Aims. Optimal glenoid positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is crucial to provide impingement-free range of motion (ROM). Lateralization and inclination correction are not yet systematically used. Using planning software, we simulated the most used glenoid implant positions. The primary goal was to determine the configuration that delivers the best theoretical impingement-free ROM. Methods. With the use of a 3D planning software (Blueprint) for RSA, 41 shoulders in 41 consecutive patients (17 males and 24 females; means age 73 years (SD 7)) undergoing RSA were planned. For the same anteroposterior positioning and retroversion of the glenoid implant, four different glenoid baseplate configurations were used on each shoulder to compare ROM: 1) no correction of the RSA angle and no lateralization (C-L-); 2) correction of the RSA angle with medialization by inferior reaming (C+M+); 3) correction of the RSA angle without lateralization by superior compensation (C+L-); and 4) correction of the RSA angle and additional lateralization (C+L+). The same humeral inlay implant and positioning were used on the humeral side for the four different glenoid configurations with a 3 mm symmetric 135° inclined polyethylene liner. Results. The configuration with lateralization and correction of the RSA angle (C+L+) led to better ROM in flexion, extension, adduction, and external rotation (p ≤ 0.001). Only internal rotation was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.388). The configuration where correction of the inclination was done by medialization (C+M+) led to the worst ROM in adduction, extension, abduction, flexion, and external rotation of the shoulder. Conclusion. Our software study shows that, when using a 135° inlay reversed humeral implant, correcting glenoid inclination (RSA angle 0°) and lateralizing the glenoid component by using an angled bony or metallic augment of 8 to 10 mm provides optimal impingement-free ROM. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):851–857

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of different treatment options for glenoid loosening following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) at a minimum follow-up of two years. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively studied the records of 79 patients (19 men, 60 women; 84 shoulders) aged 70.4 years (21 to 87) treated for aseptic loosening of the glenosphere following RSA. Clinical evaluation included pre- and post-treatment active anterior elevation (AAE), external rotation, and Constant score. Results. From the original cohort, 29 shoulders (35%) were treated conservatively, 27 shoulders (32%) were revised by revision of the glenosphere, and 28 shoulders (33%) were converted to hemiarthroplasty. At last follow-up, conservative treatment and glenoid revision significantly improved AAE, total Constant score, and pain, while hemiarthroplasty did not improve range of movement or clinical scores. Multivariable analysis confirmed that conservative treatment and glenoid revision achieved similar improvements in pain (glenoid revision vs conservative, beta 0.44; p = 0.834) but that outcomes were significantly worse following hemiarthroplasty (beta -5.00; p = 0.029). Conclusion. When possible, glenoid loosening after RSA should first be treated conservatively, then by glenosphere revision if necessary, and last by salvage hemiarthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:461–469

Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for patients with a proximal humerus fracture, using time-driven activity based costing (TDABC), and to compare treatment costs with reimbursement under the Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs). Methods. TDABC analysis based on the principles outlined by Kaplan and a clinical pathway that has previously been validated for this institution was used. Staffing cost, consumables, implants, and overheads were updated to reflect 2019/2020 costs. This was compared with the HRG reimbursements. Results. The mean cost of a RSA is £7,007.46 (£6,130.67 to £8,824.67). Implants and staffing costs were the primary cost drivers, with implants (£2,824.80) making up 40% of the costs. Staffing costs made up £1,367.78 (19%) of overall costs. The total tariff, accounting for market force factors and high comorbidities, reimburses £4,629. If maximum cost and minimum reimbursement is applied the losses to the trust are £4,828.67. Conclusion. RSA may be an effective and appropriate surgical option in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures; however, a cost analysis at our centre has demonstrated the financial burden of this surgery. Given its increasing use in trauma, there is a need to work towards generating an HRG that adequately reimburses providers. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2020;1-12:731–736

Objectives. To date, no study has considered the impact of acromial morphology on shoulder range of movement (ROM). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effects of lateralization of the centre of rotation (COR) and neck-shaft angle (NSA) on shoulder ROM after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with different scapular morphologies. Methods. 3D computer models were constructed from CT scans of 12 patients with a critical shoulder angle (CSA) of 25°, 30°, 35°, and 40°. For each model, shoulder ROM was evaluated at a NSA of 135° and 145°, and lateralization of 0 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm for seven standardized movements: glenohumeral abduction, adduction, forward flexion, extension, internal rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, as well as external rotation with the arm at 10° and 90° of abduction. Results. CSA did not seem to influence ROM in any of the models, but greater lateralization achieved greater ROM for all movements in all configurations. Internal and external rotation at 90° of abduction were impossible in most configurations, except in models with a CSA of 25°. Conclusion. Postoperative ROM following RSA depends on multiple patient and surgical factors. This study, based on computer simulation, suggests that CSA has no influence on ROM after RSA, while lateralization increases ROM in all configurations. Furthermore, increasing subacromial space is important to grant sufficient rotation at 90° of abduction. In summary, increased lateralization of the COR and increased subacromial space improve ROM in all CSA configurations. Cite this article: A. Lädermann, E. Tay, P. Collin, S. Piotton, C-H Chiu, A. Michelet, C. Charbonnier. Effect of critical shoulder angle, glenoid lateralization, and humeral inclination on range of movement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:378–386. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.88.BJR-2018-0293.R1

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in incidence rate of shoulder arthroplasty, indications, and surgeon volume trends associated with these procedures between January 2003 and April 2021 in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada.

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe a quantitative 3D CT method to measure rotator cuff muscle volume, atrophy, and balance in healthy controls and in three pathological shoulder cohorts.

Objectives

To explore whether orthopaedic surgeons have adopted the Proximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial results routinely into clinical practice.

The February 2015 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Proximal Humerus fractures a comprehensive review, Predicting complications in shoulder ORIF, The Coronoid Revisited, Remplissage and bankart repair for Hill-Sach’s lesions, Diabetes and elbow arthroplasty, Salvage surgery for failed bankart repair, Sternoclavicular Joint Reconstruction, Steroids effective in the short-term for tennis elbow

The October 2013 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Deltoid impairment not necessarily a contra-indication for shoulder arthroplasty; The tricky radiograph; Not so asymptomatic cuff tears; Total shoulder arthroplasty: kinder on the glenoid; Barbotage for calcific tendonitis; What happens to the arthritic glenoid?; Two screws a screw too few?; Sloppy hinge best for elbow arthroplasty.