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

Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey.

Patients receiving reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) often have osseous erosions because of glenohumeral arthritis, leading to increased surgical complexity. Glenoid implant fixation is a primary predictor of the success of RTSA and affects micromotion at the bone-implant interface. Augmented implants which incorporate specific geometry to address superior erosion are currently available, but the clinical outcomes of these implants are still considered short-term. The objective of this study was to investigate micromotion at the glenoid-baseplate interface for a standard, 3 mm and 6 mm lateralized baseplates, half-wedge, and full-wedge baseplates. It was hypothesized that the mechanism of load distribution from the baseplate to the glenoid will differ between implants, and these varying mechanisms will affect overall baseplate micromotion. Clinical CT scans of seven shoulders (mean age 69 years, 10°-19° glenoid inclinations) that were classified as having E2-type glenoid erosions were used to generate 3D scapula models using MIMICS image processing software (Materialise, Belgium) with a 0.75 mm mesh size. Each scapula was then repeatedly virtually reconstructed with the five implant types (standard,3mm,6mm lateralized, and half/full wedge; Fig.1) positioned in neutral version and inclination with full backside contact. The reconstructed scapulae were then imported into ABAQUS (SIMULIA, U.S.) finite element software and loads were applied simulating 15°,30°,45°,60°,75°, and 90° of abduction based on published instrumented in-vivo implant data. The micromotion normal and tangential to the bone surface, and effective load transfer area were recorded for each implant and abduction angle. A repeated measures ANOVA was used to perform statistical analysis. Maximum normal micromotion was found to be significantly less when using the standard baseplate (5±4 μm), as opposed to the full-wedge (16±7 μm, p=0.004), 3 mm lateralized (10±6 μm, p=0.017), and 6 mm lateralized (16±8 μm, p=0.007) baseplates (Fig.2). The half-wedge baseplate (11±7 μm) also produced significantly less micromotion than the full-wedge (p=0.003), and the 3 mm lateralized produced less micromotion than the full wedge (p=0.026) and 6 mm lateralized (p=0.003). Similarly, maximum tangential micromotion was found to be significantly less when using the standard baseplate (7±4 μm), as opposed to the half-wedge (12±5 μm, p=0.014), 3 mm lateralized (10±5 μm, p=0.003), and 6 mm lateralized (13±6 μm, p=0.003) baseplates (Fig.2). The full wedge (11±3 μm), half-wedge, and 3 mm lateralized baseplate also produced significantly less micromotion than the 6 mm lateralized (p=0.027, p=012, p=0.02, respectively). Both normal and tangential micromotion were highest at the 30° and 45° abduction angles (Fig.2). The effective load transfer area (ELTA) was lowest for the full wedge, followed by the half wedge, 6mm, 3mm, and standard baseplates (Fig.3) and increased with abduction angle. Glenoid baseplates with reduced lateralization and flat backside geometries resulted in the best outcomes with regards to normal and tangential micromotion. However, these types of implants are not always feasible due to the required amount of bone removal, and medialization of the bone-implant interface. Future work should study the acceptable levels of bone removal for patients with E-type glenoid erosion and the corresponding best implant selections for such cases. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Aims

To report early (two-year) postoperative findings from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating disease-specific quality of life (QOL), clinical, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a second-generation uncemented trabecular metal (TM) glenoid versus a cemented polyethylene glenoid (POLY) component.

Aims. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) using trabecular metal (TM)-backed glenoid implants has been introduced with the aim to increase implant survival. Only short-term reports on the outcomes of TM-RTSA have been published to date. We aim to present the seven-year survival of TM-backed glenoid implants along with minimum five-year clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods. All consecutive elective RTSAs performed at a single centre between November 2008 and October 2014 were reviewed. Patients who had primary TM-RTSA for rotator cuff arthropathy and osteoarthritis with deficient cuff were included. A total of 190 shoulders in 168 patients (41 male, 127 female) were identified for inclusion at a mean of 7.27 years (SD 1.4) from surgery. The primary outcome was survival of the implant with all-cause revision and aseptic glenoid loosening as endpoints. Secondary outcomes were clinical, radiological, and patient-related outcomes with a five-year minimum follow-up. Results. The implant was revised in ten shoulders (5.2%) with a median time to revision of 21.2 months (interquartile range (IQR) 9.9 to 41.8). The Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimate at seven years was 95.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 91.7 to 98; 35 RTSAs at risk) for aseptic mechanical failure of the glenoid and 94.8% (95% CI 77.5 to 96.3; 35 RTSAs at risk) for all-cause revision. Minimum five-year clinical and radiological outcomes were available for 103 and 98 RTSAs respectively with a median follow-up time of six years (IQR 5.2 to 7.0). Median postoperative Oxford Shoulder Score was 38 (IQR 31 to 45); median Constant and Murley score was 60 (IQR 47.5 to 70); median forward flexion 115° (IQR 100° to 125°); median abduction 95° (IQR 80° to 120°); and external rotation 25° (IQR 15° to 40°) Scapular notching was seen in 62 RTSAs (63.2%). Conclusion. We present the largest and longest-term series of TM-backed glenoid implants demonstrating 94.8% all-cause survivorship at seven years. Specifically pertaining to glenoid loosening, survival of the implant increased to 95.9%. In addition, we report satisfactory minimum five-year clinical and radiological outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1333–1338

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.

Aims

The Mathys Affinis Short is the most frequently used stemless total shoulder prosthesis in the UK. The purpose of this prospective cohort study is to report the survivorship, clinical, and radiological outcomes of the first independent series of the Affinis Short prosthesis.

Glenoid failure remains the most common mode of total shoulder arthroplasty failures. Porous tantalum metal (Trabecular Metal™, Zimmer) have grown in popularity in hip and knee arthroplasty. First-generation porous tantalum metal-backed glenoid components demonstrated metal debris, resulted in failure, and were revised to second-generation glenoid implants. Evidence for second-generation porous tantalum metal implants in shoulder arthroplasty is sparse.1–4 The purpose of this study was to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes in a series of patients with second-generation porous tantalum glenoid components at a minimum two-years postoperative. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who received a second-generation porous tantalum glenoid component anatomic shoulder arthroplasty between May 2009 and December 2017 with minimum 24 months follow-up. The shoulder arthroplasties were performed by one of two senior fellowship-trained surgeons. We collected postoperative clinical outcome indicators: EQ5D visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, and Constant Score (CS). Radiographic review was performed by an independent fellowship-trained surgeon. The Endrizzi metal debris grading system1 was utilized to grade metal debris. We computed descriptive statistics and compared outcome scores between groups via the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test, with group-wise comparisons defined by: metal debris and humeral head migration (secondary analyses). Thirty-five patients [23 male (65.7%) and 12 female (34.3%)] with 40 shoulder replacements participated in the study. Forty of 61 shoulders (65.6%) had an average of 64 ± 20.3 months follow-up (range 31 to 95). Average BMI was 27.5 ± 4.4 kg/m2 (range 19.5 to 39.1). The average postoperative EQ5D VAS at final follow-up was 74.6 ± 22.5, WOOS Index 87.9 ± 16.6, ASES Score 88.3 ± 10.9, and CS 80.4 ± 13. At final follow-up, 18 of 40 shoulders (45%) had metal debris [15 of 40 (37.5%) Endrizzi grade 1 and three of 40 (7.5%) Endrizzi grade 2], and 22 of 40 shoulders (55%) did not show evidence of metal debris. There was one non-revision reoperation (open subscapularis exploration), one shoulder with anterosuperior escape, three shoulders with glenoid radiolucencies indicative of possible glenoid loosening, and nine shoulders with superior migration of the humeral head (>2mm migration at final follow-up compared to immediate postoperative). When comparing postoperative scores between patients with vs without metal debris, we found no statistically significant difference in the EQ5D VAS, WOOS Index, ASES Score and CS. On further analyses, when comparing superior migration of the humeral head and postoperative outcomes scores, we found no statistically significant difference. We report the longest published follow-up with clinical and radiographic outcomes of second-generation porous tantalum glenoid anatomic shoulder arthroplasties. In this series of patients, 45% of total shoulder arthroplasties with a second-generation porous tantalum glenoid implant had radiographic evidence of metal debris. This metal debris was not statistically associated with poorer postoperative outcomes. Further investigation and ongoing follow-up are warranted

INTRODUCTION. 3D preoperative planning software for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA and RTSA) provides additional insight for surgeons regarding implant selection and placement. Interestingly, the advent of such software has brought previously unconsidered questions to light on the optimal way to plan a case. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current glenoid implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place a glenoid implant for both ATSA and RTSA procedures. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into three cohorts based on their responses to usage of 3D preoperative planning software: high users, seldom users, and non-users. Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 76 surgeons were grouped into the high user cohort, 66 into the seldom user cohort, and 30 into the non-user cohort. 61.9% of high users and 74.1% of seldom users performed >75 shoulder arthroplasties per year, whereas only 19.9% of non-users performed >75 arthroplasties per year (Figure 1). When questioned on glenoid implant type selection (augmented vs. non-augmented components), 80.3% of high users reported augment usage for both ATSA and RTSA, with using augments >45% of the time in 18.4% of ATSA cases and in 22.3% of RTSA cases. For seldom users, 80.3% reported augment usage in ATSA cases, and 70.3% in RTSA cases. Seldom users reported augment usage >45% of the time in 4.5% of ATSA cases and in 1.6% of RTSA cases. For non-preoperative planning users, 53.3% reported using augments in ATSA cases, and 48.3% for RTSA cases. Non-users used augmented glenoid components >45% of the time in 6.6% of ATSA cases and in 6.8% of RTSA cases. For resultant implant superior inclination in RTSA, 40.8% of high users aim for 0° of inclination, followed by 31.8% for seldom users and 16.7% of non-users (Figure 2). CONCLUSION. The results of this study show that 3D preoperative planning software has an influence on the decision making process when planning a shoulder arthroplasty. High volume shoulder arthroplasty surgeons report higher preoperative planning software usage than low volume surgeons, suggesting the utility of such software. Augmented glenoid component usage for both ATSA and RTSA is also higher for surgeons that use preoperative planning software, which either suggests the utility of augmented glenoid components, or that the use of such software creates the perceived need for augmented glenoid components. Lastly, surgeons who preoperatively plan tend to orient their glenoid components differently, which could suggest either a better understanding of the anatomy through the use of the software, or an influence on mindset regarding implant orientation resulting from software usage. This highlights an area for future work that could correlate clinical outcome data to implant selection and placement to prove what is the optimal plan for a given patient. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

INTRODUCTION. The advent of CT based 3D preoperative planning software for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) provides surgeons with more data than ever before to prepare for a case. Interestingly, as the usage of such software has increased, further questions have appeared over the optimal way to plan and place a glenoid implant for RTSA. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current RTSA implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place a RTSA glenoid implant. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into two cohorts based on number of arthroplasties performed per year: between 0–75 was considered low volume (LV), and between 75–200+ was considered high volume (HV). Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 70 surgeons were grouped into the LV cohort, and 102 surgeons were grouped into the HV cohort. 46.1% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported using a preoperative planning software for the majority of cases, 48% reported seldom use, and 5.9% reported no use. In the LV cohort, 41.4% reported use for the majority of cases, 24.3% reported seldom use, and 34.3% reported no use (Figure 1). When questioned on what percentage of RTSA cases do surgeons use augmented glenoid implants, 26.7% in the HV cohort responded never using augments vs. 32.4% in the LV cohort, 32.7% responded using augments <15% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 30.9% in the LV cohort, 26.7% responded using augments between 15–45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 27.9% in the LV cohort, and 13.8% responded using augments >45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 8.8% in the LV cohort (Figure 2). When asked what the maximum allowable superior inclination for a RTSA glenoid implant is, surgeons answered 10° 20.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 30% in the LV cohort, 5° 18.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 25.7% in the LV cohort, 0° 38.2% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 25.7% in the LV cohort, and no fixed degree 22.5% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 18.6% in the LV cohort (Figure 3). CONCLUSION. The results of this study show that even within a group of highly trained surgeons, there are widely varying opinions on how to plan the optimal RTSA case. Variation between high and low volume surgeons reveals even greater differences, suggesting that experience affects thought pattern. Despite these differences, there is no way to prove the optimal implant selection and placement without consistent data collection and long-term clinical outcomes. Machine learning on large preoperative planning databases combined with clinical outcomes data may provide further clarity on optimal implant placement and selection. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

INTRODUCTION. 3D preoperative planning software for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) provides surgeons with increased ability to visualize complex joint relationships and deformities. Interestingly, the advent of such software has seemed to create less of a consensus on the optimal way to plan an ATSA rather than more. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current ATSA implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place an ATSA glenoid implant. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into two cohorts based on number of arthroplasties performed per year: between 0–75 was considered low volume (LV), and between 75–200+ was considered high volume (HV). Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 70 surgeons were grouped into the LV cohort, and 102 surgeons were grouped into the HV cohort. 46.1% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported using a preoperative planning software for the majority of cases vs. 41.4% in the LV cohort, 48% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported seldom use vs. 24.3% in the LV cohort, and 5.9% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported no use vs. 34.3% in the LV cohort (Figure 1). When questioned on what percentage of ATSA cases do surgeons use augmented glenoid implants, 20.6% in the HV cohort responded never using augments vs. 30% in the LV cohort, 39.2% responded using augments <15% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 34.3% in the LV cohort, 26.5% responded using augments between 15–45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 28.6% in the LV cohort, and 13.7% responded using augments >45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 7.2% in the LV cohort (Figure 2). When asked what the maximum allowable residual retroversion for an ATSA glenoid implant is, surgeons answered 0–5° 6.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 4.3% in the LV cohort, 6–9° 35.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 50% in the LV cohort, 10–12° 34.7% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 32.9% in the LV cohort, 13–15° 10.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 8.6% in the LV cohort, and lastly >16° 11.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 4.3% in the LV cohort (Figure 3). CONCLUSION. Research suggests ATSA glenoid implants may be less forgiving of malalignment than reverse shoulder glenoid implants, but the contrasting survey results in this study reveal that a consensus in optimal placement has yet to be reached. Interestingly, even though HV use more augmented glenoid components than LV surgeons, HV surgeons are more accepting of residual glenoid component retroversion than LV surgeons. Despite these differences, there is no way to prove the optimal implant selection and placement without long-term clinical outcomes. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Aims

Accurate measurement of the glenoid version is important in performing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Our aim was to evaluate the Ellipse method, which involves formally defining the vertical mid-point of the glenoid prior to measuring the glenoid version and comparing it with the ‘classic’ Friedman method.

Introduction. The degree of glenoid bone loss associated with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis can influence the type of glenoid implant selected and its placement in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The literature has demonstrated inaccurate glenoid component placement when using standard instruments and two-dimensional (2D) imaging without templating, particularly as the degree of glenoid deformity or bone loss worsens. Published results have demonstrated improved accuracy of implant placement when using three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) imaging with implant templating and patient specific instrumentation (PSI). Accurate placement of the glenoid component in TSA is expected to decrease component malposition and better correct pathologic deformity in order to decrease the risk of component loosening and failure over time. Different types of PSI have been described. Some PSI use 3D printed single use disposable instrumentation, while others use adjustable and reusable-patient specific instrumentation (R-PSI). However, no studies have directly compared the accuracy of different types of PSI in shoulder arthroplasty. We combined our clinical experience and compare the accuracy of glenoid implant placement with five different types of instrumentation when using 3D CT imaging, preoperative planning and implant templating in a series of 173 patients undergoing primary TSA. Our hypothesis was that all PSI technologies would demonstrate equivalent accuracy of implant placement and that PSI would show the most benefit with more severe glenoid deformity. Discussion and Conclusions. We demonstrated no consistent differences in accuracy of 3D CT preoperative planning and templating with any type of PSI used. In Groups 1 and 2, standard instrumentation was used in a patient specific manner defined by the software and in Groups 3, 4, and 5 a patient specific instrument was used. In all groups, the two surgeons were very experienced with use of the 3D CT preoperative planning and templating software and all of the instrumentation prior to starting this study, as well as very experienced with shoulder arthroplasty. This is a strength of the study when defining the efficacy of the technology, but limits the generalizability of the findings when considering the effectiveness of the technology with surgeons that may not have as much experience with shoulder arthroplasty and/or the PSI technology. Conversely, it could be postulated that greater improvements in accuracy may be seen with the studied PSI technology, when compared to no 3D planning or PSI, with less experienced surgeons. There could also be differences between the PSI technologies when used by less experienced surgeons, either across all cases or based upon the severity of pathology. When the surgeon is part of the method, the effectiveness of the technology is equally dependent upon the surgeon using the technology. A broader study using different surgeons is required to test the effectiveness of this technology. Comparing the results of this study with published results in the literature, 3D CT imaging and implant templating with use of PSI results in more accurate placement of the glenoid implant when compared to 2D CT imaging without templating and use of standard instrumentation. In previous studies, this was most evident in patients with more severe bone deformity. We believe that 3D CT planning and templating provides the most value in defining the glenoid pathology, as well as in the selection of the optimal implant and its placement. However, it should be the judgment of the surgeon, based upon their experience, to select the instrumentation to best achieve the desired result

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

In an effort to address the relatively high rate of glenoid component lucent lines, loosening and failure, tantalum/trabecular metal glenoid implant fixation has evolved as it has in hip and knee arthroplasty. Trabecular metal-anchored glenoid implants used in a consecutive patient case series have demonstrated a lower failure rate than traditional all polyethylene cemented glenoids. Although the radiographs of some patients demonstrated small focal areas of lucency, none have become loose, and only two have actually demonstrated glenoid component failure due to a fracture 6 years after the index procedure. One with glenoid loosening was due to polyethylene wear from a massive cuff tear occurring 8 years after the index procedure. Most patients experienced significant improvements in shoulder range of motion and reduction in pain. Trabecular metal-anchored glenoids when carefully implanted do not produce excessive failure rates, but rather result in functional improvements while decreasing operative time

INTRODUCTION. Variability in placement of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) glenoid implants has led to the increased use of 3D CT preoperative planning software. Computer assisted surgery (CAS) offers the potential of improved accuracy in TSA while following a preoperative plan, as well as the flexibility for intraoperative adjustment during the procedure. This study compares the accuracy of implantation of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) glenoid implants using a CAS TSA system verses traditional non-navigated techniques in 30 cadaveric shoulders relative to a preoperative plan from 3D CT software. METHODS. High resolution 1mm slice thickness CT scans were obtained on 30 cadaveric shoulders from 15 matched pair specimens. Each scan was segmented and the digital models were incorporated into a preoperative planning software. Five fellowship trained orthopedic shoulder specialists used this software to virtually place a rTSA glenoid implant as they deemed best fit in six cadavers each. The specimens were randomized with respect to side and split into a cohort utilizing the CAS system and a cohort utilizing conventional instrumentation, for a total of three shoulders per cohort per surgeon. A BaSO. 4. PEEK surrogate implant identical in geometry to the metal implant used in the preoperative plan was used in every specimen, to maintain high CT resolution while minimizing CT artifact. The surgeons were instructed to implant the rTSA implants as close to their preoperative plans as possible for both cohorts. In the CAS cohort, each surgeon used the system to register the native cadaveric bones to each respective CT, perform the TSA procedure, and implant the surrogate rTSA implant. The surgeons then performed the TSA procedure on the opposing side of the matched pair using conventional instrumentation. Postoperatively, CT scans were repeated on each specimen and segmented to extract the digital models. The pre- and postoperative scapulae models were aligned using a best fit match algorithm, and variance between the virtual planned position of the implant and the executed surgical position of the implant was calculated [Fig 1]. RESULTS. For version and inclination, implants in the CAS cohort showed significantly less deviation from preoperative plan than those in the non-navigated cohort (Version: 1.9 ± 1.9° vs 5.9 ± 3.5°; p < .001; Inclination: 2.4 ± 2.5° vs 6.3 ± 6.2°; p = .031). No significant difference was noted between the two cohorts regarding deviation from the preoperative plan in anterior-posterior and superior-inferior positioning on the glenoid face (1.5 ± 1.0mm CAS cohort, 2.4 ± 1.3mm non- navigated cohort; p = .055). No significant difference was found for deviation from preoperative plan for reaming depth (1.1. ± 0.7mm CAS cohort, 1.3 ± 0.9mm non-navigated cohort; p =.397). CONCLUSION. The results of this study demonstrate that this CAS navigation system facilitates a surgeon's ability to more accurately reproduce their intended glenoid implant version and inclination (with respect to their preoperative plan), compared to conventional non-navigated techniques. Future work will determine if more accurate and precise implant placement is associated with improved clinical outcomes. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

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

Background. Medical advances and an ageing population mean that more people than ever rely on artificial joints. In the past years, shoulder joint replacement has developed rapidly and the numbers of shoulder prostheses implanted increased dramatically. Wear is one of the main contributors to the failure of shoulder implants. It is therefore important to measure the wear properties of the articulating surfaces within the joint in vitro. Investigation of wear characteristics through a comprehensive range of motion using a sophisticated shoulder simulator would reveal the durability of the material, the performance of component design and the safety analyses of prostheses. The purpose of the work was to develop and validate a multi-station shoulder simulator, which could accurately simulate physiological gleno-humeral forces and displacements during activities of daily living. Materials and Methods. Imperial shoulder simulator was designed with six articulating stations and one loaded soak control station for anatomical shoulder system wear simulation. It gives an adduction-abduction (AA) range of-15° to 55°, flexion-extension (FE) range of −90° to 90° and internal external rotation (IER) range of 15° to −90°. The rotations are applied simultaneously to the humeral implants by using stepper motors with integral position encoders. Axial and shear loadings to each glenoid implant were applied using pneumatic cylinders. Force controlled translations were recorded using load cells and LVDTs, and a data acquisition system. Pneumatic cylinders were also installed to work to counterbalance weights during the motion of adduction-abduction. All bearing pairs are within isolated and sealed test chambers to prevent loss of fluid through evaporation, and cross contamination of third body wear (as recommended in F1714-96). The simulator is controlled by LabVIEW program allowing to reproduce shoulder activities of daily living. Results. A commissioning trial was conducted when shoulder implants were subject to rotational and translational motions and loading to replicate the ‘combing’ activity of daily living. The motion ranges were typically 5° to 15° in AA, 15° to 80° in FE, and −30° to −20° in IER with applied loads from 60 to 440 N, principally along the medio-lateral direction. The waveform was at frequency of 1 Hz. The activity was loaded at 250,000 cycles around 3 full days, when test and control specimens should be cleaned, measured and then re-installed into the simulator. The results from kinematic and kinetic inputs and outputs were obtained from the trial study. Discussion. A multi-station shoulder simulator was successfully developed, which is capable of reproducing typical activities of daily living by applying physiological patterns of motion and load. The performance of the simulator was validated in the commissioning trial, which leads to evaluation of novel implant designs

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