Inlay versus onlay humeral design for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty design-inlay vs. onlay: does it really make a difference?

BACKGROUND

The design of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) implants has evolved significantly over the past 50 years. Today there are many options available that differ in design of the glenoid and humeral components, fixation methods, sizes, and modularity. With respect to the humeral component, the literature has generally focused on the differences between inlay and onlay designs and the potential impact on outcomes. However, inlay and onlay design represents only one factor of many.

METHODS

It is our hypothesis that separating onlay and inlay designs into 2 distinct entities is an oversimplification as there can be a wide overlap of the 2 designs, depending on surgical technique and the implant selected. As such, the differences between inlay and onlay designs should be measured in absolute terms-meaning combined distalization and lateralization.

RESULTS

By reviewing the many factors that can contribute to the glenosphere-humerus relationship, the role of inlay and onlay humeral designs as an important distinguishing feature is shown to be limited. Preliminary studies suggest that the amount of distalization and lateralization of the construct may be the most accurate method of describing the differences in the constructs.

CONCLUSIONS

Inlay and onlay humeral component design represents only one factor of many that may impact outcomes. A more accurate method of defining specific design and technique factors in RSA is the degree of lateralization and distalization.

Cost-effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy. An economic analysis using real-world data

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis (OA) and rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system using patient data, health utilities and costs from a real-world situation.

HYPOTHESIS

Our hypothesis was that arthroplasty for OA is more cost-effective than for CTA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We gathered a cohort of patients with 153 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for OA and 107 reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for CTA between years 2016-2020 at a university hospital. Short-term (mean 2.8years) shoulder function, health utilities and costs were obtained from prospectively collected data, and a Markov cohort simulation was carried out to assess lifetime cost-utility. The primary outcome measures were change in 15D score to calculate gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and change in Western Ontario osteoarthritis score of the shoulder (WOOS).

RESULTS

Both TSA and RSA restored shoulder function well, WOOS improvement was 59.7 (95% CI: 56.2-63.2) and 55.8 (95% CI: 50.4-61.2), respectively. The cost/QALY gained was 20,846.82 € for TSA and 38,711.90 € for RSA. The cost-utility was not remarkable sensitive to costs, discounting of future costs or estimated revision rates. However, the cost-effectiveness was very sensitive to change in 15D health utility scores and thus QALY gain, especially for RSA patients.

DISCUSSION

Shoulder arthroplasty restores shoulder function well in both OA and CTA. In health economic terms, RSA is less cost-effective than TSA in an everyday setting, mainly due to inferior improvement of health-related quality-of-life and reduced life expectancy of CTA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case series.

Influence of design features and brand of reverse shoulder arthroplasties on survivorship and reasons for revision surgery: results of 5,494 arthroplasties with up to 15 years' follow-up reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2007-2022

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to report the survival of different reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs and brands, and factors associated with revision. The secondary aim was to evaluate the reasons for revision.

METHODS

We included 4,696 inlay and 798 onlay RSAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) 2007-2022. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and Cox models adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis, implant design, humeral fixation, and previous surgery were investigated to assess revision risks. The reasons for revision were compared using competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, the 10-year survival rate was 94% (confidence interval [CI] 93-95). At 5 years all brands exceeded 90%. Compared with Delta Xtend (n = 3,865), Aequalis Ascend Flex (HR 2.8, CI 1.7-4.6), Aequalis Reversed II (HR 2.2, CI 1.2-4.2), SMR (HR 2.5, CI 1.3-4.7), and Promos (HR 2.2, CI 1.0-4.9) had increased risk of revision. Onlay and inlay RSAs had similar risk of revision (HR 1.2, CI 0.8-1.8). Instability and deep infection were the most frequent revision causes. Male sex (HR 2.3, CI 1.7-3.1), fracture sequelae (HR 3.1, CI 2.1-5.0), and fractures operated on with uncemented humeral stems had increased risk of revision (HR 3.5, CI 1.6-7.3).

CONCLUSION

We found similar risk of revision with inlay and onlay designs. Some prosthesis brands had a higher rate of revision than the most common implant, but numbers were low.

Evolution of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Design Rationales and Where We Are Now

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) will soon reach its 20-year anniversary in the United States and has now become the most performed shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. The evolution from Grammont style implants to lateralized designs continues to generate debate as comparable outcomes have been reported with both types of systems. While early literature focused on fixation and expanded indications, recent studies have evaluated component design and position and their effect on functional outcomes and complications. The purpose of this article was to provide a synopsis of design rationales of current RSA prostheses and review outcomes related to RSA design and position.

Varus-valgus alignment of humeral short stem in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: does it really matter?

BACKGROUND

The utilization of short humeral stems in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has gained attention in recent times. However, concerns regarding the risk of misalignment during implant insertion are associated with their use.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were prepared for dissection and biomechanical testing. A bespoke humeral implant was fabricated to facilitate assessment of neutral, varus, and valgus alignments using a single stem, and 10° was established as the maximum permissible angle for misalignments. Shift in humerus position and changes in deltoid length attributable to misalignments relative to the neutral position were evaluated using a Microscribe 3DLx system. The impingement-free range of motion, encompassing abduction, adduction, internal rotation, and external rotation (ER), was gauged using a digital goniometer. The capacity for abduction was evaluated at maximal abduction angles under successive loading on the middle deltoid. A specialized traction system coupled with a force transducer was employed to measure anterior dislocation forces.

RESULTS

Relative to the neutral alignment, valgus alignment resulted in a more distal (10.5 ± 2.4 mm) and medial (8.3 ± 2.2 mm) translation of the humeral component, whereas the varus alignment resulted in the humerus shifting more superiorly (11.2 ± 1.3 mm) and laterally (9.9 ± 0.9 mm) at 0° abduction. The valgus alignment exhibited the highest abduction angle than neutral alignment (86.2°, P < .001). Conversely, the varus alignment demonstrated significantly higher adduction (18.4 ± 7.4°, P < .001), internal rotation (68.9 ± 15.0°, P = .014), and ER (45.2 ± 10.5°, P = .002) at 0° abduction compared to the neutral alignments. Anterior dislocation forces were considerably lower (23.8 N) in the varus group compared to the neutral group at 0°ER (P = .047). Additionally, abduction capability was markedly higher in varus alignment at low deltoid loads than the neutral alignment (5N, P = .009; 7.5 N, P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

The varus position enhances rotational range of motion (ROM) but increases instability, while the valgus position does not significantly impact ROM or instability compared to the neutral position.

Recent Advances in the Design and Application of Shoulder Arthroplasty Implant Systems and Their Impact on Clinical Outcomes: A Comprehensive Review

Purpose of Review

This narrative review comprehensively aims to analyze recent advancements in shoulder arthroplasty, focusing on implant systems and their impact on patient outcomes. The purpose is to provide a nuanced understanding of the evolving landscape in shoulder arthroplasty, incorporating scientific, regulatory, and ethical dimensions.

Recent Findings

The review synthesizes recent literature on stemless implants, augmented glenoid components, inlay vs onlay configurations, convertible stems, and associated complications. Notable findings include improved patient-reported outcomes with stemless implants, variations in outcomes between inlay and onlay configurations, and the potential advantages of convertible stems. Additionally, the regulatory landscape, particularly the FDA's 510(k) pathway, is explored alongside ethical considerations, emphasizing the need for standardized international regulations.

Summary

Recent innovations in shoulder arthroplasty showcase promising advancements, with stemless implants demonstrating improved patient outcomes. The review underscores the necessity for ongoing research to address unresolved aspects and highlights the importance of a standardized regulatory framework to ensure patient safety globally. The synthesis of recent findings contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the current state of shoulder arthroplasty, guiding future research and clinical practices.

Inlay vs. onlay humeral components in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biorobotic shoulder simulator study

BACKGROUND

Both inlay and onlay humeral implants are available for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), but biomechanical data comparing these components remain limited. This study investigated the effects of inlay and onlay rTSA humeral components on shoulder biomechanics using a biorobotic shoulder simulator.

METHODS

Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested before and after rTSA with either an inlay or onlay humeral implant. Comparisons were performed between the most commonly implanted configurations for each implant (baseline) and with a modification to provide equivalent neck-shaft angles (NSAs) for the inlay and onlay configurations. Specimens underwent passive range-of-motion (ROM) assessment with the scapula held static, and scapular-plane abduction was performed, driven by previously collected human-subject scapulothoracic and glenohumeral kinematics. Passive ROM glenohumeral joint angles were compared using t tests, whereas muscle force and excursion data during scapular-plane elevation were evaluated with statistical parametric mapping and t tests.

RESULTS

Maximum passive elevation was reduced for the inlay vs. onlay humeral components, although both implants caused reduced passive elevation vs. the native joint. Inlay rTSA also demonstrated reduced passive internal rotation at rest and increased external rotation at 90° of humerothoracic elevation vs. the native joint. All preoperative planning estimates of ROM differed from experiments. Rotator cuff forces were elevated with an onlay vs. inlay humeral implant, but simulated muscle excursions did not differ between systems. Compared with the native joint, rotator cuff forces were increased for both inlay and onlay implants and deltoid forces were reduced for inlay implants. Muscle excursions were dramatically altered by rTSA vs. the native joint. Comparisons of inlay and onlay humeral implants with equivalent NSAs were consistent with the baseline comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Rotator cuff forces required to perform scapular-plane abduction increase following rTSA using both inlay and onlay implants. Rotator cuff forces are lower with inlay implants compared with onlay implants, although inlay implants also result in reduced passive-elevation ROM. Deltoid forces are lower with inlay implants in comparison to the native joint but not with onlay implants. The differences between inlay and onlay components are largely unaffected by NSA, indicating that these differences are inherent to the inlay and onlay designs. In those patients with an intact rotator cuff, decreased rotator cuff forces to perform abduction with an inlay humeral implant compared with an onlay implant may promote improved long-term outcomes owing to reduced deltoid muscle fatigue when using an inlay implant.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: significantly different characteristics and outcomes in shoulders with intact vs. torn rotator cuff

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for primary osteoarthritis (OA) with and without rotator cuff (RC) tears to those with secondary OA due to RC tears.

METHODS

We reviewed records of all patients who received RSA for primary OA or secondary OA. All patients had preoperative radiographs, computed tomographic arthrography (CTA), and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of their shoulders to assess their etiology, glenoid morphology, and fatty infiltration. Pre- and postoperative (at minimum follow-up of 2 years) Constant scores and range of motion were compared between patients who had RSA for primary OA with and without RC tears to those with secondary OA due to RC tears.

RESULTS

Of the initial cohort of 605 shoulders (583 patients), 153 were lost to follow-up (25.3%), 25 required revision with implant removal (4.1%), and 13 died of causes unrelated to the surgery (2.1%), and left a final cohort of 414 patients. Of the final cohort, 97 had primary OA with intact RC, 62 had primary OA with RC tears, and 255 had secondary OA. Postoperative Constant scores were significantly higher for primary OA with intact RC (73.8 ± 14.3), compared with both primary OA with RC tears (66.1 ± 14.6, P < .001) and secondary OA (64.1 ± 14.8, P < .001). There were no differences in pre- or postoperative scores between primary OA with RC tears and secondary OA.

CONCLUSION

At 2 or more years following RSA, Constant scores were significantly higher for primary OA with intact RC, compared to either primary OA with RC tears or secondary OA, whereas there were no differences in pre- or postoperative scores of shoulders that had primary OA with RC tears vs. secondary OA. The authors recommend distinguishing primary OA with intact RC from primary OA with RC tears, as the two have considerably different characteristics and prognosis following RSA.

The Influence of Component Design and Positioning on Soft-Tissue Tensioning and Complications in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Review

» Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was designed to function in the rotator cuff deficient shoulder by adjusting the glenohumeral center of rotation (COR) to maximize deltoid function.» Adjustments in the COR ultimately lead to changes in resting tension of the deltoid and remaining rotator cuff, which can affect implant stability and risk of stress fracture.» Soft-tissue balance and complication profiles can be affected by humeral component (version, neck shaft angle, and inlay vs. onlay) and glenoid component (sagittal placement, version, inclination, and lateralization) design and application.» A good understanding of the effects on soft-tissue balance and complication profile is critical for surgeons to best provide optimal patient outcomes.

Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy - the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility

BACKGROUND

The two major reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs are the Grammont design and the lateralized design. Even if the lateralized design is biomechanically favored, the classic Grammont prosthesis continues to be used. Functional and subjective patient scores as well as implant survival described in the literature so far are comparable to the lateralized design. A pure comparison of how the RSA design influences outcome in patients has not yet been determined. The aim of this study was a comparison focused on patients with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).

METHODS

We analyzed registry data from 696 CTA patients prospectively collected between 2012 and 2020 in two specialized orthopedic centers up to 2 years post-RSA with the same follow-up time points (6,12 24 months). Complete teres minor tears were excluded. Three groups were defined: group 1 (inlay, 155° humeral inclination, 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (n = 50)), group 2 (inlay, 135° humeral inclination, 36 + 4 mm lateralized glenosphere (n = 141)) and group 3 (onlay, 145° humeral inclination, + 3 mm lateralized base plate, 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (n = 35)) We compared group differences in clinical outcomes (e.g., active and passive range of motion (ROM), abduction strength, Constant-Murley score (CS)), radiographic evaluations of prosthetic position, scapular anatomy and complications using mixed models adjusted for age and sex.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 226 patients. The overall adjusted p-value of the CS for all time-points showed no significant difference (p = 0.466). Flexion of group 3 (mean, 155° (SD 13)) was higher than flexion of group 1 (mean, 142° (SD 18) and 2 (mean, 132° (SD 18) (p < 0.001). Values for abduction of group 3 (mean, 145° (SD 23)) were bigger than those of group 1 (mean, 130° (SD 22)) and group 2 (mean, 118° (SD 25)) (p < 0.001). Mean external rotation for group 3 (mean, 41° (SD 23)) and group 2 (mean, 38° (SD 17)) was larger than external rotation of group 1 (mean, 24° (SD 16)) (p < 0.001); a greater proportion of group 2 (78%) and 3 (69%) patients reached L3 level on internal rotation compared to group 1 (44%) (p = 0.003). Prosthesis position measurements were similar, but group 3 had significantly less scapular notching (14%) versus 24% (group 2) and 50% (group 1) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome scores of different RSA designs for CTA revealed comparable results. However, CTA patients with a lateralized and distalized RSA configuration were associated with achieving better flexion and abduction with less scapular notching. A better rotation was associated with either of the lateralized RSA designs in comparison with the classic Grammont prosthesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, Level III.

Comparison of Functional Outcomes and Complications of Inlay and Onlay Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Neer Type 4 Proximal Humerus Fractures and Cuff Tear Arthropathy: A Multicentric Study

Background

This multicenter retrospective study was conducted with the objective of comparing the outcomes and complications between inlay and onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients presenting Neer Type 4 proximal humerus fractures and cuff tear arthropathy. The primary aim of this investigation was to assess and juxtapose the clinical as well as functional outcomes of individuals who underwent onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty with those who underwent inlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, involving patients who had undergone reverse shoulder arthroplasty between the period of 2016 and 2022. The study divided the population into two groups: Group A received inlay humeral components, while Group B received onlay humeral components. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Constant scores. Range of motion, infection, periprosthetic fractures, and nerve injuries were also assessed.

Results

The study included 67 patients in Group A and 62 patients in Group B. Group A had significantly better functional outcomes, as indicated by higher ASES and Constant scores (p < 0.05). Group A also had greater shoulder joint motion (p < 0.05). Periprosthetic fractures were significantly more common in Group B (p < 0.05). However, complication rates, including infection and instability, did not significantly differ between the groups (p > 0.05). Nerve injuries occurred in both groups, with slightly higher occurrence in Group B.

Conclusion

Inlay humeral components in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for Neer Type 4 fractures and cuff tear arthropathy resulted in better functional outcomes, increased range of motion, and lower incidence of periprosthetic fractures compared to onlay components. Onlay components showed potential advantages in reducing instability rates. Further studies with larger samples and standardized protocols are needed to confirm these findings.

Medium-term results of inlay vs. onlay humeral components for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a New Zealand Joint Registry study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare medium-term results of inlay and onlay humeral components in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Specifically, we report differences in revision rate and functional outcomes between the 2 designs.

METHODS

The 3 most used inlay (in-RSA) and onlay (on-RSA) implants by volume from the New Zealand Joint Registry were included in the study. In-RSA was defined as having a humeral tray that recessed within the metaphyseal bone, whereas on-RSA was defined as having a humeral tray that rested on the epiphyseal osteotomy surface. The primary outcome was revision up to 8 years postsurgery. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), implant survival, and revision cause for in-RSA and on-RSA as well as individual prostheses.

RESULTS

There were 6707 patients (5736 in-RSA; 971 on-RSA) included in the study. For all causes, in-RSA demonstrated a lower revision rate compared to on-RSA (revision rate/100 component years: in-RSA 0.665, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.569-0.768; on-RSA 1.010, 95% CI 0.673-1.415). However, the mean 6-month OSS was higher for the on-RSA group (mean difference 2.20, 95% CI 1.37-3.03; P < .001). However, this was not clinically significant. At 5 years, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to the OSS.

CONCLUSION

The medium-term survival of in-RSA was higher than that of on-RSA. However, functional outcomes at 6 months were better for on-RSA compared to in-RSA. Further follow-up is required to understand the long-term survivorship and functional outcomes between these designs.

Factors that affect external rotation following reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective multi-centre study on 501 shoulders

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this multi-centre study was to assess external rotation in a large cohort following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) at a minimum follow-up of 2 years, and identify factors that influence postoperative and/or net-improvement of external rotation.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed records of 743 RSAs performed between January 2015 and August 2017 by 16 surgeons that participated in a large national society symposium; 193 (25.7%) were lost to follow-up, 16 (2.1%) died, and 33 (4.4%) were revised with implant exchange, which left 501 available for assessment at 2.0-5.5 years. Pre- and post-operative active forward elevation, active external rotation (ER1), active internal rotation (IR1) and constant score (CS) were collected. Regression analyses were performed to determine associations of patient demographics, surgical and implant parameters, rotator cuff muscles status and radiographic angles with ER1.

RESULTS

Multivariable analyses revealed postoperative ER1 decreased with age (β, - 0.35), increased with lateralisation shoulder angle (LSA) (β, 0.26), and was better in shoulders operated by the antero-superior (AS) approach (β, 11.41), but worse in shoulders with absent/atrophic teres minor muscles (β, - 10.06). Net-improvement of ER1 increased with LSA (β, 0.39), was better with inlay stems (β, 8.33) and BIO RSA (β, 6.22), but worse in shoulders operated for primary OA with rotator cuff (RC) tears (β, - 16.26), for secondary OA due to RC tears (β, - 16.06), or for mRCT (β, - 18.96).

CONCLUSIONS

This large multi-centre study revealed that, at a minimum of 2 years following RSA, ER1 improved by 16.1°. Postoperative ER1 was better in shoulders which had normal or hypertrophic teres minor muscles, were operated by the AS approach, or with greater LSA. Net-improvement of ER1 was better in shoulders with inlay stems, with BIO RSA, or with greater LSA, but worse in shoulders with rotator cuff deficiency.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: State-of-the-art

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty conceived by Paul Grammont in 1985 has gradually gained popularity as a treatment for multiple shoulder diseases. Unlike previous reverse shoulder prosthesis characterized by unsatisfactory results and a high glenoid implant failure rate, the Grammont design has immediately shown good clinical outcomes. This semi constrained prosthesis solved the issues of the very first designs by medializing and distalizing the center of rotation with an increased stability of the replacement of the component. The indication was initially limited to cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). It has then been expanded to irreparable massive cuff tears and displaced humeral head fractures. The most frequent problems of this design are a limited postoperative external rotation and scapular notching. Different modifications to the original Grammont design have been proposed with the aim of decreasing the risk of failure and complications and improving the clinical outcomes. Both the position and version/inclination of the glenosphere and the humeral configuration (e.g. neck shaft angle) influence the RSA outcomes. A lateralized glenoid (whether with bone or metal) and a 135° Inlay system configuration leads to a moment arm which is the closest to the native shoulder. Clinical research will focus on implant designs reducing bone adaptations and revision rate, strategies to prevent more effectively infections. Furthermore, there is still room for improvement in terms of better postoperative internal and external rotations and clinical outcomes after RSA implanted for humeral fracture and revision shoulder arthroplasty.

[Conversion of anatomic to reverse shoulder arthroplasty : Does it make sense?]

We can observe increasing numbers for the implantation of shoulder endoprostheses in developed industrial countries. This is accompanied by a certain number of revision surgeries. The conversion to reverse arthroplasty systems is by far the most common revision procedure. Depending on the primary implant and the individual situation, the surgical effort and consumption of resources can be substantial. Particularly favorable revision scenarios exist in the conversion of stemless primary implants that are part of a platform system and allow a partial exchange and easy conversion from anatomical to reverse implants.