Introduction. Posterior glenoid wear is common in glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Tightening of the subscapularis causes posterior humeral head subluxation and a posterior load concentration on the glenoid. The reduced contact area causes glenoid wear and potentially posterior instability. To correct posterior wear and restore glenoid version, surgeons may eccentrically ream the anterior glenoid to re-center the humeral head. However, eccentric reaming undermines prosthesis support by removing unworn anterior glenoid bone, compromises cement fixation by increasing the likelihood of peg perforation, and medializes the joint line which has implications on joint stability. To conserve bone and preserve the joint line when correcting glenoid version, manufacturers have developed posterior augment glenoids. This study quantifies the change in rotator cuff muscle length (relative to a nonworn/normal shoulder) resulting from three sizes of posterior glenoid defects using 2 different glenoids/reaming methods: 1) eccentric reaming using a standard (nonaugmented) glenoid and 2) off-axis reaming using an 8, 12, and 16° posterior augment glenoid. Methods. A 3-D computer model was developed in Unigraphics (Siemens, Inc) to simulate internal/external rotation and quantify rotator cuff muscle length when correcting glenoid version in three sizes of posterior glenoid defects using posterior augmented and non-augmented glenoid implants. Each glenoid was implanted in a 3-D digitized scapula and humerus (Pacific Research, Inc); 3 sizes (small, medium, and large) of posterior glenoid defects were created in the scapula by posteriorly shifting the humeral head and medially translating the humeral head into the scapula in 1.5 mm increments. Five muscles were simulated as three lines from origin to insertion except for the subscapularis which was wrapped. After simulated implantation in each size glenoid defect, the humerus was internally/externally rotated from 0 to 40° with the humerus at the side. Muscle lengths were measured as the average length of the three lines simulating each muscle at each degree of rotation and compared to that at the corresponding arm position for the normal shoulder without defect to quantify the percentage change in muscle length for each configuration. Results. As depicted in Figures 1–3, muscle shortening was observed for each muscle for each size defect. For each size uncorrected defect, the subscapularis was observed to wrap around the anterior glenoid rim during internal rotation and with the arm at neutral; both eccentric successfully re-centered the humeral head and eliminate subscapularis wrapping around the anterior glenoid rim. However, eccentric reaming was also found to medialize the joint line and resulted in approximately 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5% additional muscle shortening for each muscle relative to the augmented glenoid in each size defect, respectively. Discussion and Conclusions. This study demonstrates that posterior glenoid wear medializes the joint line and results in rotator cuff muscle shortening. Augmented glenoids offer the potential to better restore the joint line and minimize muscle shortening, particularly when used in large glenoid defects. Future work should investigate the clinical significance of 1.5–3.5% of muscle shortening and evaluate the functional impact of subscapularis wrapping around the anterior glenoid rim

Aims. The survival of humeral hemiarthroplasties in patients with relatively intact glenoid cartilage could theoretically be extended by minimizing the associated postoperative glenoid erosion. Ceramic has gained attention as an alternative to metal as a material for hemiarthroplasties because of its superior tribological properties. The aim of this study was to assess the in vitro wear performance of ceramic and metal humeral hemiarthroplasties on natural glenoids. Methods. Intact right cadaveric shoulders from donors aged between 50 and 65 years were assigned to a ceramic group (n = 8, four male cadavers) and a metal group (n = 9, four male cadavers). A dedicated shoulder wear simulator was used to simulate daily activity by replicating the relevant joint motion and loading profiles. During testing, the joint was kept lubricated with diluted calf serum at room temperature. Each test of wear was performed for 500,000 cycles at 1.2 Hz. At intervals of 125,000 cycles, micro-CT scans of each glenoid were taken to characterize and quantify glenoid wear by calculating the change in the thickness of its articular cartilage. Results. At the completion of the wear test, the total thickness of the cartilage had significantly decreased in both the ceramic and metal groups, by 27% (p = 0.019) and 29% (p = 0.008), respectively. However, the differences between the two were not significant (p = 0.606) and the patterns of wear in the specimens were unpredictable. No significant correlation was found between cartilage wear and various factors, including age, sex, the size of the humeral head, joint mismatch, the thickness of the native cartilage, and the surface roughness (all p > 0.05). Conclusion. Although ceramic has better tribological properties than metal, we did not find evidence that its use in hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in patients with healthy cartilage is a better alternative than conventional metal humeral heads. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1273–1283

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a correlation between the grade of humeral osteoarthritis (OA) and the severity of glenoid morphology according to Walch. We hypothesized that there would be a correlation. Methods. Overal, 143 shoulders in 135 patients (73 females, 62 males) undergoing shoulder arthroplasty surgery for primary glenohumeral OA were included consecutively. Mean age was 69.3 years (47 to 85). Humeral head (HH), osteophyte length (OL), and morphology (transverse decentering of the apex, transverse, or coronal asphericity) on radiographs were correlated to the glenoid morphology according to Walch (A1, A2, B1, B2, B3), glenoid retroversion, and humeral subluxation on CT images. Results. Increased humeral OL correlated with a higher grade of glenoid morphology (A1-A2-B1-B2-B3) according to Walch (r = 0.672; p < 0.0001). It also correlated with glenoid retroversion (r = 0.707; p < 0.0001), and posterior humeral subluxation (r = 0.452; p < 0.0001). A higher humeral OL (odds ratio (OR) 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.32; p = 0.013), posterior humeral subluxation (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.22; p = 0.031), and glenoid retroversion (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.30 to 1.68; p < 0.001) were independent factors for a higher glenoid morphology. More specifically, a humeral OL of ≥ 13 mm was indicative of eccentric glenoid types B2 and B3 (OR 14.20; 95% CI 5.96 to 33.85). Presence of an aspherical HH in the coronal plane was suggestive of glenoid types B2 and B3 (OR 3.34; 95% CI 1.67 to 6.68). Conclusion. The criteria of humeral OL and HH morphology are associated with increasing glenoid retroversion, posterior humeral subluxation, and eccentric glenoid wear. Therefore, humeral radiological parameters might hint at the morphology on the glenoid side. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):463–469

Introduction. Posterior glenoid wear is common with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. To correct posterior wear, surgeons may eccentrically ream the anterior glenoid to restore version. However, eccentric reaming undermines prosthesis support by removing unworn anterior glenoid bone, compromises cement fixation by increasing the likelihood of peg perforation, and medializes the joint line which has implications on joint stability. To conserve bone and preserve the joint line when correcting glenoid version, manufacturers have developed posterior augment glenoids for aTSA and rTSA applications. This clinical study quantifies outcomes achieved using posteriorly augmented aTSA/rTSA glenoid implants in patients with severe posterior glenoid wear at 2 years minimum follow-up. Methods. 47 patients (mean age: 68.7yrs) with 2 years minimum follow-up were treated by 5 fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeons using either 8° posteriorly augmented aTSA/rTSA glenoid components in patients with severe posterior glenoid wear. 24 aTSA patients received posteriorly augmented glenoids (65.8 yrs; 7F/17M) for OA and 23 rTSA patients received posteriorly augmented glenoids (71.8 yrs; 9F/14M) for treatment of CTA and OA. Outcomes were scored using SST, UCLA, ASES, Constant, and SPADI metrics; active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation were also measured to quantify function. Average follow-up was 27.5 months (aTSA 29.4; rTSA 25.5). A two-tailed, unpaired t-test identified differences (p<0.05) in pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post improvements. Results. A comparison of pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post improvement in outcomes are presented in Tables 1–3, respectively. As described in Table 1, pre-operative outcomes were similar for patients receiving posterior augment aTSA and posterior augment rTSA implants, with only active abduction being significantly less in rTSA patients. Additionally, rTSA patients were noted to be significantly older (p=0.0434) and have significantly longer follow-up (p=0.0358) though no difference was noted in mean patient height, weight, or BMI between cohorts. As described in Table 2, at 2 years minimum follow-up posterior augment aTSA patients were associated with significantly greater SST scores and also had significantly more active abduction and active external rotation than posterior augment rTSA patients. However, as described in Table 3, no significant difference was observed in pre-to-post improvement of outcome scoring metrics and only improvement in active external rotation was observed to be significantly different between the two cohorts. No complications were reported for either posterior augment implant cohort. Conclusions. These results demonstrate positive outcomes can be achieved at 2 years minimum follow-up in patients with severe posterior wear using either posteriorly augmented aTSA/rTSA glenoid implants. While relative differences in outcomes were noted, these mean differences are expected due to differing indications and associated differences in rotator cuff status. Due to the aforementioned concerns of aseptic glenoid loosening in patients with severe posterior glenoid wear, some have recommend treating patients with posterior glenoid wear using only rTSA regardless of the status of the patient's rotator cuff. The results of this study demonstrate that patients with posterior glenoid wear and a functioning rotator cuff can be successfully treated with posterior augmented aTSA as well. Additional and longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm these positive outcomes

Introduction. Due to the predictability of outcomes achieved with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), rTSA is increasingly being used in patients where glenoid fixation is compromised due to presence of glenoid wear. There are various methods to achieve glenoid fixation in patients with glenoid wear, including the use of bone grafting behind the glenoid baseplate or the use of augmented glenoid baseplates. This clinical study quantifies clinical outcomes achieved using both techniques in patients with severe glenoid wear at 2 years minimum follow-up. Methods. 80 patients (mean age: 71.6yrs) with 2 years minimum follow-up were treated by 7 fellowship trained orthopaedic surgeons using rTSA with bone graft behind the baseplate or rTSA with an augmented glenoid baseplate in patients with severe posterior glenoid wear. 39 rTSA patients (14 female, avg: 73.1 yrs; 25 male, avg: 71.5 yrs) received an augmented glenoid (cohort composed of 24 patients with an 8° posterior augment baseplate and 15 patients with a 10° superior augment baseplate) for treatment of CTA, RCT, and OA with a medially eroded scapula. 41 rTSA patients (27 female, avg: 73.0 yrs; 14 male, avg: 66.9 yrs) received glenoid bone graft (cohort composed of 5 patients with allograft and 36 patients with autograft) for treatment of CTA, RCT, and OA with a medially eroded scapula. Outcomes were scored using SST, UCLA, ASES, Constant, and SPADI metrics; active abduction, forward flexion, and internal/external rotation were also measured to quantify function. Average follow-up was 31.2 months (augment 28.3; graft 34.1). A two-tailed, unpaired t-test identified differences (p<0.05) in pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post improvements. Results. A comparison of pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post improvement in outcomes are presented in Tables 1–3, respectively. No difference was noted in pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post improvement in outcomes between cohorts. The augmented glenoid baseplate rTSA cohort had 0 complications for a complication rate of 0%; whereas, the rTSA glenoid bone graft cohort had 6 complications (including 2 glenoid loosenings/graft failures) for a complication rate of 14.6%. Additionally, radiographic follow-up information was available for 30 of 39 augmented baseplate patients (76.9%) and 27 of 41 bone graft patients (65.9%); where the augmented baseplate rTSA cohort had a scapular notching rate of 10.0% with an average scapular notching grade of 0.1; whereas, the rTSA glenoid bone graft cohort had a scapular notching rate of 18.5% with an average scapular notching grade of 0.19. Conclusions. These results demonstrate positive outcomes can be achieved at 2 years minimum follow-up in patients with severe glenoid wear using either augmented glenoid baseplates or bone graft behind the glenoid baseplate with rTSA. While no statistical difference was noted between pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-to-post improvement in outcomes between rTSA cohorts, a substantial difference in the complication rate was noted between cohorts which may factor into the surgeon's decision of the choice of treatment technique for these patients. Additional and longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm these outcomes and trends

INTRODUCTION. Preoperative planning software for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) allows surgeons to virtually perform a reconstruction based off 3D models generated from CT scans of the glenohumeral joint. The purpose of this study was to examine the distribution of chosen glenoid implant as a function of glenoid wear severity, and to evaluate the inter-surgeon variability of optimal glenoid component placement in ATSA. METHODS. CT scans from 45 patients with glenohumeral arthritis were planned by 8 fellowship trained shoulder arthroplasty specialists using a 3D preoperative planning software, planning each case for optimal implant selection and placement. The software provided three implant types: a standard non-augmented glenoid component, and an 8° and 16° posterior augment wedge glenoid component. The software interface allowed the surgeons to control version, inclination, rotation, depth, anterior- posterior and superior-inferior position of the glenoid components in 1mm and 1° increments, which were recorded and compared for final implant position in each case. RESULTS. Five cases were excluded due to extreme glenoid wear. For resultant implant version, a bimodal distribution was observed with a local maxima occurring at 0 degrees, and a bell-shaped distribution at −5° of version. Upon individual surgeon analysis, it was revealed that certain surgeons had a preference to correct to 0 degrees, whereas others were more accepting of residual version. Shoulders ranged in native version from 0° to −27° with an average of −11°, indicating a high frequency of posterior glenoid wear. The frequency of different implants used for each degree of version shows that standard implants were never used when version was > −11°. Conversely, 16° augmented glenoids were never used when the version was < −9°. Based on this distribution, version was divided into 3 ranges: < −6°, −7 to −14°, and > −15°. Standard glenoids were used 79% of the time when the version was <−6°. 8° augmented glenoids were used 80% of the time when the version was between −7° and −14°, and 75% of the time when the version was > −15°. In the latter case, 16° augments were used in the other 25%. For inclination in ATSA, the same trends of a bimodal distribution seen for version were less pronounced. A local maxima of plans were focused around zero degrees, with some surgeons being more accepting of superior inclination in ATSA. CONCLUSION. While there was limited consensus on the optimal reconstruction in any one case, there appear to be thresholds of retroversion that favor the use of augmented glenoid components based on frequency of selection. Our data suggests when retroversion exceeds −7°, some degree of augmentation is helpful in achieving the goals of version correction while limiting bone loss through corrective reaming. Longer term clinical outcomes on specific implant positions will help to define true optimal implant placement

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has a proven track record as an effective treatment for a variety of rotator cuff deficient conditions. However, glenoid erosion associated with the arthritic component of these conditions can present a challenge for the shoulder arthroplasty surgeon. Options for treatment of glenoid wear include partial reaming with incomplete baseplate seating, bony augmentation using structural or impaction grafting techniques, and augmented baseplates. Augmented components have the advantage of accommodating glenoid deformity with a durable material and also ream less subchondral bone; both of which may offer an advantage over traditional bone grafting. Biomechanical and early clinical studies of augmented glenoid baseplates suggest they are a reasonable treatment option, though posteriorly augmented baseplates have shown better performance than superiorly augmented implants. However, there are no mid- or late-term studies comparing augmented baseplates to bone grafting or partial reaming. We present a live surgical demonstration of RTSA for a patient with advanced glenoid erosion being treated with an augmented glenoid baseplate that can be dialed in the direction of any deformity (superior, posterior, etc.). This versatility allows the surgeon to place the augment in any direction and is not confined to the traditional concepts of glenoid wear in a single vector. Clearly, longer term follow up studies are needed to determine the ultimate effectiveness of these devices in treating glenoid deformity in RTSA

Severe glenoid bone loss in patients with osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff is associated with posterior glenoid bone loss and posterior humeral subluxation. Management of severe glenoid bone loss during shoulder arthroplasty is controversial and technically challenging and options range from humeral hemiarthroplasty, anatomic shoulder replacement with glenoid bone grafting or augmented glenoid component implantation, to reverse replacement with reaming to correct version or structural bone grafting or metallic augmentation of the bone deficiency. Shoulder replacement with severe glenoid bone loss is technically challenging and characterised by higher rates of complications and revisions. Hemiarthroplasty has limited benefit for pain relief and function especially if eccentric glenoid wear exists. Bone loss with >15 degrees of retroversion likely requires version correction include bone-grafting, augmented glenoid components, or reverse total shoulder replacement. Asymmetric reaming may improve version but is limited to 15 degrees of version correction in order to preserve subchondral bone and glenoid bone vault depth. Bone-grafting of glenoid wear and defects has had mixed results with graft-related complications, periprosthetic radiolucent lines, and glenoid component failure of fixation. Implantation of an augmented wedge or step polyethylene glenoid component improves joint version while preserving subchondral bone, but is technically demanding and with minimal short term clinical follow-up. A Mayo study demonstrated roughly 50% of patients with posteriorly augmented polyethylene had radiolucent lines and 1/3 had posterior subluxation. Another wedge polyethylene design had 66% with bone ingrowth around polyethylene fins at 3 years. Long term outcomes are unknown for these new wedge augmented glenoid components. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty avoids many risks of anatomic replacement glenoid component fixation and stability but is associated with a high complication rate (15%) including neurologic and baseplate loosening and often requires structural bone grafting behind the baseplate with suboptimal outcomes or metallic augmented baseplates with limited evidence and short term outcomes. Reverse replacement with baseplate bone grafting or metal augmentation is technically challenging due to limited native glenoid bone stock available for baseplate component ingrowth and long term fixation. Failure to correct glenoid superior inclination and restore neutral version within 10 degrees increases the risks of reverse baseplate failure of fixation, pull out, and failure of reverse replacement. Reverse baseplate failure rates in patients with severe glenoid bone loss and concomitant glenoid bone grafting range from 5–11%. The minimum native glenoid bony contact with the baseplate is unknown but likely is approximately 1cm of native bone contacting a central ingrowth post and a minority (∼15–25%) of native glenoid contacting the backside of the baseplate. Failure to correct posterior bone loss can lead to retroversion of the baseplate, reduced external rotation, posterior scapular notching, and posteromedial polyethylene wear. In summary, shoulder replacement with severe glenoid bone loss is technically challenging and characterised by higher rates of complication and revision

Background. Virtual planning of shoulder arthroplasty has gained recent popularity. Combined with patients specific instrumentation, several systems have been developed that allow the surgeon to accurately appreciate and correct glenoid deformities in version and inclination. While each virtual software platform utilizes a consistent algorithm for calculating these measurements, it is imperative for the surgeon to recognize any differences that may exist amongst software platforms and characterize any variability. Methods. A case-control study of all CT scans of patients previously pre-operatively planned using MatchPoint SurgiCase® software were uploaded into the BluePrint software. The cohort represents surgical planning for total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty with varying degrees of glenoid deformity. Glenoid version and inclination will be recorded for each CT scan using both software platforms. Results. A total of 38 patient CT scans previously planned using MatchPoint Surgicase® software were uploaded into the BluePrint software. The mean difference for glenoid version between the two software programs was 2.497° (±1.724°) with no significant differences in measured glenoid version readings between BluePrint and SurgiCase software (p=0.8127). No significant differences were seen in the measured glenoid inclination between the two software programs (p=0.733), with a mean difference for glenoid inclination between the two software programs at 5.150° ± 3.733° (figure 1). A Bland-Altman plot determined the 95% limits of agreement between the two programs at −5.879 to 6.116 degrees of glenoid version and −12.05 to 12.75 degrees of glenoid inclination. There was a significant statistical agreement between the two software programs measuring glenoid version and inclination in relation to glenoid wear position for the centered (p=0.004), posterior (p<0.001, p=0.003), posterior-superior (p<0.001, p<0.001), and superior (p=0.027, p=0.034) positions, respectively. Conclusions. Both BluePrint and SurgiCase software platforms yield similar measurements for glenoid version and glenoid inclination. In the setting of glenoid wear in the posterior, posterior-superior or superior position, measurements of between two surgical platforms are in agreement

A primary goal of shoulder arthroplasty is to place the components in anatomic version. However, traditional instrumentation does not accommodate glenoid wear patterns. Therefore, many investigators have attempted to use computer modeling or CT-based algorithms to create custom targeting guides to achieve this goal. There are some recent studies investigating the use of custom guides. Iannotti et al. published in JBJS-American in 2012 on the use of patient specific instrumentation. There were 31 patients included in the study. The authors found that the planning software and patient specific instrumentation were helpful overall, but particularly of benefit in patients with retroversion in excess of 16 degrees. In this group of patients, the mean deviation was 10 degrees in the standard surgical group and 1.2 degrees in the patient specific instrumentation group. Throckmorton presented a study at the AAOS in 2014 on 70 cadaveric shoulders. There was one high volume surgeon (>100 shoulder arthroplasties a year), two middle volume surgeons (20–50 shoulder arthroplasties a year), and two low volume surgeons (less than 20 shoulder arthroplasties per year). Overall, the custom guide was significantly more accurate than standard instrumentation. The custom guides were found to be especially more accurate among specimens with associated glenoid wear. There were no strong trends to indicate consistent differences between high, medium, and low volume surgeons. The authors concluded that custom guides have narrower standard deviation and fewer significant errors than standard instrumentation. Custom guides continue to evolve for use in shoulder arthroplasty including some guides that allow the surgeon to decide intra-operatively between anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and reverse arthroplasty. Additional studies will be necessary to further define the role of patient specific instrumentation in practice

Background. Rotator cuff atrophy evaluated with computed tomography scans has been associated with asymmetric glenoid wear and humeral head subluxation in glenohumeral arthritis. Magnetic resonance imaging has increased sensitivity for identifying rotator cuff pathology and has not been used to investigate this relationship. The purpose of this study was to use MRI to assess the association of rotator cuff muscle atrophy and glenoid morphology in primary glenohumeral arthritis. Methods. 132 shoulders from 129 patients with primary GHOA were retrospectively reviewed and basic demographic information was collected. All patients had MRIs that included appropriate orthogonal imaging to assess glenoid morphology and rotator cuff pathology and were reviewed by two senior surgeons. All patients had intact rotator cuff tendons. Glenoid morphology was assigned using the modified-Walch classification system (types A1, A2, B1, B2, B3, C, and D) and rotator cuff fatty infiltration was assigned using Goutallier scores. Results. 46 (35%) of the shoulders had posterior wear patterns (23 type B2s, 23 type B3s). Both the infraspinatus and teres minor independently had significantly more fatty infiltration in B2 and B3 type glenoids compared to type A glenoids (p<0.001). There was a greater imbalance in posterior rotator cuff muscle fatty atrophy in B2 and B3 type glenoids compared to type A glenoids (p<0.001). However, there was no difference in axial plane imbalance between B2 and B3 glenoids (p=1.00). There was increased amount fatty infiltration of the infraspinatus among B2 and B3-type glenoids compared to type A glenoids on multivariate analysis controlling for age and gender (p<0.001). Conclusions. These results identify significant axial plane rotator cuff muscle imbalances in B2 and B3-type glenoids compared to concentrically worn glenoids, favoring a relative increase in fatty infiltration of the infraspinatus and teres minor compared to the subscapularis in glenoids with patterns of posterior wear. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Introduction: The Copeland Shoulder prosthesis was developed as an alternative to the more traditional prostheses. This cementless design differs in that it resurfaces, rather than replaces, the native humeral head. The obvious advantage of this design is only a minimum of bone is removed thus preserving bone stock for future revisions if needed. There exists little in the orthopaedic literature concerning the clinical results of patients with a Copeland shoulder prosthesis. Materials and methods: Twenty-four patients receiving a Copeland hemiarthroplasty were identified at our institution between 1997 and 1999. All operations were performed by the senior author. A minimum of one-year follow-up was essential. Nineteen patients with twenty shoulders were available for follow-up at a mean of 2.2 years. Patients’ charts and operative reports were examined, and patients’ received retrospective pre-operative and prospective post-operative application of the constant score. AP and axillary lateral radiographs were examined for component position, evidence of osteolysis, and glenoid wear. Results: The average Constant scores showed improvement in all subgroups: pain relief increased from 0.4 pre-operatively to 8.4 post-operatively; function rose from 9.3 to 14.3; and range of motion from 14.4 to 29.3. Two of twenty components required revision: one for loosening and the other for head collapse. One prosthesis showed some evidence of osteolysis, and five glenoids showed evidence of further wear. Conclusion: Copeland hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder is effective in providing improved pain relief and function in short-term follow-up. The ability to preserve bone stock for future procedures may be ideal especially for the young, active patient. Complications are similar to those seen in more traditional hemiarthroplasties—loosening, osteolysis, and progressive glenoid wear. The 10% revision rate is slightly higher than reported in most total shoulder and hemiarthroplasty series. Longer follow-up will be essential to make any definitive conclusions

The treatment of proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. The literature is full of articles and commentary supporting one method over another. Options include open reduction and internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Treatment options in an active 65-year-old are exceptionally controversial given the fact that people in this middle-aged group still wished to remain active and athletic in many circumstances. A hemiarthroplasty offers the advantage of a greater range of motion, however, this has a high incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion and this is a very common reason for revision of that hemiarthroplasty for fracture to a reverse shoulder replacement. One recent study showed a 73% incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion in shoulders that had a revised hemiarthroplasty to a reverse shoulder replacement. Progressive glenoid wear and erosion is also a risk after a hemiarthroplasty in the younger patient, especially someone who is young and active. In addition, studies show shorter operative time in hemiarthroplasty. The range of motion is highly dependent on proper tuberosity healing and this is often one of the most challenging aspects of the surgical procedure as well as the healing process. A reverse shoulder replacement in general has less range of motion compared to a hemiarthroplasty with anatomically healed tuberosities, however, the revision rate is lower compared to a hemiarthroplasty. (This is likely related to few were options for revision). The results after a reverse shoulder replacement may not be as dependent on tuberosity healing, however, importantly the tuberosities do need to be repaired and the results are significantly better if there is healing of the greater tuberosity, giving some infraspinatus and/or teres minor function to the shoulder. Complete lack of tuberosity healing forces the shoulder into obligate internal rotation with attempted elevation and this can be functionally disabling. Academic discussion is beginning surrounding the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of glenohumeral joint arthritis in a primary setting as it is believed that the glenosphere and baseplate may have greater longevity than a polyethylene glenoid. Along with this discussion, we will likely see greater application of the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of fracture for younger patients. In general, open reduction internal fixation should still remain the treatment of choice in the setting of a fracture that can be fixed. However, a strong argument can be made that if an arthroplasty is necessary, a reverse shoulder replacement is the implant of choice

INTRODUCTION. Preoperative planning software for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) allows surgeons to virtually perform a reconstruction based off 3D models generated from CT scans of the glenohumeral joint. While anatomical studies have defined the range of normal values for glenoid version and inclination, there is no clear consensus on glenoid component selection and position for RTSA. The purpose of this study was to examine the distribution of chosen glenoid implant as a function of glenoid wear severity, and to evaluate the inter-surgeon variability of optimal glenoid component placement in RTSA. METHODS. CT scans from 45 patients with glenohumeral arthritis were planned by 8 fellowship trained shoulder arthroplasty specialists using a 3D preoperative planning software, planning each case for optimal implant selection and placement. The software provided four glenoid baseplate implant types: a standard non-augmented component, an 8° posterior augment wedged component, a 10° superior augment wedged component, and a combined 8° posterior and 10° superior wedged augment component. The software interface allowed the surgeons to control version, inclination, rotation, depth, anterior-posterior and superior-inferior position of the glenoid components in 1mm and 1° increments, which were recorded and compared for final implant position in each case. RESULTS. Two cases were excluded due to extreme deformity and consensus that a feasible RTSA may not be possible. For resultant implant version, a bimodal distribution was observed with a local maxima occurring at 0°, and a bell-shaped distribution at −5° of version. Upon individual surgeon analysis, it was revealed that certain surgeons had a preference to correct to 0 degrees, whereas others were more accepting of residual version. As well, the surgeons accepting residual retroversion removed less bone on average per implant type than the surgeons who aimed to correct to 0°. For resultant implant inclination, surgeons consistently tried to plan for 0 degrees of inclination. CONCLUSION. This study indicates that while there was limited consensus on the optimal reconstruction in any one case, there appear to be thresholds of retroversion and inclination that favor the use of augmented glenoid components based on frequency of selection. Our results indicate a wide variability in terms of what experienced shoulder surgeons consider to be an optimal reconstruction despite the common goal of attempting to restore anatomy, maximize implant fixation in bone and minimize bone removal. High frequency of augmented glenoid component use raises questions about how much retroversion and inclination is optimal and whether this technology allows surgeons to potentially focus more on a quantitative reconstruction relative to the Friedman axis versus a qualitative implant placement relative to what may be normal anatomy for a patient

The indications for use of a glenoid component are: 1.) sufficient degenerative changes on the glenoid to expose the subchondral bone 2.) the glenoid should have sufficient glenoid bone stock to allow for secure and longterm fixation of the component, and 3.) the rotator cuff should be intact or repairable and the humeral head should be centred within the glenoid component. Other factors that secondarily affect the decision to use a glenoid component, include the patient’s age and activity level, which should be such that they are not likely to result in multiple revisions for glenoid wear or loosening. Given these factors most patients with osteoarthritis, the leading indication for prosthetic replacement for arthritis should undergo a total shoulder replacement. Patients with acute proximal humeral fractures, the overall leading indication for prosthetic arthroplasty, should have a hemiarthroplasty. Patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy or crystalline arthropathy are indicated for hemiarthroplasty due to the massive irreparable cuff tears present in these conditions. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have variable diseases affecting the rotator cuff and variable degrees of bone loss resulting in the need to individualise the indications for the use of a glenoid to the patient’s pathoanatomy. The reason for use of a glenoid component, when indicated, is the fact that pain relief and function is predictably better when compared to hemiarthroplasty for the same indication and pathoanatomy. Proper insertion of a glenoid component requires wide exposure of the glenoid fossa and bone preparation, which for most general orthopaedic surgeons is difficult and not reproducible. This is, in my opinion, the primary reason that hemiarthroplasty or bipolar arthroplasty is used for treatment of many patients with primary osteoarthritis. Both of these procedures result, on average, in a less favourable outcome than non-constrained total shoulder arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis is characterised by flattening and enlargement of the humeral head and is associated with peripheral osteophyte formation. Loss of articular cartilage results in eburnated bone and on the glenoid side posterior bone loss. Capsular contracture results in loss of passive arcs of motion, particularly anteriorly with loss of external rotation. Posterior subluxation of the humeral head can occur, associated with anterior soft tissue contracture and/or posterior glenoid bone loss. The severity of this pathoanatomy is variable among patients with primary osteoarthritis and each of these factors will have a variable effect on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty as well as the indication for hemiarthroplasty versus total shoulder arthroplasty. In a 2–7 year follow-up multicentre study using the DePuy Global Shoulder in 127 patients, those cases with osteoarthritis without humeral head subluxation, severe glenoid bone loss, or rotator cuff tears had the best results, for pain relief and function, with total shoulder arthroplasty. In patients with severe glenoid bone loss total shoulder has improved function when compared to hemiarthroplasty. This finding supports the data of others that demonstrate less favourable results of hemiarthroplasty for treatment of osteoarthritis in cases with eccentric glenoid wear. Patients with humeral head subluxation have less favourable results regardless of the use of a hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty. The presence of a full thickness reparable rotator cuff tear limited to the supraspinatus tendon does not adversely affect outcome or the ability to use a glenoid component. Patients with less than 10° of external rotation achieve statistically less postoperative forward flexion and external rotation than those patients with greater degrees of preoperative external rotation

Background. The current use of a spherical prosthetic humeral head in total shoulder arthroplasty results in an imprecise restoration of the native geometry and improper placement of the center of rotation, maintained in a constant position, in comparison to the native head and regardless of glenoid component conformity. A radially-mismatched spherical head to allow gleno-humeral translation is a trade-off that decreases the contact area on the glenoid component, which may cause glenoid component wear. This finding suggests that the use of a non-spherical head with a more conforming glenoid component may reduce the risk of glenoid component wear by allowing gleno-humeral translation while increasing the contact area. A non-spherical prosthetic head more accurately replicates the head shape, rotational range of motion and gleno-humeral joint kinematics than a spherical prosthetic head, compared with the native humeral head. The combination of inversion of the bearing materials with the non-spherical configuration of the humeral head may thus decrease polyethylene wear. Aim of the present study is to evaluate in vitro wear behaviour of an all-polyethylene elliptical humeral head component against a metallic glenoid component in an anatomic configuration. Material and methods. The prosthetic components tested are from the Mirai. ®. Modular Shoulder System by Permedica S.p.A.. The prosthetic bearing components were tested in their anatomic configuration: the humeral head rubbing against the glenoid inlay, assembled over the glenoid base-plate. The glenoid insert is made of Ti6Al4V alloy coated with TiNbN. The glenoid insert, as the glenoid base-plate have the same shape which reproduce the native shape of the glenoid. Moreover, the glenoid insert has a concave articular surface described by two different radii on orthogonal planes. The vitamin E-blended UHMWPE humeral head is not spherical but elliptic-shaped with an articular surface described by two different profiles in sagittal and coronal plane. The component sizes combination tested have the greatest radial mismatches allowed between humeral head and glenoid insert. The test was performed up to 2.5 million of cycles applying a constant axial load of 756 N. Results. After 2.500.000 cycles the mean mass loss from the humeral head was 0.68 mg. The mean wear rate of the humeral head was 0.28 mg/Mc (SD 0.45 mg/Mc). The surface of the humeral heads showed an elliptical worn area with matt and polished areas with scratching. The surface of the TiNbN-coated glenoid insert counterparts did not show wear signs. Conclusion. The tested prosthetic humeral head has a non-spherical shape with an elliptical base and 2 different radii on sagittal and coronal plane. Also the tested glenoid insert has 2 different radii on sagittal and coronal planes. This components geometry leads to a radial mismatch between head and glenoid on sagittal and coronal planes. A different kinematics, allowing gleno-humeral translation while increasing the contact area, radial mismatch in different planes and the inversion of bearing materials may have a role in reducing component wear and may explain the extremely low wear rate found in the present study

Background. Use of a baseplate with a smaller diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty has been recommended, especially in patients with a small glenoid or insufficient bony stock due to severe glenoid wear. However, effect of a smaller baseplate on stability of the glenoid component has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a smaller baseplate (25 mm) is beneficial to the initial primary stability of the glenoid component compared to that with a baseplate of a commonly used size (29 mm) by finite element analysis. Methods. Computed tomography (CT) scans of fourteen scapulae were acquired from cadavers with no apparent deformity or degenerative change. Glenoid diameter corresponding to the diameter of the inferior circle of glenoid was measured using a caliper and classified into the small and large glenoid groups based on 25mm diameter. CT slices were used to construct 3-dimensional models with Mimics (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). A corresponding 3D Tornier Aequalis® Reversed Shoulder prosthesis model was generated by laser scanning (Rexcan 3D Laser Scanner, Solutionix, Seoul, Korea). Glenoid components with 25mm and 28mm diameter of the baseplate were implanted into the scapular of small and large glenoid group, respectively. Finite element models were constructed using Hypermesh 11.0 (Altair Engineering, Troy, MI, USA) and a reverse engineering program (Rapidform 3D Systems, Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA). Abaqus 6.10 (Dassault Systemes, Waltham, MA) was used to simulate 30. o. , 60. o. , and 90. o. glenohumeral abduction in the scapular plane. Single axial loads of 686N (1 BW) at angles of 30. o. , 60. o. , and 90. o. abduction were applied to the center of the glenosphere parallel to the long axis of the humeral stem. Relative micromotion at the middle and inferior thirds bone–glenoid component interface, and distribution of bone stress under the glenoid component and around the screws were analyzed. Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used for statistical comparison and p < 0.05 was considered as a minimum level of statistical significance. Results. In small glenoid group, micromotion at the middle and inferior thirds of the glenoid-glenosphere interface at angles of 30. o. and 60. o. abduction were significantly greater in the 29mm baseplate than in the 25mm baseplate. There was no significant difference in micromotion at angle of 90. o. abduction between 25mm and 29mm baseplate. In large glenoid group, there was no statistically significant difference in micromotion between 25mm and 29mm baseplate at all angles of abduction. In small glenoid group, maximum bone stress was measured at the point of cortical engagement of the inferior screw and was statistically greater in the 29mm baseplate than in the 25mm baseplate. In large glenoid group, there was no statistically significant difference of maximum bone stress around the inferior screw between 25mm and 29mm baseplates. Conclusions. Use of a baseplate with a smaller diameter (25 mm) in reverse shoulder arthroplasty is suitable for improving the primary stability of the glenoid component, especially in small glenoid

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a well established treatment that provides reproducible results in the treatment of shoulder arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency in the older patient population. However, the results of arthroplasty in younger, more active patients are currently unclear and not as predictable. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the mid-term results of RTSA for patients aged younger than 60 years. A retrospective review of twenty-six patients (twenty six RTSAs) with a mean age of 58.3 years was performed. Minimum follow-up of 5 years was available at a mean follow-up of 73.3 months postoperatively (range, 60–84 months). The preoperative conditions compelling RTSA were as follows: failed rotator cuff repair (17), fracture sequelae (5), failed arthroplasty (1), and cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (3). We assessed range-of-motion and strength, visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant scores. Radiographs were also evaluated for component loosening and scapular notching. All patients were analyzed radiologically and clinically using patient-reported outcome measures. Active forward elevation improved from 56° to 134° and average active external rotation improved from 10.0° to 19.6°. Scores measured with a visual analog pain scale, the Constant score, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scale all improved significantly. The Visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain improved from 7.5 to 3.0 and the ASES score improved from 31.4 to 72.4, respectively. The normalized postoperative mean Constant score was 88.03. No radiograph showed loosening of the implant at follow-up. Complications included one traumatic subscapularis rupture at six weeks, and one case of periprosthetic fracture. The remaining twenty-four patients were satisfied with the outcome at the time of the latest follow-up and had returned to their desired activity. RTSA in younger patients provided significant subjective improvement in self-assessed shoulder comfort and substantial gain in overall function. Implant loosening and glenoid wear did not appear to be concerns in the mid-term despite the high activity levels of younger patients. Longer-term studies are required to determine whether similar results are maintained over time

Contracture of the anterior musculature causes posterior humeral head subluxation and results in a posterior load concentration on the glenoid. This reduced contact area causes glenoid wear, humeral medialisation and eventually posterior instability. After arthroplasty that does not correct for this, posterior wear stress increases in the implant, across the cement mantle and bone thus increasing the risk of aseptic loosening over time. Correction of the posterior wear pattern at the time of arthroplasty of the shoulder is recommended. Asymmetric reaming of the glenoid has been recommended as a means to correct this deformity but leads to producing a smaller glenoid which is medialised. This shortening of the glenoid causes the stabilising muscle envelope to shorten and the glenoid vault to become much smaller in volume. These potential changes may have a destabilising effect on the implant leading to early loosening and secondary failure of the prosthetic implant. Other options include using an implant to make the correction of the deformity such as augmented glenoid components. Early uses of these implants were not successful mainly due to the design flaws of the early implants. Newer implants have made design changes to overcome these early failures. CT scan evaluation is important to determine the degree of correction that is needed to balance the glenohumeral joint. Correcting the deformity and keeping the muscle envelope at the appropriate tension may lead to better long term outcomes. These implants are currently in use but long term outcome studies are not yet available to determine their ultimate values to the patients

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.