Objectives. The bony shoulder stability ratio (BSSR) allows for quantification of the bony stabilisers in vivo. We aimed to biomechanically validate the BSSR, determine whether joint incongruence affects the stability ratio (SR) of a shoulder model, and determine the correct parameters (glenoid concavity versus humeral head radius) for calculation of the BSSR in vivo. Methods. Four polyethylene balls (radii: 19.1 mm to 38.1 mm) were used to mould four fitting sockets in four different depths (3.2 mm to 19.1mm). The SR was measured in biomechanical congruent and incongruent experimental series. The experimental SR of a congruent system was compared with the calculated SR based on the BSSR approach. Differences in SR between congruent and incongruent experimental conditions were quantified. Finally, the experimental SR was compared with either calculated SR based on the socket concavity or plastic ball radius. Results. The experimental SR is comparable with the calculated SR (mean difference 10%, . sd. 8%; relative values). The experimental incongruence study observed almost no differences (2%, . sd. 2%). The calculated SR on the basis of the socket concavity radius is superior in predicting the experimental SR (mean difference 10%, . sd. 9%) compared with the calculated SR based on the plastic ball radius (mean difference 42%, . sd. 55%). Conclusion. The present biomechanical investigation confirmed the validity of the BSSR. Incongruence has no significant effect on the SR of a shoulder model. In the event of an incongruent system, the calculation of the BSSR on the basis of the glenoid concavity radius is recommended. Cite this article: L. Ernstbrunner, J-D. Werthel, T. Hatta, A. R. Thoreson, H. Resch, K-N. An, P. Moroder. Biomechanical analysis of the effect of congruence, depth and radius on the stability ratio of a simplistic ‘ball-and-socket’ joint model. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:453–460. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2016-0078.R1

Aims. The liner design is a key determinant of the constraint of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of this study was to compare the degree of constraint of rTSA liners between different implant systems. Methods. An implant company’s independent 3D shoulder arthroplasty planning software (mediCAD 3D shoulder v. 7.0, module v. 2.1.84.173.43) was used to determine the jump height of standard and constrained liners of different sizes (radius of curvature) of all available companies. The obtained parameters were used to calculate the stability ratio (degree of constraint) and angle of coverage (degree of glenosphere coverage by liner) of the different systems. Measurements were independently performed by two raters, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to perform a reliability analysis. Additionally, measurements were compared with parameters provided by the companies themselves, when available, to ensure validity of the software-derived measurements. Results. There were variations in jump height between rTSA systems at a given size, resulting in large differences in stability ratio between systems. Standard liners exhibited a stability ratio range from 126% to 214% (mean 158% (SD 23%)) and constrained liners a range from 151% to 479% (mean 245% (SD 76%)). The angle of coverage showed a range from 103° to 130° (mean 115° (SD 7°)) for standard and a range from 113° to 156° (mean 133° (SD 11°)) for constrained liners. Four arthroplasty systems kept the stability ratio of standard liners constant (within 5%) across different sizes, while one system showed slight inconsistencies (within 10%), and ten arthroplasty systems showed large inconsistencies (range 11% to 28%). The stability ratio of constrained liners was consistent across different sizes in two arthroplasty systems and inconsistent in seven systems (range 18% to 106%). Conclusion. Large differences in jump height and resulting degree of constraint of rTSA liners were observed between different implant systems, and in many cases even within the same implant systems. While the immediate clinical effect remains unclear, in theory the degree of constraint of the liner plays an important role for the dislocation and notching risk of a rTSA system. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):818–824

Bone defects are frequently observed in anterior shoulder instability. Over the last decade, knowledge of the association of bone loss with increased failure rates of soft-tissue repair has shifted the surgical management of chronic shoulder instability. On the glenoid side, there is no controversy about the critical glenoid bone loss being 20%. However, poor outcomes have been described even with a subcritical glenoid bone defect as low as 13.5%. On the humeral side, the Hill-Sachs lesion should be evaluated concomitantly with the glenoid defect as the two sides of the same bipolar lesion which interact in the instability process, as described by the glenoid track concept. We advocate adding remplissage to every Bankart repair in patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion, regardless of the glenoid bone loss. When critical or subcritical glenoid bone loss occurs in active patients (> 15%) or bipolar off-track lesions, we should consider anterior glenoid bone reconstructions. The techniques have evolved significantly over the last two decades, moving from open procedures to arthroscopic, and from screw fixation to metal-free fixation. The new arthroscopic techniques of glenoid bone reconstruction procedures allow precise positioning of the graft, identification, and treatment of concomitant injuries with low morbidity and faster recovery. Given the problems associated with bone resorption and metal hardware protrusion, the new metal-free techniques for Latarjet or free bone block procedures seem a good solution to avoid these complications, although no long-term data are yet available.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1100–1110.