Glenohumeral Mismatch in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Biomechanics of anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty

The biomechanics of the shoulder relies on careful balancing between stability and mobility. A thorough understanding of normal and degenerative shoulder anatomy is necessary, as the goal of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is to reproduce premorbid shoulder kinematics.With reported joint reaction forces up to 2.4 times bodyweight, failure to restore anatomy and therefore provide a stable fulcrum will result in early implant failure secondary to glenoid loosening.The high variability of proximal humeral anatomy can be addressed with modular stems or stemless humeral components. The development of three-dimensional planning has led to a better understanding of the complex nature of glenoid bone deformity in eccentric osteoarthritis.The treatment of cuff tear arthropathy patients was revolutionized by the arrival of Grammont's reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The initial design medialized the centre of rotation and distalized the humerus, allowing up to a 42% increase in the deltoid moment arm.More modern reverse designs have maintained the element of restored stability but sought a more anatomic postoperative position to minimize complications and maximize rotational range of motion. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:918-931. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210014.

Biomechanical comparison of zoned-conformity glenoid versus standard glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty: impact on rotator cuff strain and glenohumeral translation

BACKGROUND

Current standard total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid implants allow for high levels of glenohumeral mismatch and associated high levels of humeral head translation to improve range of motion and reduce rim stresses on the glenoid. However, high levels of glenohumeral mismatch could also increase glenoid edge loading, eccentric wear, and rotator cuff strain. A zoned-conformity glenoid may be able to reduce the forces on the rotator cuff and glenoid. We compared rotator cuff strain and glenohumeral translation between a standard glenoid (SG) with moderate glenohumeral mismatch and a zoned-conformity glenoid (conforming glenoid [CG]) that limits mismatch. We hypothesized that the CG would have lower levels of strain on the rotator cuff and lower levels of humeral head translation compared with the SG.

METHODS

Eight fresh frozen cadaveric shoulders, aged 72 years (range, 67-76 years), were used in this biomechanical study. The specimens were first tested in the intact state. We cycled them 3 times from 0° to 60° of abduction and measured the superiorly-inferiorly and anteriorly-posteriorly directed forces at the joint, compressive forces applied to the glenoid, and humeral head translation. The specimens were then implanted with a standard press-fit humeral component and a polyethylene glenoid with 3 peripherally cemented pegs and a central press-fit peg. Testing was repeated. Finally, the SG was removed, the CG was implanted, and each specimen was tested a third time.

RESULTS

The average superiorly directed force at the glenohumeral joint was significantly lower in the intact and CG groups (18.1 ± 18.6 N and 19.8 ± 16.2 N, respectively) than in the SG group (29.3 ± 21.9 N, P = .024). The maximum force directed against the glenoid was also significantly lower in the CG group (87.6 ± 11.7 N) than in the SG (96.0 ± 7.3 N) and intact (98.9 ± 16.5 N) groups (P = .035). No difference was observed in humeral head translation in the anterior-posterior plane from 0° to 60° of abduction (P = .998) or in the superior-inferior plane (P = .999).

CONCLUSION

A zoned-conformity glenoid was associated with similar humeral head translation but significantly lower superior forces against the rotator cuff and a significantly lower maximum force against the glenoid compared with an SG implant. These biomechanical findings suggest that a zoned-conformity implant warrants further study in the effort to maintain humeral head translation while reducing rotator cuff and glenoid forces for successful outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty.

Prosthetic Bearing Surfaces in Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse TSA have provided an effective treatment for glenohumeral osteoarthritis; however, longevity of the procedure may be limited by osteolysis and polyethylene wear. In TSA, glenoid component failure occurs through several mechanisms, the most common being aseptic loosening and polyethylene wear. Newer bearing surfaces such as highly cross-linked ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, vitamin E processing, ceramic heads, and pyrolytic carbon surfaces have shown improved wear characteristics in biomechanical and some early clinical studies. The purpose of this review is to provide a historical perspective and current state of the art of bearing surface technology in anatomic and reverse TSA.

Subscapularis-sparing approaches in shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review

Background

Novel approaches for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA and rTSA) that spare the subscapularis (SSC) have recently been described. Outcomes for the SSC-sparing approach were evaluated through this systematic review.

Methods

Medline, Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL were searched.

Results

From 2051 citations, 8 studies were included (aTSA group, n = 241; rTSA group, n = 68). SSC-sparing aTSA and rTSA were associated with significant postoperative improvements in shoulder function and range of motion at 12- to 24-month follow-up.

Conclusion

The SSC-sparing approach may provide a safe alternative for up to two years post-surgery. Evidence for long-term use remains inconclusive.

The effect of radial mismatch on radiographic glenoid loosening

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion