Can surgeons optimize range of motion and reduce scapulohumeral impingements in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A computational study.
3D planning
Range of motion
glenoid lateralization
notching
reverse shoulder arthroplasty
Journal
Shoulder & elbow
ISSN: 1758-5732
Titre abrégé: Shoulder Elbow
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101506589
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
23
09
2020
revised:
12
12
2020
accepted:
20
01
2021
entrez:
18
7
2022
pubmed:
19
7
2022
medline:
19
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Early glenohumeral impingement leads to poor range of motion and notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The aim was to find from planning software which implant configuration provides the best motions in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty planning (Glenosys) was made in 31 patients (12 men, 19 women, 76 ± 6 yo) and impingements were analyzed. Inlay (155°-inclined) and Onlay (145°-inclined) humeral designs were tested. Four configurations were tested for each shoulder: "INLAY": non-lateralized glenoid-inlay humerus, "BIO-INLAY": lateralized glenoid (BIO-RSA)-inlay humerus, "ONLAY": non-lateralized glenoid-onlay humerus, and "BIO-ONLAY": lateralized (BIO-RSA) glenoid-onlay humerus. BIO-ONLAY and BIO-INLAY groups presented a significantly better result in all tested motion ( Glenoid lateralization delays the glenohumeral impingement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and gives the best rotations, adduction and extension when associated with neutral inclination and humeral 145° inclination. Greater tuberosity abutment has to be avoided in abduction and the Inlay design provides the best abduction.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Early glenohumeral impingement leads to poor range of motion and notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The aim was to find from planning software which implant configuration provides the best motions in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Patients and Methods
UNASSIGNED
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty planning (Glenosys) was made in 31 patients (12 men, 19 women, 76 ± 6 yo) and impingements were analyzed. Inlay (155°-inclined) and Onlay (145°-inclined) humeral designs were tested. Four configurations were tested for each shoulder: "INLAY": non-lateralized glenoid-inlay humerus, "BIO-INLAY": lateralized glenoid (BIO-RSA)-inlay humerus, "ONLAY": non-lateralized glenoid-onlay humerus, and "BIO-ONLAY": lateralized (BIO-RSA) glenoid-onlay humerus.
Results
UNASSIGNED
BIO-ONLAY and BIO-INLAY groups presented a significantly better result in all tested motion (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Glenoid lateralization delays the glenohumeral impingement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and gives the best rotations, adduction and extension when associated with neutral inclination and humeral 145° inclination. Greater tuberosity abutment has to be avoided in abduction and the Inlay design provides the best abduction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35846405
doi: 10.1177/1758573221994141
pii: 10.1177_1758573221994141
pmc: PMC9284303
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
385-394Informations de copyright
© 2021 The British Elbow & Shoulder Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Marc-Olivier Gauci, Julien Berhouet, Adrien Jacquot, Gilles Walch, and Pascal Boileau are consultants for Wright-Medical—Tornier Inc and Imascap and did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article. Jean Chaoui is an employee of Wright Medical—Tornier Inc and Imascap.
Références
Bone Joint J. 2016 Aug;98-B(8):1080-5
pubmed: 27482021
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jun;24(6):972-9
pubmed: 25547853
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Dec;90(12):2606-15
pubmed: 19047705
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Oct;26(10):1726-1731
pubmed: 28528016
Orthopedics. 2015 Dec;38(12):e1098-103
pubmed: 26652330
Acta Orthop. 2010 Dec;81(6):719-26
pubmed: 21110704
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2014 Jul;8(3):65-71
pubmed: 25258496
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Apr;24(4):569-77
pubmed: 25457779
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Jun;22(6):807-13
pubmed: 22999850
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Feb;23(2):151-8
pubmed: 23850310
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jan;27(1):59-64
pubmed: 28969891
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Sep;469(9):2558-67
pubmed: 21286887
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jul;26(7):1253-1261
pubmed: 28111179
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Sep;94(38):e1615
pubmed: 26402829
Int Orthop. 2016 Jan;40(1):99-108
pubmed: 26338343
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):1397-404
pubmed: 26163281
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Dec;26(12):2133-2142
pubmed: 28735842
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Sep;93(9):1240-6
pubmed: 21911536
Int Orthop. 2018 Jun;42(6):1339-1346
pubmed: 29492611
Int Orthop. 2018 Dec;42(12):2897-2906
pubmed: 29968136
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;14(1 Suppl S):147S-161S
pubmed: 15726075
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Mar;24(3):468-73
pubmed: 25441556
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jul;28(7):1281-1290
pubmed: 30935825