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

Osteochondral glenoid loss is associated with recurrent shoulder instability. The critical threshold for surgical stabilization is multidimensional and conclusively unknown. The aim of this work was to provide a well- measurable surrogate parameter of an unstable shoulder joint for the frequent anterior-inferior dislocation direction. The shoulder stability ratio (SSR) of 10 paired human cadaveric glenoids was determined in anterior-inferior dislocation direction. Osteochondral defects were simulated by gradually removing osteochondral structures in 5%-stages up to 20% of the intact diameter. The glenoid morphological parameters glenoid depth, concavity gradient, and defect radius were measured at each stage by means of optical motion tracking. Based on these parameters, the osteochondral stability ratio (OSSR) was calculated. Correlation analyses between SSR and all morphological parameters, as well as OSSR were performed. The loss of SSR, concavity gradient, depth and OSSR with increasing defect size was significant (all p<0.001). The loss of SSR strongly correlated with the losses of concavity gradient (PCC = 0.918), of depth (PCC = 0.899), and of OSSR (PCC = 0.949). In contrast, the percentage loss based on intact diameter (defect size) correlated weaker with SSR (PCC=0.687). Small osteochondral defects (≤10%) led to significantly higher SSR decrease in small glenoids (diameter <25mm) compared to large (≥ 25mm) ones (p ≤ 0.009). From a biomechanical perspective, the losses of concavity gradient, glenoid depth and OSSR correlate strong with the loss of SSR. Therefore, especially the loss of glenoidal depth may be considered as a valid and reliable alternative parameter to describe shoulder instability. Furthermore, smaller glenoids are more vulnerable to become unstable in case of small osteochondral loosening. On the other hand, the standardly used percentage defect size based on intact diameter correlates weaker with the magnitude of instability and may therefore not be a valid parameter for judgement of shoulder instability

Glenohumeral joint injuries frequently result in shoulder instability. However, the biomechanical effect of cartilage loss on shoulder stability remains unknown. The aim of the current study was to investigate biomechanically the effect of two severity stages of cartilage loss in different dislocation directions on shoulder stability. Joint dislocation was provoked for 11 human cadaveric glenoids in seven different dislocation directions between 3 o'clock (anterior) to 9 o'clock (posterior) dislocation. Shoulder stability ratio (SSR) and concavity gradient were assessed in intact condition, and after 3 mm and 6 mm simulated cartilage loss. The influence of cartilage loss on SSR and concavity gradient was statistically evaluated. Between intact state and 6 mm cartilage loss, both SSR and concavity gradient decreased significantly in every dislocation direction (p≤0.038), except the concavity gradient in 4 o'clock dislocation direction (p=0.088). Thereby, anterior-inferior dislocation directions were associated with the highest loss of SSR and concavity gradient of up to 59.0% and 49.4%, respectively, being significantly higher for SSR compared to all other dislocation directions (p≤0.04). The correlations between concavity gradient and SSR for pooled dislocation directions were significant for all three conditions of cartilage loss (p<0.001). From a biomechanical perspective, articular cartilage of the glenoid contributes significantly to the concavity gradient, correlating strongly with the associated loss in glenohumeral joint stability. The highest effect of cartilage loss was observed in anterior-inferior dislocation directions, suggesting that surgical intervention should be considered for recurrent shoulder dislocations in the presence of cartilage loss

Aims: Although the glenohumeral joint is the most mobile articulation of the human body it is known to exhibit ball-and-socket-kinematics. Compression into the glenoid concavity keeps the humeral head centered. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of joint position on glenohumeral stability through concavity-compression. Methods: Ten cadaver shoulders were tested. The glenoid was mounted horizontally onto a six-component load cell while the humerus was clamped to a vertically unconstrained slide. An x-y-stage translated the load cell with the glenoid underneath the humeral head in eight different directions. Compressive loads of twenty, forty and sixty Newtons were applied. The tests were repeated in 0, 30, 60 and 90 degrees of glenohumeral abduction with and without labrum. Translation distances and the forces resisting translation were recorded and the stability ratio calculated. Results: The average stability ratio was higher in hanging arm position than in glenohumeral abduction. With intact labrum the highest stability ratio was detected in inferior direction (59.8±7.7 percent), without labrum in superior direction (53.3±7.9 percent). In both conditions the anterior direction showed the lowest stability ratio (32.0±4.4 percent; 30.4±4.1 percent). Resection of the labrum resulted in a decrease in stability ratio of 9.6 ±1.7 percent. With increasing compressive load the stability ratio slightly decreased. Conclusions: Anterior shoulder dislocation may be facilitated by the lower stability in glenohumeral abduction and anterior direction. The labrum may not contribute as much as previously assumed to glenohumeral stability. Even moderate compressive forces are sufficient to provide stability through concavity-compression

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.

Introduction: The geometry of uncemented press-fit ace-tabular cups is important in achieving primary stability to ensure bony ingrowth. This study compares the in vitro primary stability of two widely used designs. Methods: The primary stability of two uncemented ace-tabular cup designs (true hemispheric and peripherally enhanced) with the same 52mm diameter and produced by the same manufacturer, was tested in vitro. Polyethylene blocks of low and high density -representing softer and harder bone- were reamed using the manufacturers’ reamers. The cups were seated using an Instron 5800R machine. Peak failure loads and moments during uniaxial pull-out and tangential lever-out tests were used as measures of primary stability. Eighty tests were performed. Results: Low density substrate: no difference between the two designs for seating force or stability, with the substrate under-reamed by 2mm. High density substrate: the cups could not be adequately seated with a 2mm under-ream. Seating was achieved with 1mm under-ream for the hemispheric and 1mm over-ream for the peripherally enhanced design. There was a statistically significant difference in seating forces, with the hemispheric cup requiring less force (6264±1535N vs 7858±2383N, p< 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the stability ratio of pull-out force to seating force, favouring the hemispheric cup. Discussion: No difference was seen in the low density substrate between the 2 cups. In the high density, the hemispheric design had better characteristics (lower seating force and higher pull-out force to seating force ratio) than the peripherally enhanced design, which are more favourable in clinical settings

Purpose: Changes in the lever arm of the abductors is not always perfectly controlled during implantation of total hip arthroplasties. Its possible effect on the development of prothesis dislocation is not known. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of the lever arm and its modifications on the development of prosthetic instability. Material and methods: We analysed prospectively 73 total hip arthroplasties implanted via the posterolateral approach. The study group was composed of a consecutive series of 45 dislocated prostheses and a control group of 28 stable prostheses selected at random. The following measurements were made on the anteroposterior x-ray: 1) lever arm of the abductors, 2) femoral offset. These measures were compared with the healthy contralateral hip and when this hip was diseased or had a prosthesis, with the pre-implantation x-rays. Results: None of the studied parameters was statistically different between the dislocated and stable prostheses. However, in the dislocated prostheses, the lever arm of the abductors before insertion of the prosthesis was shorter than in the control group (p = 0.04) suggesting the presence of a group of hips “at risk”. There was a correlation between the offset values and the lever arm values for the stable prostheses and for the healthy contralateral hips in both groups. Conversely, this balance was not found in the dislocated hips. The lever arm/offset ratio was calculated to determine if the ideal ratio influenced hip stability. This ratio was not directly related to the development of dislocation, but it was decreased for dislocated hips. This ratio was ideal for 75% of the stable prostheses and for only 53% of the dislocated prostheses. Conclusions: We concluded that: 1) hips “at risk” of dislocation would have a shorter lever arm, 2) the lever arm or the femoral offset do not have a direct effect on dislocation, and 3) stable hip prostheses have a balance similar to that in healthy hips identified by a correlation between the lever arm and the femoral offset. We thus emphasise the importance of respecting these parameters although they are probably not the only factors influencing prosthesis stability. Allowable variations are small, demanding careful and precise operation planning