Challenges in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Addressing Glenoid Bone Loss

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.

Evaluating the risk of return to the operating room across all elective orthopaedic procedures

BACKGROUND

Although elective procedures have life-changing potential, all surgeries come with an inherent risk of reoperation. There is a gap in knowledge investigating the risk of reoperation across orthopaedics. We aimed to identify the elective orthopaedic procedures with the highest rate of unplanned reoperation and the reasons for these procedures having such high reoperation rates.

METHODS

Patients in the NSQIP database were identified using CPT and ICD-10 codes. We isolated 612,815 orthopaedics procedures from 2018 to 2020 and identified the 10 CPT codes with the greatest rate of unplanned return to the operating room. For each index procedure, we identified the ICD-10 codes for the reoperation procedure and categorized them into infection, mechanical failure, fracture, wound disruption, hematoma or seroma, nerve pathology, other, and unspecified.

RESULTS

Below knee amputation (BKA) (CPT 27880) had the highest reoperation rate of 6.92% (37 of 535 patients). Posterior-approach thoracic (5.86%) or cervical (4.14%) arthrodesis and cervical laminectomy (3.85%), revision total hip arthroplasty (5.23%), conversion to total hip arthroplasty (4.33%), and revision shoulder arthroplasty (4.22%) were among the remaining highest reoperation rates. The overall leading causes of reoperation were infection (30.1%), mechanical failure (21.1%), and hematoma or seroma (9.4%) for the 10 procedures with the highest reoperation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study successfully identified the elective orthopaedic procedures with the highest 30-day return to OR rates. These include BKA, posterior thoracic and cervical spinal arthrodesis, revision hip arthroplasty, revision total shoulder arthroplasty, and cervical laminectomy. With this data, we can identify areas across orthopaedics in which revising protocols may improve patient outcomes and limit the burden of reoperations on patients and the healthcare system. Future studies should focus on the long-term physical and financial impact that these reoperations may have on patients and hospital systems.

LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE

IV.

A two-year comparison of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty mini-humeral tray and augmented mini-glenoid baseplate implants vs. standard implants

BACKGROUND

Patients who undergo reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are getting younger with greater function expectations. This retrospective, longitudinal study of prospectively collected data compared perceived shoulder function and strength, active shoulder mobility, radiographic evidence of scapular notching, and implant survival over the initial 2-years post-RTSA among patient groups who received either standard central fixation point liner and glenoid baseplate implants, or lower size profile mini-humeral tray with offset trunnion options and mini-augmented glenoid baseplate implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent primary RTSA using standard central fixation point liner and glenoid baseplate implants (Group 1, n = 180) were compared with patients who underwent primary RTSA using lower size profile mini-humeral tray with offset trunnion options and mini-augmented glenoid baseplate implants (Group 2, n = 53) for active shoulder mobility, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, perceived ability to lift 10 lbs (4.5 kg) overhead, radiographic evidence of scapular notching, and implant survival. Data was collected pre-surgery, 6-weeks, 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years post-RTSA (p ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

More Group 2 patients had more complex B or C Walch glenoid morphology, while Group 1 had more A1 or A2 types (p ≤ 0.001). Group 2 had greater active shoulder flexion at 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years (p ≤ 0.018) and external rotation (in adduction) at 6-months and 2-years (p ≤ 0.004) compared to Group 1, with higher ASES scores at 6-months and 2-years (p ≤ 0.026) (with small-to-medium effect sizes), and with more patients meeting or exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at 2-years (p = 0.045) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) levels at 6-months, 1-year and 2-years (p ≤ 0.045). Scapular notching was identified in six of 53 (11.3%) Group 2 patients and in 32 of 180 (17.7%) Group 1 patients. Group 1 patients had more grade 2 or greater scapular notching grades compared to Group 2 (p = 0.04). Implant survival was comparable with Group 1 = eight of 180 (4.4%) and Group 2 = 1 of 53 (1.9%) of patients requiring removal for 95.6% and 98.1% implant survival, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Limited scapular notching and excellent implant survival was observed in both groups. Despite including individuals with more complex glenoid deficiency, patients receiving the lower size profile implants generally displayed better active shoulder mobility and perceived shoulder function compared to those who received standard implants. These patients also more frequently met or exceeded the MCID by 2-years post-RTSA and PASS levels by 6-months, 1-year, and 2-years post-RTSA, with lower scapular notching grades.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative study.

Patient-specific implants in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is widely popular among shoulder surgeons and patients, and its prevalence has increased dramatically in recent years. With this increased use, the indicated pathologies associated with RTSA are more likely to be encountered, and challenging patient presentations are more likely to be seen. One prominent challenging presentation is RTSA patients with severe glenoid bone loss. Several techniques with varying degrees of invasiveness, including excessive reaming, alternate centerline, bone grafting, and patient-specific implants (PSIs), have been developed to treat patients with this presentation. PSI treatment uses a three-dimensional reconstruction of a computed tomography scan to design a prosthetic implant or component customized to the patient's glenoid morphology, allowing compensation for any significant bone loss. The novelty of this technology implies a paucity of available literature, and although many studies show that PSIs have good potential for solving challenging shoulder problems, some studies have reported questionable and equivocal outcomes. Additional research is needed to explore the indications, outcomes, techniques, and cost-efficiency of this technology to help establish its role in current treatment guidelines and strategies.

Yoke procedure as a salvage treatment option for failed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with irreconstructible glenoid

BACKGROUND

Glenoid bone loss is a known challenge in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. In severe deficiency, even placing the baseplate in alternative centerline or using an augmented baseplate may be insufficient. This study reports on the use of a soft tissue resurfacing technique using Achilles tendon allograft, coined Yoke procedure, for salvage treatment of glenoid deficient shoulder requiring reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent the Yoke procedure between 2014 and 2020 by a single surgeon at a single academic center were identified and had their charts retrospectively reviewed. Demographics and surgical information were recorded. Preoperative X-rays and 3D-computed tomography scans were reviewed to classify patient glenoid types, evaluate glenoid medialization, and measure shoulder angles. Preoperative and postoperative range of motions and patient-reported outcome scores were evaluated, including anterior elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, visual analog scale, subjective shoulder value score, Simple Shoulder Test, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. Postoperative radiographs and follow-up notes were reviewed to evaluate postoperative complication profiles at 1 year.

RESULTS

Seven patients with a median age of 69 years (range, 54-77 years) underwent Yoke procedure and had a median 12-month follow-up (range, 9-56 months). All patients were female and had a median of 2 prior shoulder surgeries (range, 0-13). Of all the patients, the most common comorbidity was osteoporosis (6) followed by rheumatoid arthritis (3). Of the 5 patients who had previous arthroplasty, the most common indications were baseplate failure (4), followed by instability (3) and infection (3). The median visual analog scale score improved from 8 (range, 3-9) to 2 (range, 1-4). The median Simple Shoulder Test improved from 8% (range, 0%-42%) to 33% (range, 17%-83%). The median ASES score improved from 15 (range, 5-38) to 52 (range, 40-78). The median anterior elevation and external rotation improved from 20° (range, 0°-75°) to 100° (range, 40°-145°) and 10° (range, 0°-20°) to 20° (range, 0°-55°), respectively. There was no change in median internal rotation. As of the last follow-up, one patient reported postoperative complications of anterior-superior implant escape, heterotopic ossification, and scapular notching.

CONCLUSION

The Yoke procedure is a promising salvage treatment that can offer patients consistent pain reduction and moderate functional improvements at short-term follow-up. In the setting of poor bone quality and severe glenoid deficiency, glenoid baseplate implantation may not be absolutely necessary for a pain-relieving, functionally acceptable outcome.

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.

Angled BIO-RSA leads to better inclination and clinical outcomes compared to Standard BIO-RSA and eccentric reaming: A comparative study

Background

Two surgical techniques were compared : Standard BIO-RSA, performed with a glenoid eccentric reaming along with a cylindric bone graft augmentation vs. the Angled BIO-RSA, performed with a glenoid concentric reaming and a defect correction with an angled bone graft.

Methods

Patients undergoing RSA from January 2016 to April 2019, with one of the two techniques being performed, were retrospectively reviewed. Glenoids were classified according to Favard. Clinical (Constant-Murley, VAS and ROM) and radiographic (superior tilt correction) data were collected pre-operatively and at 12 months post-operatively.

Results

141 shoulders were included. Angled BIO-RSA group showed statistically significant better outcomes in terms of forward flexion (149.9° Vs 139.3°) and abduction (136.4° Vs 126.7°). The use of an Angled BIO-RSA showed a statistically significant better superior tilt correction (1.252° Vs 4.09°). Angled BIO-RSA, leads to a better inclination correction and a mean postoperative tilt value inferior to 5° in E1 and E3 differently from standard BIO-RSA.

Discussion

Both techniques were able to correct glenoid superior inclination with excellent postoperative short-term results. However, angled BIO-RSA technique appears to be more effective in ensuring a correct inclination of the prosthetic glenoid component with better clinical outcomes.

A prospective radiostereometric analysis of the stability of a metal-backed glenoid component/autograft composite in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Aims

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) can be used in complex cases when the glenoid requires reconstruction. In this study, a baseplate with composite bone autograft and a central trabecular titanium peg was implanted, and its migration was assessed for two years postoperatively using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Methods

A total of 14 patients who underwent a rTSA with an autograft consented to participate. Of these, 11 had a primary rTSA using humeral head autograft and three had a revision rTSA with autograft harvested from the iliac crest. The mean age of the patients was 66 years (39 to 81). Tantalum beads were implanted in the scapula around the glenoid. RSA imaging (stereographic radiographs) was undertaken immediately postoperatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months. Analysis was completed using model-based RSA software. Outcomes were collected preoperatively and at two years postoperatively, including the Oxford Shoulder Score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Score, and a visual analogue score for pain. A Constant score was also obtained for the assessment of strength and range of motion.

Results

RSA analysis showed a small increase in all translation and rotational values up to six months postoperatively, consistent with settling of the implant. The mean values plateaued by 12 months, with no evidence of further migration. In four patients, there was significant variation outside the mean, which corresponded to postoperative complications. There was a significant improvement in the clinical and patient-reported outcomes from the preoperative values to those at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

These findings show, using RSA, that a glenoid baseplate composite of a trabecular titanium peg with autograft stabilizes within the glenoid about 12 months after surgery, and reinforce findings from a previous study of this implant/graft with CT scans at two years postoperatively, indicating that this type of structural composite results in sound early fixation.

What is the middle term survival of reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A retrospective observational registry-based study

PURPOSE

The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has increased over the last decade. Like any other implant it is associated with complications sometimes leading to revision. We carried out a registry-based study in order to find possible risk factors associated with the need of revision surgery.

METHODS

The RIPO registry was analyzed from July 2008 to December 2018 collecting available data. Two groups (degenerative or fracture) were formed and compared to determine possible risk factors difference in revision surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 7,966 shoulder prosthesis were implanted. There was a 1.5% intra or peri-operative complication rate. The revision rate was 4.0% at a mean follow-up of 4.4 years. A total of 3,073 reverse total shoulder prosthesis were implanted and available for follow-up. An increase of revision rate (the most frequent causes being aseptic loosening, infection and instability) was found in patients younger than 65 years and in male patients. Two groups were then formed on the basis of the primary diagnosis: osteoarthritis and proximal humerus fracture. Comparison between the two groups showed an increase in instability requiring revision in the fracture group.

CONCLUSION

Reverse shoulder prosthesis is a valid treatment option both in the elective and in the trauma settings, but young and male patients should be informed of the inherently increased risk of revision and prosthesis used in the fracture setting should be evaluated more thoroughly to prevent instability.

[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.

Features of reverse arthroplasty of the shoulder joint in orthopedic pathology of the glenoid (literature review)

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the conditions of the modified anatomy of the glenoid is complex and often excludes the possibility of using the standard tactics of installing the glenoid component. There are no identical glenoids, each articular cavity of the scapula differs in height, width, angle of inclination, density of bone tissue, absence or presence of various defects of bone tissue. Given the variety of options for changing the structure and quality of the glenoid bone tissue in injuries and diseases of the shoulder joint, each case of endoprosthetics should be considered individually. In order to perform an adequate metaglen installation, these parameters must be normalized or standardized. The purpose of this work is to review the domestic and foreign literature devoted to the features of reversible shoulder joint replacement during deformation of the articular cavity of the scapula. Based on the analysis of literature data, the percentage of complications associated with unsatisfactory treatment results due to the instability of the glenosphere is quite large, which indicates the lack of elaboration of this topic and its relevance for practical traumatology and orthopedics. The paper considers eccentric non-standard methods of rimming the articular cavity of the scapula, methods of its bone grafting, the use of metaglens made taking into account the deformation of the glenoid, as well as indications for the use of technology for the individual manufacture of scapular components. The study and analysis of indications for the use of various types of techniques for solution glenoid deformities made it possible to systematize and differentially approach the issue of preoperative planning and choosing the correct, right treatment tactics in complex cases of reversible shoulder joint replacement.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Using Custom-Made Glenoid Components: A Systematic Review

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty presents itself sometimes as challenging when it comes to addressing massive bone loss, either in primary or revision settings. Custom components recently have made their way into shoulder prosthetics and are meant to help in the case of extensive glenoid bone destruction. Because of strict indication and the fairly recent introduction of these implants, the usage of custom-made glenoid implants is not very common yet. However, the early results are promising. The purpose of this review was to summarize and analyze the available literature. Therefore, a systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of the databases PubMed, Cochrane, and Livivo was performed to screen for studies reporting on clinical and radiological outcomes of custom glenoid implants. Four studies with a total of 46 shoulders were included in this review. The mean patient age was 68.8 years and the mean time of follow-up was 24.3 months. The weighted means showed an increase in CMS (32.7 points), in ASES (39.8 points), in anteversion (67.4 degrees), and in abduction (51.9 degrees) and a decrease in VAS (5.4 points). Custom-made glenoid implants are therefore a viable option in cases of large combined glenoid bone loss, both in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Augmented baseplates yield optimum outcomes when compared with bone graft augmentation for managing glenoid deformity during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) using glenoid bone grafting (BG rTSA) with primary rTSA using augmented glenoid baseplates (Aug rTSA) with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 520 primary rTSA patients treated with 8° posterior glenoid augments (n = 246), 10° superior glenoid augments (n = 97), or combined 10° superior/8° posterior glenoid augments (n = 177) were compared with 47 patients undergoing glenoid bone grafting for glenoid bone insufficiency. The mean follow-up was 37.0(±16) and 53.0(±27) months, respectively. Outcomes were analyzed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using conventional statistics and stratification by minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) thresholds where applicable. Radiographs were analyzed for baseplate failure, and the incidences of postoperative complications and revisions were recorded.

RESULTS

The glenoid Aug rTSA cohort had greater improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and range of motion when compared with the BG rTSA group at a minimum of 2-year follow-up, including Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, shoulder function, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score, abduction, and external rotation (P < .05). Patient satisfaction was higher in the Aug rTSA group compared with the BG rTSA group (P = .006). The utilization of an augmented glenoid component instead of glenoid bone grafting resulted in approximately 50% less total intraoperative time (P < .001), nearly 33% less intraoperative blood loss volume (P < .001), approximately 3-fold less scapular notching (P < .01), and approximately 15-fold less adverse events requiring revision (P < .01) when compared with the BG rTSA cohort. Aside from SCB for abduction, the Aug rTSA cohort achieved higher rates of exceeding MCID and SCB for every PROM compared with BG rTSA. More specifically, 77.6% and 70.2% of the Aug rTSA achieved SCB for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index vs. 55% and 48.6% in the BG rTSA, respectively (P = .003 and P = .013).

CONCLUSION

The present midterm clinical and radiographic study demonstrates that the utilization of an augmented baseplate for insufficient glenoid bone stock is superior as judged by multiple PROMs and range of motion metrics when compared with bone graft augmentation at minimum 2-year follow-up. In addition, when analyzed according to MCID and SCB thresholds, the use of augmented baseplates outperforms the use of glenoid bone grafting. Complication and revision rates also favor the use of augmented glenoid baseplates over glenoid bone grafting. Long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up is necessary to confirm that these promising midterm results are durable.

Assessing the required glenoid peg penetration in native scapula when bone graft is used during primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty

AIMS

Achieving purchase in native glenoid bone is essential for the stability of the glenoid baseplate when bone graft is used to address bone loss in both primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures. The aim of this study is to assess the required depth of the baseplate peg in native bone when bone graft is used to result in satisfactory integration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The CT scans of patients who underwent either primary or revision arthroplasty procedures with bone graft using the SMR Axioma Trabecular Titanium (TT) Metal Backed glenoid system were assessed. We measured the depth of the glenoid peg in native glenoid bone. Measurements were taken by two authors separately.

RESULTS

The scans of 53 patients (mean age 68 years) with a minimum follow-up of two years were reviewed. Implants included 12 anatomical and 41 reverse geometry prostheses. There were 17 primaries and 36 revisions: hemiarthroplasties (20) total (14) and reverse (2) implants. Bone grafts were from humeral head (15), iliac crest (34) and allograft (4). The mean depths were 8.8 mm (first assessor) and 9.10 mm (second assessor). The glenoid peg violated the glenoid vault in 32 patients and this did not adversely affect the outcome. There were three failures of implants all of which were aseptic failures and had peg penetration of less than 6 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean depth of glenoid peg in native bone was 9 mm (variation between 0.2 and 0.52 mm at 95% confidence interval). Aseptic loosening was seen with peg penetration less than 6 mm in native bone. Glenoid vault violation was not associated with loosening.

The base of coracoid process as a reference for glenoid reconstruction in primary or revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty: CT-based anatomical study

INTRODUCTION

Joint replacement surgery as a treatment for glenohumeral arthritis with glenoid bone loss is challenging. The aim of this study is to offer an anatomical orientation for glenoid reconstruction.

METHODS

In this study, we measured size, inclination and version of the glenoid surface, as well as the distance between the articular line of the glenoid, base of the coracoid process, and acromion using computer tomographic (CT) imaging of 131 study participants aged 19-88 years in the period of 2010-2013.

RESULTS

We measured a mean distance of 6.5 ± 0.2 mm from the glenoid articular line to the base of the coracoid process in the transverse CT plane. Body height has shown no significant impact on the glenoid morphology. We observed significant differences between males and females: The glenoid appeared to be located 5.2 ± 0.9 mm higher and the humeral head was 4.5 ± 0.7 mm larger in male subjects compared with females (r = .699; p < .01).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the base of the coracoid offers an anatomical reference during reconstruction of the glenoid in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty. As only 2D-CT imaging allows for accurate assessment of glenoid bone defects, we consider conventional X-ray imaging insufficient for proper preoperative planning before shoulder arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Functional and Radiological Outcomes after Treatment with Custom-Made Glenoid Components in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Glenoid implant position and fixation are challenging in severe glenoid defects in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Custom-made glenoid implants are metal augmented implants that are specially produced for a certain defect. They provide the restoration of the joint line and proper fixation. This retrospective data analysis investigated the clinical and radiological outcomes after revision using custom-made glenoid implants. Between 2018 and 2020, nine patients (10 shoulders) with severe glenoid defects underwent revision rTSA using a custom-made glenoid implant (Materialise Glenius or Lima ProMade). The pre- and postoperative Constant Murley Score (CMS), UCLA Score and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) were assessed. Postoperative CT scans and X-rays in two planes were available. The minimum follow-up was 12 months, with a mean follow-up of 23.1 months. The mean preoperative CMS, UCLA Score and SSV were 10.9, 4.1 and 11.0, respectively. The mean postoperative CMS, UCLA Score and SSV showed significant increases of 51.7 (<0.001), 22.9 (<0.001) and 52.0 (<0.001), respectively. There were no signs of loosening implants or scapular notching, and no revision was necessary. This trial showed promising clinical and radiological short-term outcomes for custom-made glenoid components in revision rTSA.

A Sequential Approach to the Management of Posterior Glenoid Defects in RSA: Angulated BIO Versus Multiple Bioresorbable Pinning-Assisted Structural Bone-Grafting

Large posterior glenoid defects pose problems in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). We have adopted a sequential approach to the management of posterior glenoid defects using asymmetrical reaming, the placement of a ring graft around the central peg (bony-increased offset, or BIO), or structural bone-grafting, depending on the amount of glenoid retroversion. Furthermore, we have devised multiple bioresorbable pinning (MBP)-assisted bone-grafting, in which as many bioresorbable pins as required are inserted, from whichever aspects of the graft necessary, to achieve initial stability.

Preoperative three-dimensional computer planning for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and bone grafting for severe glenoid deformity

BACKGROUND

Computer assisted planning without patient specific instrumentation may be utilized to guide reverse total shoulder arthroplasty baseplate placement. The purpose of this study was to determine the difference between planned and achieved inclination and retroversion correction with three-dimensional preoperative computer assisted planning in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty without patient specific instrumentation with bone grafting for severe glenoid erosion.

METHODS

Preoperative three-dimensional computer assisted planning without patient specific instrumentation was performed on 15 patients undergoing primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid bone grafting for severe glenoid erosion. On preoperative and immediate postoperative computed tomography slices, two-dimensional retroversion and inclination were measured. Preoperative three-dimensional baseline retroversion and inclination and planned postoperative three-dimensional retroversion and inclination were measured. Planned and achieved version and inclination changes were compared.

RESULTS

The planned and achieved retroversion corrections were 18° and 12°, respectively (p < 0.001). The planned and achieved inclination corrections were 11° and 11°, respectively (p = 0.803).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional computer assisted planning without patient specific instrumentation in the setting of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with severe glenoid erosion requiring bone grafting can accurately guide baseplate placement. All cases in which failure to correct retroversion or inclination within 10° of planning occurred in patients with severe erosion (B3 or E3 glenoids), therefore patient specific guides may be warranted in these cases to improve accuracy of implantation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

A novel method for localization of the maximum glenoid bone defect during reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Management of glenoid bone defects during reverse shoulder arthroplasty remains a challenge. The aim of our study was to preoperatively localize the maximal depth of glenoid bone defects in relation to glenoid reaming.

Methods

Thirty preoperative shoulder computed tomography scans were collected. Three assessors created standardized surgical plans, using 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography–based Blueprint planning software in which the reaming axis was held constant at zero degrees of version and inclination. Each plan resulted in a 2-dimensional (2D) image of the reamer’s contact on the glenoid and a corresponding 3D representation of the glenoid bone defect. The position of the maximum glenoid defect was localized on both the 2D and 3D images. Descriptive statistics were calculated. The correlation between angles from 2D and 3D images was assessed, and intraclass correlation was used to assess inter-rater and intrarater reliability.

Results

Twenty-eight patients were included. The overall mean difference between 2D and 3D angles was 5.4° (standard deviation 5.2°). The correlation between 2D and 3D angles was almost perfect. Intraclass correlation results demonstrated near-perfect agreement. The maximal glenoid defect was within 5% of a circle (or +/- 9°) from perpendicular to the high-side ream line in 85.1% of comparisons and was within 10% of a circle in 97.6% of comparisons.

Conclusion

Using Blueprint planning software, we have demonstrated with almost perfect agreement among 3 assessors that when the reaming axis is held constant, the maximum glenoid bone defect is reliably located perpendicular to the glenoid ream line.

Survivorship of autologous structural bone graft at a minimum of 2 years when used to address significant glenoid bone loss in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty: a computed tomographic and clinical review

BACKGROUND

Severe glenoid bone loss remains a challenge in patients requiring shoulder arthroplasty and often requires autogenous bone grafting. The purpose of this study was to assess the integrity of the bone graft at 2 years in a series of primary and revision shoulder replacements where glenoid bone loss was managed using a structural autograft (humeral head or iliac crest bone graft) in combination with a trabecular titanium (TT) implant.

METHODS

Ethical approval was sought, and the study has a portfolio study status by the NIHR (17/YH/0318). We contacted patients who had primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty with Lima Axioma TT metal-back glenoid with autologous bone graft and were more than 2 years since their operation. All eligible patients underwent computed tomographic evaluation, clinical review, and scoring. Early failures of composite fixation and patients who had revision procedures were excluded (2 patients).

RESULTS

Forty-one patients (43 shoulders) with a mean age of 65 years (range 33-85 years) were reviewed. There were 24 women and 17 men. The average follow-up period was 40 months (range 24-59 months). Primary arthroplasty was performed in 24 shoulders, whereas 19 shoulders had revision arthroplasty. Twenty-five shoulders had reverse shoulder replacement and 18 had anatomic shoulder replacement. Twenty-four shoulders had graft taken from the humeral head, and 19 had iliac crest bone graft, reflecting the number of revisions. We used Wrightington classification for porous metal implant and bone graft incorporation. Satisfactory bone graft incorporation (>50%) was seen in 40 shoulders, and only 3 patients had <50% graft incorporation. The scans at 2 years or later showed no significant deterioration in the bone graft from the early postoperative scans. Average forward elevation improved from 50° (preoperative) to 98° (range 35°-150°). The mean improvement in mean Oxford Shoulder Score was 16 (preoperative, 15; postoperative, 31) and the mean improvement in Constant score improvement was 36 (preoperative, 12; postoperative, 48). The mean postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score was 64 (range 30-85).

CONCLUSION

The use of TT in conjunction with autologous bone graft provides a reliable method of addressing glenoid bone defects in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty. This graft-trabecular metal composite has been shown to integrate well and remain largely unchanged over a 2-year period. A stable baseplate is essential in difficult primary and revision arthroplasty situations. The stability of this construct in our series is reflected in the satisfactory outcomes.

Computed tomographic evaluation of glenoid joint line restoration with glenoid bone grafting and reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with significant glenoid bone loss

BACKGROUND

Restoration of native glenohumeral joint line is important for a successful outcome after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The aims of this study were to quantify the restoration of glenoid joint line after structural bone grafting and RSA, and to evaluate graft incorporation, correction of glenoid version, and rate of notching.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 21 patients who underwent RSA (20 primary, 1 revision) with glenoid bone grafting (15 autografts, 6 allografts). Grammont design implants and baseplate with long peg were used in all patients. Preoperative and postoperative 3D models were created using MIMICS 21.0. Preoperative defects were classified, and postoperative joint line restoration was assessed based on the lateral aspect of the base of the coracoid. Postoperative computed tomographic (CT) scans were evaluated for graft incorporation, version correction, and presence of notching.

RESULTS

Preoperative glenoid defects were classified as massive (5%), large (29%), moderate (52%), and small (14%). The average preoperative version was 8° of retroversion. The average postoperative version was 5° of retroversion. The average preoperative medialization was noted to be 8.4 mm medial to native joint line or 0.6 mm (range -16.8 to 13.2) lateral to the coracoid base. The postoperative CT scans demonstrated a mean joint line at 12.1 mm (range 1.3-22.4) lateral to the coracoid base. At the 3-month follow-up, all patients demonstrated graft incorporation on CT scans. Graft osteolysis was observed on CT scan in 4.8% of patients at a mean follow-up of 19.5 months.

DISCUSSION

Structural bone grafting of glenoid defect effectively re-creates the glenoid anatomy, restores glenoid bone stock, re-creates the true glenohumeral joint line, and corrects glenoid deformity. The use of bone grafting also allows lateralization of the baseplate and glenosphere, reducing the risk of severe scapular notching.

CONCLUSION

Restoration of the glenoid joint line was achieved in all patients. Glenoid bone grafting is a viable option for restoring glenoid joint line in cases of significant glenoid defects encountered during RSA.

Reverse shoulder-allograft prosthesis composite, with or without tendon transfer, for the treatment of severe proximal humeral bone loss

BACKGROUND

The treatment of severe proximal humeral bone loss (PHBL) secondary to tumor resection or failed arthroplasty is challenging. We evaluated the outcomes and complications of reconstruction with reverse shoulder-allograft prosthesis composite (RS-APC), performed with or without tendon transfer.

METHODS

An RS-APC procedure was performed in 25 consecutive patients with severe PHBL (>4 cm): 12 after failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty, 5 after failed hemiarthroplasty for fracture, 6 after failed mega-tumor prosthesis placement, and 2 after tumor resection. The median length of humeral bone loss or resection was 8 cm (range, 5-23 cm). Humeral bone graft fixation was obtained with a long monobloc reverse stem and a "mirror step-cut osteotomy," without plate fixation. Nine infected shoulders underwent a 2-stage operation with a temporary cement spacer. In addition, 9 patients (36%) underwent an associated L'Episcopo procedure. The median follow-up duration was 4 years (range, 2-11 years).

RESULTS

Overall, 76% of patients (19 of 25) were satisfied. In 8 patients (32%), a reoperation was needed. At last follow-up, we observed incorporation at the allograft-host junction in 96% of the cases (24/25); partial graft resorption occurred in 3 cases and severe in 1. The median adjusted Constant score was 53% (range 18-105); Subjective Shoulder Value, 50% (range 10%-95%). Additional tendon transfers significantly improved active external rotation (20° vs. 0°, P < .001) and forward elevation (140° vs. 90°, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Shoulder reconstruction with RS-APC provides acceptable shoulder function and high rates of graft survival and healing. (2) Additional L'Episcopo tendon transfer (when technically possible) improves active shoulder motion. (3) The use of a long monobloc (cemented or uncemented) humeral reverse stem with mirror step-cut osteotomy provides a high rate of graft-host healing, as well as a limited rate of graft resorption, and precludes the need for additional plate fixation. (4) Although rewarding, this reconstructive surgery is complex with a high risk of complications and reoperations. The main advantages of using an allograft with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (compared with other reconstruction options) are that this type of reconstruction (1) allows restoration of the bone stock, thus improving prosthesis fixation and stability, and (2) gives the possibility to perform a tendon transfer by fixing the tendons on the bone graft to improve shoulder motion.

Baseplate Options for Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Baseplate fixation has been known to be the weak link in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). A wide variety of different baseplates options are currently available. This review investigates the recent literature to present the reader with an overview of the currently available baseplate options and modes of fixation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The main elements that differentiate baseplates are the central fixation element, the size of the baseplate, the shape, the backside geometry, whether or not an offset central fixation exists, the number of peripheral screws, and the availability of peripheral augmentation. The wide array of baseplate options indicates that no particular design has proven superiority. As such, surgeons should be aware of their options and choose an implant that the surgeon is comfortable with and one that best suits the individual patient anatomy. With the growing number of RTSA procedures and registries with long-term follow-up, future investigations will hopefully delineate the ideal baseplate design to optimize survivorship.

Structural glenoid allograft reconstruction during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Large glenoid defects present a challenge during primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) especially when humeral head autograft is not available as a bone graft source. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of RTSA with concomitant structural allografting to reconstruct large glenoid defects.

METHODS

From May 2008 to July 2016, 22 patients underwent primary or revision RTSA with structural glenoid allografting. Of 22 patients, 19 (86%) were available for a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up (average, 2.8 ± 1.3 years), and 17 of 22 (77%) were available for a minimum 1-year radiographic follow-up. Functional outcomes, range of motion, radiographic deformity correction, allograft incorporation, and complication rates were determined.

RESULTS

From preoperatively to postoperatively, significant improvements in the average Simple Shoulder Test score (2 ± 2 preoperatively vs. 10 ± 8 postoperatively, P = .002), the average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (31 ± 19 preoperatively vs. 70 ± 25 postoperatively, P < .001), and average active forward elevation (71° ± 41° preoperatively vs. 128° ± 28° postoperatively, P < .001) were noted. Coronal-plane radiographic correction was 29° ± 12° as measured with the reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle (P < .001) and 14° ± 11° as measured with the β angle (P < .001). Postoperatively, of 17 patients with a minimum 1-year radiographic follow-up, 14 (82%) had complete radiographic incorporation of the graft. Acromial fracture nonunions developed in 2 patients and loosening and migration of the baseplate were found in 2 patients, although no patients elected to undergo further surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

RTSA with allograft reconstruction of severe glenoid defects allows restoration of glenoid anatomy and leads to high rates of bony incorporation with low rates of glenoid loosening or requirement for revision. Structural allograft is an excellent alternative to autograft in revision RTSA to avoid graft-site morbidity.

Clinical results of bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) associated with an onlay 145° curved stem in patients with cuff tear arthropathy: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

The main limits of the Grammont design reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are loss of external rotation and scapular notching. They can be addressed with glenoid or humeral lateralization. The aim of the study was to compare outcomes of lateralized bony increased-offset RSA (BIO-RSA) vs. standard RSA in patients with an onlay 145° curved stem.

METHODS

A comparative cohort study of 29 standard RSAs and 30 BIO-RSAs was performed. At 2 years postoperatively, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score, range of motion, and radiographs were evaluated. After comparison between the groups, patients were analyzed considering patients younger and older than 65 years.

RESULTS

All parameters significantly improved after surgery in both groups. Postoperatively, the 2 groups did not show any clinical and radiographic differences (P > .05). In patients <66 years, BIO-RSA showed a significantly higher value of external rotation (49° ± 12° vs. 30° ± 19° [P = .025], elbow at side; 81° ± 17° vs. 56° ± 22° [P = .016], elbow at 90° of abduction) and a positive trend for all other parameters (P > .05). In patients >65 years, standard technique showed a positive trend for all the parameters (P > .05). No other significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

At 2 years of follow-up, the use of standard RSA or BIO-RSA in an implant with an onlay 145° curved stem provided similar outcomes. The humeral lateralization alone is sufficient to decrease notching and to improve external rotation. BIO-RSA increases external rotation in patients between 50 and 65 years old. Glenoid bone graft in RSA has a high incorporation rate (completed in 90%).

Bone grafting in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of glenoid bone loss: A systematic review

Purpose

We performed a systematic review of the studies including clinical/functional outcomes and complications of bone grafting for glenoid defects in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA).

Methods

The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant papers.

Results

Thirteen articles were included. The mean clinical/functional subjective scores significantly improved postoperatively. The implant revision rate for primary and revision RTSA was 3.1% and 21.1% respectively. The reoperation rate was 3.5% and 24.4% respectively.

Conclusions

There was moderate evidence that bone grafting is effective for glenoid defects in primary RTSA. Further high-quality research is required about revision RTSA for moderate-to-severe glenoid defects.

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle: a new measurement of glenoid inclination for reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Avoiding superior inclination of the glenoid component in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is crucial. We hypothesized that superior inclination was underestimated in RSA. Our purpose was to describe and assess a new measurement of inclination for the inferior portion of the glenoid (where the baseplate rests).

METHODS

The study included 47 shoulders with rotator cuff tear arthropathy (mean age, 76 years). The reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle (RSA angle), defined as the angle between the inferior part of the glenoid fossa and the perpendicular to the floor of the supraspinatus, was compared with the global glenoid inclination (β angle or total shoulder arthroplasty [TSA] angle). Measurements were made on plain anteroposterior radiographs and reformatted 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) scans by 3 independent observers and compared with 3-dimensional (3D) software (Glenosys) measurements.

RESULTS

The mean RSA angle was 25° ± 8° on plain radiographs, 20° ± 6° on reformatted 2D CT scans, and 21° ± 5° via 3D reconstruction software. The mean TSA angle was on average 10° ± 5° lower than the mean RSA angle (P < .001); this difference was observed regardless of the method of measurement (radiographs, 2D CT, or 3D CT) and type of glenoid erosion according to Favard. In Favard type E1 glenoids with central concentric erosion, the difference between the 2 angles was 12° ± 4° (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The same angle cannot be used to measure glenoid inclination in anatomic and reverse prostheses. The TSA (or β) angle underestimates the superior orientation of the reverse baseplate in RSA. The RSA angle (20° ± 5°) needs to be corrected to achieve neutral inclination of the baseplate (RSA angle = 0°). Surgeons should be aware that E1 glenoids (with central erosion) are at risk for baseplate superior tilt if the RSA angle is not corrected.

Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with structural versus nonstructural bone graft

BACKGROUND

Revision shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss poses substantial surgical challenges. This study's purpose was to compare radiographic and clinical results of patients requiring structural iliac crest bone autograft (ICBA) for severe bone loss versus patients with less severe bone loss treated with nonstructural bone allograft (NSBA) in the setting of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of 30 patients (70% of the 43 patients who met the inclusion criteria) undergoing revision RSA with ICBA (n = 15) or NSBA (n = 15) between 2007 and 2015 were analyzed at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Radiographic assessment included bone graft integration, bone graft resorption, glenosphere tilt, glenosphere version, and the presence of scapular notching. Clinical assessment included active range of motion, Penn Shoulder Score, Veterans RAND 12-item health survey, and need for revision surgery.

RESULTS

No radiographic difference was found between the ICBA and NSBA groups with regard to implant position, graft integration, scapular notching, implant shift, or failure of fixation (P > .05). Of 15 patients with ICBA, 14 (93%) had at least partial integration of the bone graft. Some degree of resorption of the bone graft was noted in 6 of 15 patients (40%). There was no significant difference in postoperative active range of motion, Penn Shoulder Score, or Veterans RAND 12-item health survey score (P > .05 for all comparisons). One patient in the ICBA group underwent revision surgery for glenoid baseplate failure.

CONCLUSION

Revision RSA with glenoid bone grafting resulted in good clinical and radiographic outcomes at short-term follow-up. Patients requiring structural ICBA were not at increased risk of component failure, radiographic or clinical complications, or inferior clinical outcomes.

Structural glenoid grafting during primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using humeral head autograft

BACKGROUND

Large glenoid bone defects in the setting of glenohumeral arthritis can present a challenge to the shoulder arthroplasty surgeon. The results of large structural autografting at the time of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are relatively unknown.

METHODS

This retrospective case series describes the clinical and radiographic results of large structural autografting from the humeral head to the glenoid during primary RTSA.

RESULTS

Of 17 patients who met inclusion criteria, 14 (82% follow-up) were evaluated postoperatively at a mean of 2.6 years (range, 2.0-5.4 years). Mean inclination correction was 19° ± 12° (range, 3°-35°). Complications occurred in 3 patients, including 1 transient brachial plexus palsy, 1 loose baseplate, and 1 dislocation treated with closed reduction. Radiographic images showed 100% of grafts incorporated. Active forward elevation improved from 80° ± 40° to 130° ± 49° (P = .028). The visual analog scale score for pain improved from 8.1 ± 1.3 to 2.5 ± 3.1 (P = .005). The Simple Shoulder Test improved from 1.8 ± 1.1 to 6.5 ± 4 (P = .012). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 22 ± 10 to 66 ± 25 (P = .012). All patients (100%) were satisfied, and all patients (93%) but 1 stated that they would undergo the procedure again if given the chance.

CONCLUSIONS

RTSA incorporating structural grafting of the glenoid with humeral head autograft results in significant improvements in active forward elevation, pain, and function, with a low complication rate. This technique can reliably be used to achieve correction of large (up to 35°) glenoid defects with a 93% chance of baseplate survival and a 100% chance of graft incorporation in the short-term.

Midterm outcomes of bone grafting in glenoid defects treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Large glenoid defects are a difficult reconstructive problem for shoulder surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine the complications, rate of healing, and functional results of glenoid bone grafting in primary or revision surgery with reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 23 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent primary or revision surgery using a glenoid bone graft with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Range of motion and the Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and visual analog scale scores were obtained from preoperative assessment and the latest follow-up visit. Radiographic evaluation included analysis of plain radiographs as well as preoperative and follow-up computed tomography.

RESULTS

Three patients were excluded from the study. Allografts were used in 13 cases and autografts in 7 cases. The mean Constant score improved from 30.7 ± 9.4 to 51.3 ± 13.4 (P < .001). At a mean follow-up of 26 months, computed tomography imaging revealed that the glenoid bone graft was fully incorporated in 95% of cases. No statistically significant differences were found on analysis of the clinical and radiographic outcomes related to the graft source. There was a 20% postoperative complication rate: 1 case of aseptic glenoid component loosening, 1 surgical wound hematoma, 1 acromial fracture, and a symptomatic grade 3 scapular notching.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of bone grafts in glenoid defects is a useful technique by which, in the majority of cases, single-stage reconstruction surgery may be performed, even in the presence of severe bone loss. Incorporation rates are high, with satisfactory clinical outcome.