Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty baseplate stability with locking vs. non-locking peripheral screws.
3D digital image correlation
Biomechanics
Glenoid baseplate
Peripheral screw
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
Total shoulder arthroplasty
Journal
Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
ISSN: 1879-1271
Titre abrégé: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611877
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
received:
24
11
2021
revised:
29
04
2022
accepted:
04
05
2022
pubmed:
1
6
2022
medline:
18
6
2022
entrez:
31
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There are many options for glenosphere baseplate fixation commercially available, yet there is little biomechanical evidence supporting one type of fixation over another. In this study, we compared the biomechanical fixation of a reverse total shoulder glenoid baseplate secured with locking or non-locking peripheral screws. Both a non-augmented mini baseplate with full backing support and an augmented baseplate were testing after implantation in solid rigid polyurethane foam. Each baseplate was implanted with a 30 mm central compression screw and four peripheral screws, either locking or non-locking (15 mm anterior/posterior and 30 mm superior/inferior). A 1 Hz cyclic force of 0-750 N was applied at a 60 The amount of migration measured in the both the non-augmented and augment cases shows no significant differences between locking and non-locking cases at the final cycle count (non-augment: 5.66 +/- 2.29 μm vs. 3.71 +/- 1.23 μm; p = 0.095, augment: 15.43 +/- 8.49 μm vs. 12.46 +/- 3.24 μm; p = 0.314). Additionally, the amount of micromotion measured for both sample types shows the same lack of significant difference (non-augment: 10.79 +/- 5.22 μm vs. 10.16 +/- 7.61 μm; p = 0.388, augment: 55.03 +/- 10.13 μm vs. 54.84 +/- 10.65 μm; p = 0.968). The presence of locking versus non-locking peripheral screws does not make a significant difference on the overall stability of a glenoid baseplate, in both a no defect case with a non-augmented baseplate and a bone defect case with an augmented baseplate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There are many options for glenosphere baseplate fixation commercially available, yet there is little biomechanical evidence supporting one type of fixation over another. In this study, we compared the biomechanical fixation of a reverse total shoulder glenoid baseplate secured with locking or non-locking peripheral screws.
METHODS
Both a non-augmented mini baseplate with full backing support and an augmented baseplate were testing after implantation in solid rigid polyurethane foam. Each baseplate was implanted with a 30 mm central compression screw and four peripheral screws, either locking or non-locking (15 mm anterior/posterior and 30 mm superior/inferior). A 1 Hz cyclic force of 0-750 N was applied at a 60
FINDINGS
The amount of migration measured in the both the non-augmented and augment cases shows no significant differences between locking and non-locking cases at the final cycle count (non-augment: 5.66 +/- 2.29 μm vs. 3.71 +/- 1.23 μm; p = 0.095, augment: 15.43 +/- 8.49 μm vs. 12.46 +/- 3.24 μm; p = 0.314). Additionally, the amount of micromotion measured for both sample types shows the same lack of significant difference (non-augment: 10.79 +/- 5.22 μm vs. 10.16 +/- 7.61 μm; p = 0.388, augment: 55.03 +/- 10.13 μm vs. 54.84 +/- 10.65 μm; p = 0.968).
INTERPRETATION
The presence of locking versus non-locking peripheral screws does not make a significant difference on the overall stability of a glenoid baseplate, in both a no defect case with a non-augmented baseplate and a bone defect case with an augmented baseplate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35636305
pii: S0268-0033(22)00095-X
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2022.105665
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105665Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.