Optimizing range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

被引:0
|
作者
Mouchantaf, M. [1 ]
Parisi, M. [1 ]
Secci, G. [1 ]
Biegun, M. [1 ]
Chelli, M. [1 ]
Schippers, P. [1 ]
Boileau, P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Chirurg Reparatrice ICR Locomoteur & Sports, Nice, France
来源
BONE & JOINT OPEN | 2024年 / 5卷 / 10期
关键词
GLENOID LATERALIZATION; INCLINATION; ANGLE; BONE; TILT;
D O I
10.1302/2633-1462.510.BJO-2024-0097.R1
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Aims Optimal glenoid positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is crucial to provide impingement-free range of motion (ROM). Lateralization and inclination correction are not yet systematically used. Using planning software, we simulated the most used glenoid implant positions. The primary goal was to determine the configuration that delivers the best theoretical impingement-free ROM. Methods With the use of a 3D planning software (Blueprint) for RSA, 41 shoulders in 41 consecutive patients (17 males and 24 females; means age 73 years (SD 7)) undergoing RSA were planned. For the same anteroposterior positioning and retroversion of the glenoid implant, four different glenoid baseplate configurations were used on each shoulder to compare ROM: 1) no correction of the RSA angle and no lateralization (C-L-); 2) correction of the RSA angle with medialization by inferior reaming (C+M+); 3) correction of the RSA angle without lateralization by superior compensation (C+L-); and 4) correction of the RSA angle and additional lateralization (C+L+). The same humeral inlay implant and positioning were used on the humeral side for the four different glenoid configurations with a 3 mm symmetric 135 degrees inclined polyethylene liner. Results The configuration with lateralization and correction of the RSA angle (C+L+) led to better ROM in flexion, extension, adduction, and external rotation (p <= 0.001). Only internal rotation was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.388). The configuration where correction of the inclination was done by medialization (C+M+) led to the worst ROM in adduction, extension, abduction, flexion, and external rotation of the shoulder. Conclusion Our software study shows that, when using a 135 degrees inlay reversed humeral implant, correcting glenoid inclination (RSA angle 0 degrees) and lateralizing the glenoid component by using an angled bony or metallic augment of 8 to 10 mm provides optimal impingement-free ROM.
引用
收藏
页码:851 / 857
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effect of humeral stem and glenosphere designs on range of motion and muscle length in reverse shoulder arthroplasty
    Ladermann, Alexandre
    Denard, Patrick J.
    Collin, Philippe
    Zbinden, Olivia
    Chiu, Joe Chih-Hao
    Boileau, Pascal
    Olivier, Flora
    Walch, Gilles
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2020, 44 (03) : 519 - 530
  • [22] The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion
    Langohr, G. Daniel G.
    Giles, Joshua W.
    Athwal, George S.
    Johnson, James A.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2015, 24 (06) : 972 - 979
  • [23] The influence of humeral neck shaft angle and glenoid lateralization on range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty
    Werner, Birgit S.
    Chaoui, Jean
    Walch, Gilles
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2017, 26 (10) : 1726 - 1731
  • [24] Preoperative Planning Software Does Not Accurately Predict Range of Motion in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
    Thomas, Logan G.
    Chalmers, Peter N.
    Henninger, Heath B.
    Davis, Evan W.
    Tashjian, Robert Z.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2024, 32 (08) : e378 - e386
  • [25] Optimizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty component position in the setting of advanced arthritis with posterior glenoid erosion: a computer-enhanced range of motion analysis
    Keener, Jay D.
    Patterson, Brendan M.
    Orvets, Nathan
    Aleem, Alexander W.
    Chamberlain, Aaron M.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2018, 27 (02) : 339 - 349
  • [26] Assessment of Isokinetics and Range of Motion of the Shoulder in Patients after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in the Late Follow-Up Period
    Ogrodzka-Ciechanowicz, Katarzyna
    Kurzeja, Piotr
    Sorysz, Tomasz
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (23)
  • [27] Comparing daily shoulder motion and frequency after anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty
    Langohr, G. Daniel G.
    Haverstock, John P.
    Johnson, James A.
    Athwal, George S.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2018, 27 (02) : 325 - 332
  • [28] Kinematic analysis of dynamic shoulder motion in patients with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
    Kwon, Young W.
    Pinto, Vivek J.
    Yoon, Jangwhon
    Frankle, Mark A.
    Dunning, Page E.
    Sheikhzadeh, Ali
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2012, 21 (09) : 1184 - 1190
  • [29] Effect of implant geometry on range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty assessed using glenohumeral separation distance
    North, Lydia R.
    Hetzler, Markus A.
    Pickell, Michael
    Bryant, J. Tim
    Deluzio, Kevin J.
    Bicknell, Ryan T.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2015, 24 (09) : 1359 - 1366
  • [30] Radiographic parameters associated with excellent versus poor range of motion outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty
    Haidamous, Georges
    Ladermann, Alexandre
    Hartzler, Robert U.
    Parsons, Bradford O.
    Lederman, Evan S.
    Tokish, John M.
    Denard, Patrick J.
    SHOULDER & ELBOW, 2022, 14 (01) : 39 - 47