Optimizing Muscle-Tendon Lengths in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Evaluation of Surgical and Implant-Design-Related Parameters.
Journal
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
ISSN: 1535-1386
Titre abrégé: J Bone Joint Surg Am
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0014030
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 May 2024
16 May 2024
Historique:
medline:
16
5
2024
pubmed:
16
5
2024
entrez:
16
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Optimizing the function of muscles that cross the glenohumeral articulation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is controversial. The current study used a geometric model of the shoulder to systematically examine surgical placement and implant-design parameters to determine which RTSA configuration most closely reproduces native muscle-tendon lengths of the deltoid and rotator cuff. A geometric model of the glenohumeral joint was developed and adjusted to represent small, medium, and large shoulders. Muscle-tendon lengths were assessed for the anterior deltoid, middle deltoid, posterior deltoid, and supraspinatus from 0 to 90° of scaption; for the subscapularis from 0° to 60° of internal rotation (IR) and 0° to 60° of scaption; for the infraspinatus from 0° to 60° of external rotation (ER) and 0° to 60° of scaption; and for the teres minor from 0° to 60° of ER at 90° of scaption. RTSA designs were virtually implanted using the following parameters: (1) surgical placement with a centered or inferior glenosphere position and a humeral offset of 0, 5, or 10 mm relative to the anatomic neck plane, (2) implant design involving a glenosphere size of 30, 36, or 42 mm, glenosphere lateralization of 0, 5, or 10 mm, and humeral neck-shaft angle of 135°, 145°, or 155°. Thus, 486 RTSA-shoulder size combinations were analyzed. Linear regression assessed the strength of association between parameters and the change in each muscle-tendon length from the native length. The configuration that most closely restored anatomic muscle-tendon lengths in a small shoulder was a 30-mm glenosphere with a centered position, 5 mm of glenoid lateralization, 0 mm of humeral offset, and a 135° neck-shaft angle. For a medium shoulder, the corresponding combination was 36 mm, centered, 5 mm, 0 mm, and 135°. For a large shoulder, it was 30 mm, centered, 10 mm, 0 mm, and 135°. The most important implant-design parameter associated with restoration of native muscle-tendon lengths was the neck-shaft angle, with a 135° neck-shaft angle being favored (β = 0.568 to 0.657, p < 0.001). The most important surgical parameter associated with restoration of native muscle-tendon lengths was humeral offset, with a humeral socket placed at the anatomic neck plane being favored (β = 0.441 to 0.535, p < 0.001). A combination of a smaller, lateralized glenosphere, a humeral socket placed at the anatomic neck plane, and an anatomic 135° neck-shaft angle best restored native deltoid and rotator cuff muscle-tendon lengths in RTSA. This study of surgical and implant factors in RTSA highlighted optimal configurations for restoration of native muscle-tendon lengths of the deltoid and rotator cuff, which has direct implications for surgical technique and implant selection. Additionally, it demonstrated the most influential surgical and implant factors with respect to muscle-tendon lengths, which can be used to aid intraoperative decision-making.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Optimizing the function of muscles that cross the glenohumeral articulation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is controversial. The current study used a geometric model of the shoulder to systematically examine surgical placement and implant-design parameters to determine which RTSA configuration most closely reproduces native muscle-tendon lengths of the deltoid and rotator cuff.
METHODS
METHODS
A geometric model of the glenohumeral joint was developed and adjusted to represent small, medium, and large shoulders. Muscle-tendon lengths were assessed for the anterior deltoid, middle deltoid, posterior deltoid, and supraspinatus from 0 to 90° of scaption; for the subscapularis from 0° to 60° of internal rotation (IR) and 0° to 60° of scaption; for the infraspinatus from 0° to 60° of external rotation (ER) and 0° to 60° of scaption; and for the teres minor from 0° to 60° of ER at 90° of scaption. RTSA designs were virtually implanted using the following parameters: (1) surgical placement with a centered or inferior glenosphere position and a humeral offset of 0, 5, or 10 mm relative to the anatomic neck plane, (2) implant design involving a glenosphere size of 30, 36, or 42 mm, glenosphere lateralization of 0, 5, or 10 mm, and humeral neck-shaft angle of 135°, 145°, or 155°. Thus, 486 RTSA-shoulder size combinations were analyzed. Linear regression assessed the strength of association between parameters and the change in each muscle-tendon length from the native length.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The configuration that most closely restored anatomic muscle-tendon lengths in a small shoulder was a 30-mm glenosphere with a centered position, 5 mm of glenoid lateralization, 0 mm of humeral offset, and a 135° neck-shaft angle. For a medium shoulder, the corresponding combination was 36 mm, centered, 5 mm, 0 mm, and 135°. For a large shoulder, it was 30 mm, centered, 10 mm, 0 mm, and 135°. The most important implant-design parameter associated with restoration of native muscle-tendon lengths was the neck-shaft angle, with a 135° neck-shaft angle being favored (β = 0.568 to 0.657, p < 0.001). The most important surgical parameter associated with restoration of native muscle-tendon lengths was humeral offset, with a humeral socket placed at the anatomic neck plane being favored (β = 0.441 to 0.535, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A combination of a smaller, lateralized glenosphere, a humeral socket placed at the anatomic neck plane, and an anatomic 135° neck-shaft angle best restored native deltoid and rotator cuff muscle-tendon lengths in RTSA.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CONCLUSIONS
This study of surgical and implant factors in RTSA highlighted optimal configurations for restoration of native muscle-tendon lengths of the deltoid and rotator cuff, which has direct implications for surgical technique and implant selection. Additionally, it demonstrated the most influential surgical and implant factors with respect to muscle-tendon lengths, which can be used to aid intraoperative decision-making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38753817
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.23.01123
pii: 00004623-990000000-01102
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: No external funding was received for this work. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/I18).
Références
Bacle G, Nové-Josserand L, Garaud P, Walch G. Long-Term Outcomes of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Follow-up of a Previous Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Mar 15;99(6):454-61.
Bassens D, Decock T, Van Tongel A, De Wilde L. Long-term results of the Delta Xtend reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jun;28(6):1091-7.
Cuff DJ, Pupello DR, Santoni BG, Clark RE, Frankle MA. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Deficiency: A Concise Follow-up, at a Minimum of 10 Years, of Previous Reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Nov 15;99(22):1895-9.
Levin JM, Bokshan S, Roche CP, Zuckerman JD, Wright T, Flurin PH, Klifto CS, Anakwenze O. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without baseplate wedge augmentation in the setting of glenoid deformity and rotator cuff deficiency-a multicenter investigation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Dec;31(12):2488-96.
Bauer S, Blakeney WG, Wang AW, Ernstbrunner L, Corbaz J, Werthel JD. Challenges for Optimization of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Part II: Subacromial Space, Scapular Posture, Moment Arms and Muscle Tensioning. J Clin Med. 2023 Feb 17;12(4):1616.
Schmalzl J, Fenwick A, Reichel T, Schmitz B, Jordan M, Meffert R, Plumhoff P, Boehm D, Gilbert F. Anterior deltoid muscle tension quantified with shear wave ultrasound elastography correlates with pain level after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2022 Feb;32(2):333-9.
Lädermann A, Edwards TB, Walch G. Arm lengthening after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop. 2014 May;38(5):991-1000.
Franceschetti E, de Sanctis EG, Ranieri R, Palumbo A, Paciotti M, Franceschi F. The role of the subscapularis tendon in a lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: repair versus nonrepair. Int Orthop. 2019 Nov;43(11):2579-86.
Giles JW, Langohr GDG, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. Implant Design Variations in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Influence the Required Deltoid Force and Resultant Joint Load. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3615-26.
Langohr GDG, Giles JW, Athwal GS, Johnson JA. The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jun;24(6):972-9.
Pitocchi J, Plessers K, Wirix-Speetjens R, Debeer P, van Lenthe GH, Jonkers I, Pérez MA, Vander Sloten J. Automated muscle elongation measurement during reverse shoulder arthroplasty planning. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Mar;30(3):561-71.
Hamilton MA, Roche CP, Diep P, Flurin PH, Routman HD. Effect of prosthesis design on muscle length and moment arms in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Joint Dis (2013). 2013;71(Suppl 2):S31-5.
Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Collin P, Zbinden O, Chiu JC, Boileau P, Olivier F, Walch G. Effect of humeral stem and glenosphere designs on range of motion and muscle length in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2020 Mar;44(3):519-30.
Roche CP, Diep P, Hamilton M, Crosby LA, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Routman HD. Impact of inferior glenoid tilt, humeral retroversion, bone grafting, and design parameters on muscle length and deltoid wrapping in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Joint Dis (2013). 2013;71(4):284-93.
Ackland DC, Roshan-Zamir S, Richardson M, Pandy MG. Moment arms of the shoulder musculature after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 May;92(5):1221-30.
Burnier M, Hooke A, Gil J, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Elhassan B. Biomechanical analysis of the subscapularis, infraspinatus and teres minor length and moment arm after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. Semin Arthroplasty. 2022;32(1):45-54.
Hamilton MA, Diep P, Roche C, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Routman H. Effect of reverse shoulder design philosophy on muscle moment arms. J Orthop Res. 2015 Apr;33(4):605-13.
Levin JM, Pugliese M, Gobbi F, Pandy MG, Di Giacomo G, Frankle MA. Impact of reverse shoulder arthroplasty design and patient shoulder size on moment arms and muscle fiber lengths in shoulder abductors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Dec;32(12):2550-60.
Mayfield CK, Korber SS, Hwang NM, Bolia IK, Gamradt SC, Weber AE, Liu JN, Petrigliano FA. Volume, indications, and number of surgeons performing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty continue to expand: a nationwide cohort analysis from 2016-2020. JSES Int. 2023 May 25;7(5):827-34.
Elzanie A, Varacallo M. Anatomy, Shoulder and Upper Limb, Deltoid Muscle. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2023.
Sakoma Y, Sano H, Shinozaki N, Itoigawa Y, Yamamoto N, Ozaki T, Itoi E. Anatomical and functional segments of the deltoid muscle. J Anat. 2011 Feb;218(2):185-90.
Cabezas AF, Gutiérrez S, Teusink MJ, Schwartz DG, Hartzler RU, Santoni BG, Frankle MA. Kinematic impact of size on the existing glenohumeral joint in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014 Jun;29(6):622-8.
Virani NA, Cabezas A, Gutiérrez S, Santoni BG, Otto R, Frankle M. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty components and surgical techniques that restore glenohumeral motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Feb;22(2):179-87.
Werthel JD, Walch G, Vegehan E, Deransart P, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Valenti P. Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice [SICOT]. Int Orthop. 2019 Oct;43(10):2349-60.
Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;14(1)(Suppl S):147S-61S.
Galvin JW, Kim R, Ment A, Durso J, Joslin PMN, Lemos JL, Novikov D, Curry EJ, Alley MC, Parada SA, Eichinger JK, Li X. Outcomes and complications of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with minimum of 2 years’ follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Nov;31(11):e534-44.
Garner BA, Pandy MG. Musculoskeletal model of the upper limb based on the visible human male dataset. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2001 Feb;4(2):93-126.
Garner BA, Pandy MG. Estimation of musculotendon properties in the human upper limb. Ann Biomed Eng. 2003 Feb;31(2):207-20.
Sabesan VJ, Lombardo D, Josserand D, Buzas D, Jelsema T, Petersen-Fitts GR, Wiater JM. The effect of deltoid lengthening on functional outcome for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg. 2016 Aug;100(2):127-32.
Zitnay JL, Tashjian RZ, Walch G, Chalmers PN, Joyce CD, Henninger HB. Inlay vs. onlay humeral components in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biorobotic shoulder simulator study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Nov 28:S1058-2746(23)00831-5.
Eno JT, Kontaxis A, Novoa-Boldo A, Windsor E, Chen X, Erickson BJ, Warren RF, Dines DM, Dines JS, Gulotta LV, Taylor SA. The biomechanics of subscapularis repair in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: The effect of lateralization and insertion site. J Orthop Res. 2020 Apr;38(4):888-94.
Guarrella V, Chelli M, Domos P, Ascione F, Boileau P, Walch G. Risk factors for instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow. 2021 Feb;13(1):51-7.
Gutiérrez S, Comiskey CA 4th, Luo ZP, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Dec;90(12):2606-15.
Gutiérrez S, Keller TS, Levy JC, Lee WE 3rd, Luo ZP. Hierarchy of stability factors in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Mar;466(3):670-6.
Liu B, Kim YK, Nakla A, Chung MS, Kwak D, McGarry MH, Lee TQ, Oh JH. Biomechanical consequences of glenoid and humeral lateralization in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Aug;32(8):1662-72.
Olson JJ, Galetta MD, Keller RE, Oh LS, O’Donnell EA. Systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, and management of instability following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2022 Mar 30;2(3):261-8.
ASES Complications of RSA Research Group; Lohre R, Swanson DP, Mahendraraj KA, Elmallah R, Glass EA, Dunn WR, Cannon DJ, Friedman LGM, Gaudette JA, Green J, Grobaty L, Gutman M, Kakalecik J, Kloby MA, Konrade EN, Knack MC, Loveland A, Mathew JI, Myhre L, Nyfeler J, Parsell DE, Pazik M, Polisetty TS, Ponnuru P, Smith KM, Sprengel KA, Thakar O, Turnbull L, Vaughan A, Wheelwright JC, Abboud J, Armstrong A, Austin L, Brolin T, Entezari V, Garrigues GE, Grawe B, Gulotta LV, Hobgood R, Horneff JG, Iannotti J, Khazzam M, King JJ, Kirsch JM, Levy JC, Murthi A, Namdari S, Nicholson GP, Otto RJ, Ricchetti ET, Tashjian R, Throckmorton T, Wright T, Jawa A. Predictors of dislocations after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a study by the ASES Complications of RSA Multicenter Research Group. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024 Jan;33(1):73-81.