Three-dimensional kinematics of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison between shoulders with good or poor elevation.
Glenosphere orientations
Kinematics
Model-image registration techniques
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty
Scapulohumeral rhythm
Shoulder
Journal
JSES international
ISSN: 2666-6383
Titre abrégé: JSES Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763461
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
entrez:
17
6
2021
pubmed:
18
6
2021
medline:
18
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Various factors may be related to outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) including patient and surgical factors. Differences in shoulder kinematics might be associated with poor function after RSA; however, kinematic differences between shoulders with good or poor elevation have not been elucidated. The purpose of this study was to compare RSA kinematics between shoulders with good or poor elevation. The study included 28 shoulders with a minimum 6-month follow-up after RSA using Grammont-type prostheses. Subjects comprised 17 men and 11 women with the mean age of 75 years (range, 63-91). Subjects underwent fluoroscopy during active scapular plane abduction. Computed tomography of their shoulders was performed to create 3-dimensional scapular implant models. Using model-image registration techniques, poses of 3-dimensional implant models were iteratively adjusted to match their silhouettes with the silhouettes in the fluoroscopic images, and 3-dimensional kinematics of implants were computed. Kinematics and glenosphere orientation were compared between shoulders with good (>90 degree) or poor (<90 degree) scapular plane abduction. Nineteen and 9 shoulders were assigned to the good- and poor-elevation groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, sex, height, weight, preoperative range of motion, or Constant score, but body mass index in the poor elevation shoulders was significantly larger than that in the good elevation shoulders. There were no significant differences in glenosphere (upward/downward rotation, anterior/posterior tilt, internal/external rotation) or glenohumeral (internal/external rotation, abduction/adduction) kinematics between the good and poor elevation shoulders. Scapulohumeral rhythm was significantly higher in the good elevation shoulders than the poor elevation shoulders ( Shoulders with good elevation after RSA demonstrated better scapulohumeral rhythm than those with poor elevation, though there were no significant differences in glenosphere and glenohumeral kinematics. It may be important for better elevation to achieve good glenohumeral motion in shoulders with RSA. Glenosphere orientations may affect postoperative shoulder function.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Various factors may be related to outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) including patient and surgical factors. Differences in shoulder kinematics might be associated with poor function after RSA; however, kinematic differences between shoulders with good or poor elevation have not been elucidated. The purpose of this study was to compare RSA kinematics between shoulders with good or poor elevation.
METHODS
METHODS
The study included 28 shoulders with a minimum 6-month follow-up after RSA using Grammont-type prostheses. Subjects comprised 17 men and 11 women with the mean age of 75 years (range, 63-91). Subjects underwent fluoroscopy during active scapular plane abduction. Computed tomography of their shoulders was performed to create 3-dimensional scapular implant models. Using model-image registration techniques, poses of 3-dimensional implant models were iteratively adjusted to match their silhouettes with the silhouettes in the fluoroscopic images, and 3-dimensional kinematics of implants were computed. Kinematics and glenosphere orientation were compared between shoulders with good (>90 degree) or poor (<90 degree) scapular plane abduction.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Nineteen and 9 shoulders were assigned to the good- and poor-elevation groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups in age, sex, height, weight, preoperative range of motion, or Constant score, but body mass index in the poor elevation shoulders was significantly larger than that in the good elevation shoulders. There were no significant differences in glenosphere (upward/downward rotation, anterior/posterior tilt, internal/external rotation) or glenohumeral (internal/external rotation, abduction/adduction) kinematics between the good and poor elevation shoulders. Scapulohumeral rhythm was significantly higher in the good elevation shoulders than the poor elevation shoulders (
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Shoulders with good elevation after RSA demonstrated better scapulohumeral rhythm than those with poor elevation, though there were no significant differences in glenosphere and glenohumeral kinematics. It may be important for better elevation to achieve good glenohumeral motion in shoulders with RSA. Glenosphere orientations may affect postoperative shoulder function.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34136839
doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.02.002
pii: S2666-6383(21)00080-3
pmc: PMC8178639
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
353-359Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Références
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Aug;28(8):1515-1522
pubmed: 30929955
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003 Dec;22(12):1561-74
pubmed: 14649746
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):1359-66
pubmed: 25725963
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Jun;30(6):1458-1470
pubmed: 33197589
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2012 Dec;22(8):655-60
pubmed: 27526066
Orthopedics. 2017 May 1;40(3):179-186
pubmed: 28112785
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Nov;28(11):e359-e376
pubmed: 31630753
Phys Ther. 2000 Mar;80(3):276-91
pubmed: 10696154
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Oct;24(10):1574-81
pubmed: 25953489
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Feb;27(2):298-305
pubmed: 29162305
Prog Rehabil Med. 2017 Mar 08;2:20170005
pubmed: 32789212
Musculoskelet Surg. 2017 Apr;101(1):85-89
pubmed: 27915404
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2017 Jun;45:43-51
pubmed: 28477525
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jan;27(1):44-52
pubmed: 28747277
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jul;89(7):1476-85
pubmed: 17606786
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Nov-Dec;17(6):925-35
pubmed: 18558499
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3 Suppl):S71-8
pubmed: 16990021
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 May;25(5):763-71
pubmed: 26853756
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 29;12(3):e0174361
pubmed: 28355234
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012 Feb;42(2):96-104
pubmed: 22030448
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Jun;476(6):1264-1273
pubmed: 29601384
JSES Open Access. 2019 Nov 18;3(4):266-272
pubmed: 31891024
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012 Oct;27(8):793-800
pubmed: 22583906
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jun;20(4):564-70
pubmed: 21144774
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):1397-404
pubmed: 26163281
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Dec;26(12):2133-2142
pubmed: 28735842
Shoulder Elbow. 2014 Jul;6(3):156-64
pubmed: 27582931
Clin Orthop Surg. 2016 Sep;8(3):316-24
pubmed: 27583116
Clin Orthop Surg. 2017 Mar;9(1):83-90
pubmed: 28261432
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Nov;24(11):1698-706
pubmed: 26175311
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Mar;24(3):468-73
pubmed: 25441556
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct;15(5):527-40
pubmed: 16979046
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019 Feb;62:136-143
pubmed: 30771615
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jul;39(7):1413-20
pubmed: 21460068
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jul;24(7):1129-34
pubmed: 25591459
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1996 Jun;43(6):638-49
pubmed: 8987268
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):1116-28
pubmed: 16545965
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 May;27(5):808-815
pubmed: 29292034
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Sep;23(9):1395-402
pubmed: 24739793
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jun;20(4):659-65
pubmed: 21194980
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Apr;30(4):929-941
pubmed: 33558062
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Apr;25(4):581-8
pubmed: 26652700
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018 Oct;58:1-6
pubmed: 30005421
J Orthop Sci. 2019 Jul;24(4):624-630
pubmed: 30579647