, 3 with a failed humeral hemiarthroplasty, and 1 with placement of a cement spacer owing to sepsis after a total shoulder arthroplasty. After complete removal of the initial prosthesis, all patients underwent glenoid reconstruction with bone grafting and implantation of a reverse arthroplasty baseplate and glenosphere. A humeral implant was not placed in any case. The patients were prospectively followed up and underwent complete clinical and radiologic studies preoperatively and postoperatively at a minimum of 2 years after the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Thirteen hemi-reverse implants and glenoid bone grafts healed (86%) and remained radiographically stable. One hemi-reverse construct migrated and became mechanically loose, which was attributed to absent fixation of the central post in the native glenoid bone. In 1 patient, an implant-related infection developed; irrigation and debridement were performed, in addition to revision to a resection arthroplasty. After documented radiographic healing of the hemi-reverse glenoid reconstruction, 5 patients underwent a second-stage revision to a reverse procedure with insertion of a humeral component at a median of 6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-8 months). In this group, the median follow-up period was 73 months (IQR, 45-153 months), the median Constant score was 48 (IQR, 41-56), median active forward elevation was 135° (IQR, 100°-150°), and the median Subjective Shoulder Value was 50% (IQR, 50%-60%). In the group of 9 patients with remaining hemi-reverse implants, the median follow-up period was 38 months (IQR, 29-60 months), the median Constant score was 41 (IQR, 38-46), median active forward elevation was 100° (IQR, 80°-100°), and the median Subjective Shoulder Value was 50% (IQR, 40%-60%).

CONCLUSION

The hemi-reverse procedure is an effective revision procedure to reconstruct a severely deficient glenoid. The hemi-reverse procedure may function as the definitive procedure, with satisfactory outcomes. Additionally, in patients who undergo the hemi-reverse procedure, second-stage revision to a total reverse procedure can be performed once imaging confirms bone graft and construct stability.

Glenoid bony morphology of osteoarthritis prior to shoulder arthroplasty: what the surgeon wants to know and why

Shoulder arthroplasty is performed with increasing frequency, and osteoarthritis is the most common indication for this procedure. However, the glenoid side of the joint is widely recognized as a limiting factor in the long-term durability of shoulder replacement, and osteoarthritis leads to characteristic bony changes at the glenoid which can exacerbate this challenge by reducing the already limited glenoid bone stock, by altering biomechanics, and by interfering with operative exposure. This article reviews the Walch classification system for glenoid morphology. Several typical findings of osteoarthritis at the glenoid are discussed including central bone loss, posterior bone loss, retroversion, biconcavity, inclination, osteophyte formation, subchondral bone quality, and bone density. The three primary types of shoulder arthroplasty are reviewed, along with several techniques for addressing glenoid deformity, including eccentric reaming, bone grafting, and the use of augmented glenoid components. Ultimately, a primary objective at shoulder arthroplasty is to correct glenoid deformity while preserving bone stock, which depends critically on characterizing the glenoid at pre-operative imaging. Understanding the surgical techniques and the implications of glenoid morphology on surgical decision-making enables the radiologist to provide the morphologic information needed by the surgeon.

The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part II

Background

Globally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has moved away from the Grammont design to modern prosthesis designs. The purpose of this study was to provide a focused, updated systematic review for each of the most common complications of RSA by limiting each search to publications after 2010. In this part II, the following were examined: (1) instability, (2) humerus/glenoid fracture, (3) acromial/scapular spine fractures (AF/SSF), and (4) problems/miscellaneous.

Methods

Four separate PubMed database searches were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Overall, 137 studies for instability, 94 for humerus/glenoid fracture, 120 for AF/SSF, and 74 for problems/miscellaneous were included in each review, respectively. Univariate analysis was performed with chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

Results

The Grammont design had a higher instability rate vs. all other designs combined (4.0%, 1.3%; P < .001), and the onlay humerus design had a lower rate than the lateralized glenoid design (0.9%, 2.0%; P = .02). The rate for intraoperative humerus fracture was 1.8%; intraoperative glenoid fracture, 0.3%; postoperative humerus fracture, 1.2%; and postoperative glenoid fracture, 0.1%. The rate of AF/SSF was 2.6% (371/14235). The rate for complex regional pain syndrome was 0.4%; deltoid injury, 0.1%; hematoma, 0.3%; and heterotopic ossification, 0.8%.

Conclusions

Focused systematic reviews of recent literature with a large volume of shoulders demonstrate that using non-Grammont modern prosthesis designs, complications including instability, intraoperative humerus and glenoid fractures, and hematoma are significantly reduced compared with previous studies. As the indications continue to expand for RSA, it is imperative to accurately track the rate and types of complications in order to justify its cost and increased indications.

Early results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a patient-matched glenoid implant for severe glenoid bone deficiency

BACKGROUND

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) in the presence of significant glenoid bone loss remains a challenge. This study presents preliminary clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary and revision rTSA using a patient-matched, 3-dimensionally printed custom metal glenoid implant to address severe glenoid bone deficiency.

METHODS

Between September 2017 and November 2018, 19 patients with severe glenoid bone deficiency underwent primary (n = 9) or revision rTSA (n = 10) using the Comprehensive Vault Reconstruction System (VRS) (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) at a single institution. Preoperative and postoperative values for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and visual analog scale pain score and active range of motion were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test with the level of statistical significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Complications occurred in 4 patients (21%), including a nondisplaced greater tuberosity fracture treated conservatively in 1, intraoperative cortical perforation during humeral cement removal treated with an allograft strut in 1, and recurrent instability and hematoma formation treated with humeral component revision in 1. One patient with an early periprosthetic infection was treated with component removal and antibiotic spacer placement at an outside facility and was subsequently lost to follow-up. Eighteen patients with 1-year minimum clinical and radiographic follow-up were evaluated (mean, 18.2 months; range, 12-27 months). Significant improvements were noted in the mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (57.4 ± 16.5 vs. 29.4 ± 19.5, P < .001), mean Constant score (24.6 ± 10.2 vs. 60.4 ± 14.5, P < .001), mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (32 ± 18.2 vs. 79 ± 15.6, P < .001), mean Simple Shoulder Test score (4.5 ± 2.6 vs. 9.3 ± 1.8, P < .001), mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (25.4 ± 13.7 vs. 72.2 ± 17.8, P < .001), mean visual analog scale pain score (6.2 ± 2.9 vs. 0.7 ± 1.3, P < .001), mean active forward flexion (53° ± 27° vs. 124° ± 23°, P < .001), and mean active abduction (42° ± 17° to 77° ± 15°, P < .001). Mean external rotation changed from 17° ± 19° to 32° ± 24° (P = .06). No radiographic evidence of component loosening, scapular notching, or hardware failure was observed at last follow-up in any patient.

CONCLUSION

The preliminary results of rTSA using the VRS to manage severe glenoid bone deficiency are promising, but longer follow-up is necessary to determine the longevity of this implant.