Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective studies is to evaluate the real effectiveness, with clinical and radiologic evalutation, of the eccentric glenosphere and also how a correct position can prevent the scapular notching.

Material and Methods: We inplanted in 18 patients, with eccentric arthopaty, a 36 mm eccentric glenoshere.24 months’ clinical and radiographic follow up. All patient were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively with the Constant Score. In the post-operative radiographic control we have taken in consideration: the presence of notching, psna (prosthesis-scapular neck angle), pgrd (peg glenoid distance), glenoid inclination, craniocaudal position of the glenosphere in relation to the glenoid.

Results: The ROM increased in all level. All of the 18 shoulder had no notching. The craniocaudal position of the glenosphere in relation to the glenoid is 4,3 mm. The PSNA was 92° and the PGRD was 21.2.

Conclusion: The inferior scapular notching is the most important complicance of reverse prosthesis. The results of our study indicate that : the correct positioning of the metal back, at the center of the glenoid (better biomechanics stability), without overhang and with eccentric glenosphere, permits to lower the center of rotation of 4 mm avoiding the notch and so increasing the adduction and abduction range of motion.

Outcomes for a RSP to treat either a previous operated shoulder (revision procedure) was compared to a primary RSP.

Twenty primary RSP (6M, 14F) for an irreparable rotator cuff tear (IRCT) with glenohumeral arthritis /anterior superior arch deficiency and 31 revision RSP (10M, 21F) (previous rotator or cuff surgery, hemi or total shoulder arthroplasty) were evaluated at an average of 24 months postoperatively. Mean age at the time of RSP was 72.3 for primaries 67.2 for revisions. Assessment with pre- and postoperatively SF-36, SST, ASES scores, physical exam, satisfaction surveys, and radiographs was performed.

Primary RSP improvements /Revision RSP improvements were: 9.4 sf-36 PCS/ 6.3 sf-36 PCS, 1.8 SST/ 1.6 SST,31.8ASES / 17.5ASES (p< 0.05),49.2 elevation/ 14.2 elevation (p< 0.05) and 57.8 external rotation/ 30 external rotation. 71.3% Excellent/good/. 56% Excellent/ good (p< 0.05), 21.4% satisfactory/ 33.3% satisfactory, 7.1% unsatisfactory outcome/ 9.5% unsatisfactory outcome. Complications only occurred in the revisions including component disassociation, glenoid loosening, recurrent instability, and infection

Primary RSP provides predictable improvements in pain and function with minimal complications. Revision RSP has a higher complication rate and improvements in pain and function are less reliable. Conventional shoulder arthroplasty for patients with IRCT with gle-nohumeral arthritis/anterior superior arch deficiency has resulted in adequate pain relief but functional improvement has not been predictable. Thus, the initial operative selection for these patients must consider the effect of a failed reconstructive attempt on patient outcomes.

Introduction: The treatment of Complex Proximal Humeral Fractures and Fractures associated with Dislocation is not still resolved. Internal Fixation sometimes is not possible due to comminuted and osteoporotic bone which is commonly found in this kind of Fractures. The use of Hemiarthroplasty in this situation, not always achieves a good functional outcome, usually related to a Non Union or Malunion of the Tuberosities. We began using Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty in this Fractures due to good results this implant had had in Glenohumeral Arthritis associated a Rotator Cuff Deficiency. Material and Methods: From January 2004 to December 2008 we have treated 50 patients with Complex Proximal Humeral Fractures with a Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty,38 were women and 12 were men with a mean age of 76 (38–84). The mean follow-up time was 20 months (10–36). We have used a Lima Reversed Arthroplasty in all the cases. The dominant arm were involved in 65 % of the patients. The Deltopectoral approach were used in all the cases. Thirty-five patients (70 %) were treated in less than 30 days after the fracture and 15 (30 %) were treated 30 days or more since the fracture happened. The operations were performed by 6 surgeons, but only 3 of them have performed more than 10 operations. We used the Constant Score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Score to evaluate the outcome of the implant. The preoperative movement were estimated on the mobility score of the contralateral shoulder. Results: The mean Constant and the mean modified Constant Score were 55 (23 to 73) and 70 (34 to 95). The average range of motion was 105 (45–140) for anterior elevation and 100 (35–125) for abduction. The mean modified American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon was 64 (44–82). The average operation time was 105 minutes with a range (60–170). The main clinical complications has been: Three intraoperative Fractures of Glenoid, 2 post operative Glenoid Fractures, 2 Brachial Plexus Paralysis, 2 cases of Cubital Neuroapraxia, 2 Dislocations of the Prosthesis,2 superficial infections and 1 deep infection. Radiography it has been found Scapular Notch in 17 patients (34%), Periprothesic Calcification in 42 (84 %) and migration of the Tuberosities in 22 (44%). Conclusions: We have had better results in acute situations than chronics ones. Most of the complications occurs in the group of patients treated in more than 30 days since the Fracture has happened. The Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty is an alternative to the Hemiarthroplasty, and an important tool which an Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeon has to consider, to resolve this kind of Fractures specially in elderly patients