Introduction

Osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint leads to global degeneration of the shoulder and often results in humeral or glenoid osteophytes. It is established that the axillary neurovascular bundle is in close proximity to the glenohumeral capsule. Similar to other compressive neuropathies, osteophytic impingement of the axillary nerve could result in axillary nerve symptoms. The purpose of this study was to compare the proximity of the axillary neurovascular bundle to the inferior humerus in shoulders to determine distance of the neurovascular bundle as the osteophyte (goat's beard) of glenohumeral osteoarthritis develops.

Purpose of the study: Posterior glenoid erosio is a common finging in patients with degenerative joint disease of the shoulder. Anterior release is usually recommended, almost always with correction of the glenoid retroversion. There is no real consensus on the gravity of these posterior lesions nor on the appropriate attitude. The purpose of this study was to define the limitations of asymmetrical reaming during correction of excessive glenoid retroversion during total shoulder arthroplasty.

Material and methods: Five fresh cadaver shoulders were used. The size of the glenoid cavity and the humeral head were measured to select the optimal size for the glenoid implant. The scapula was embedded in resin. Posterior glenoid erosion was created by reaming to simulate wear producing retroversion greater than 15°. A control computed tomography (CT) was obtained to verify the lesion. The glenoid cavity was then prepared in the same manner as for prosthesis implantation, restoring neutral version to enable implantation of the prosthetic component of the size initially determined. A second CT was obtained to confirm the correction of the retroversion.

Results: The retroversion was corrected in all cases. At least one point of the implant penetrated the glenoid wall in all cases. In three cases, four points were outside the wall. In one case, reaming caused a fracture of the anterior glenoid rim. Finally, in one case, the size of the implant had to be reduced to avoid an oversized implant.

Discussion: The limitations for asymmetrical reaming to correct for posterior wear yet leave enough bone stock for implantation of a glenoid prosthesis are not defined. This study shows that asymmetrical reaming of the anterior rim of the glenoid cavity cannot satisfactorily correct for glenoid retroverson greater than 15° because of the frailness of the anterior wall and the risk the points will penetrate the rim. These complications compromise the primary stablity of the prosthesis and probably secondary short-term and mid-term stability.

Conclusion: If the glenoid retroversion is excessive (> 15°), it would be advisable to graft the posterior defect.