Abstract
Background
One of the main concern about reverse shoulder arthoplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency is scapular notching that is still an unsolved issue for this particular prosthesis. The purpose of this multicentric retrospective study is to compare two different concept of reverse prosthesis, one with a concentric glenoshere and the other one with a new eccentric glenoshere design that aim to minimize scapular notching.
Methods
From 2004 to 2009 67 patients were treated with a SMR reverse shoulder prosthesis (LIMA) with either concentric (figure 2) or eccentric glenosphere (figure 1). We selected for the study patients with criteria as much homogeneous as possible by the age and pathology. We then included for the study 25 patients (Group 1) with a concentric glenosphere and 21 (Group 2) with a eccentric glenosphere. All baseplates of concentric glenospheres were implanted with the most inferior aspect of baseplate that matched with the inferior glenoid ream, so that the glenosphere extended 4 mm beyond the glenoid inferiorly in order to minimize scapular notching. Every patient were followed clinically (Constant and Murley Score [C.S.] and Simple Shuolder test [S.S.T.]) and radiographically (notching, loosening and mechanical failure) with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. We also evaluated at the final follow-up psna (prosthesis-scapular neck angle), pgrd (peg glenoid rim distance) and DBSNG (distance between scapular neck and glenosfere).
Results
At two years of follow up R.O.M. increased significantly in both groups especially in those with a eccentric glenosphere. Notably in patients with an eccentric glenosphere elevation improved from 66° to 148° and abduction from 60° to 115° while in those with a concentric glenosphere improved from 78° to 122° and 71° to 98° respectively for elevation and abduction. Outcomes for external-rotation and internal-rotation were very similar in both groups. 14 (56%) patients among those with a concentric glenosphere had scapular notching while we didn't have any notch in those with eccentric glenosphere even though we didn't find any significant different between the two groups in term of clinical outcomes and patient's satisfaction. The average C.S. increased from 38% to 69% in those with concentric SMR and from 30% to 74% in the other group. At the final follow-up PSNA, DBSNG and PGRD were respectively 88°, 3,2mm and 18,2 mm in group 1, while they were 92°, 4,3 mm and 21,2 mm in the group 2.
Conclusions
Putting concentric glenosphere more inferiorly reduce the incidence of scapular notching but it doesn't solve the problem whereas, at medium follow-up, the new eccentric design seems to solved completely this issue. This study sustains PSNA, DBSNG, PGRD as reliable measures to predict scapular notching. Besides eccentric SMR glenosphere seems to increase R.O.M. mostly in flexion, abduction and adduction.
