Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has a proven track record as an effective treatment for a variety of rotator cuff deficient conditions. However, glenoid erosion associated with the arthritic component of these conditions can present a challenge for the shoulder arthroplasty surgeon. Options for treatment of glenoid wear include partial reaming with incomplete baseplate seating, bony augmentation using structural or impaction grafting techniques, and augmented baseplates. Augmented components have the advantage of accommodating glenoid deformity with a durable material and also ream less subchondral bone; both of which may offer an advantage over traditional bone grafting. Biomechanical and early clinical studies of augmented glenoid baseplates suggest they are a reasonable treatment option, though posteriorly augmented baseplates have shown better performance than superiorly augmented implants. However, there are no mid- or late-term studies comparing augmented baseplates to bone grafting or partial reaming. We present a live surgical demonstration of RTSA for a patient with advanced glenoid erosion being treated with an augmented glenoid baseplate that can be dialed in the direction of any deformity (superior, posterior, etc.). This versatility allows the surgeon to place the augment in any direction and is not confined to the traditional concepts of glenoid wear in a single vector. Clearly, longer term follow up studies are needed to determine the ultimate effectiveness of these devices in treating glenoid deformity in RTSA

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

Background. Virtual planning of shoulder arthroplasty has gained recent popularity. Combined with patients specific instrumentation, several systems have been developed that allow the surgeon to accurately appreciate and correct glenoid deformities in version and inclination. While each virtual software platform utilizes a consistent algorithm for calculating these measurements, it is imperative for the surgeon to recognize any differences that may exist amongst software platforms and characterize any variability. Methods. A case-control study of all CT scans of patients previously pre-operatively planned using MatchPoint SurgiCase® software were uploaded into the BluePrint software. The cohort represents surgical planning for total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty with varying degrees of glenoid deformity. Glenoid version and inclination will be recorded for each CT scan using both software platforms. Results. A total of 38 patient CT scans previously planned using MatchPoint Surgicase® software were uploaded into the BluePrint software. The mean difference for glenoid version between the two software programs was 2.497° (±1.724°) with no significant differences in measured glenoid version readings between BluePrint and SurgiCase software (p=0.8127). No significant differences were seen in the measured glenoid inclination between the two software programs (p=0.733), with a mean difference for glenoid inclination between the two software programs at 5.150° ± 3.733° (figure 1). A Bland-Altman plot determined the 95% limits of agreement between the two programs at −5.879 to 6.116 degrees of glenoid version and −12.05 to 12.75 degrees of glenoid inclination. There was a significant statistical agreement between the two software programs measuring glenoid version and inclination in relation to glenoid wear position for the centered (p=0.004), posterior (p<0.001, p=0.003), posterior-superior (p<0.001, p<0.001), and superior (p=0.027, p=0.034) positions, respectively. Conclusions. Both BluePrint and SurgiCase software platforms yield similar measurements for glenoid version and glenoid inclination. In the setting of glenoid wear in the posterior, posterior-superior or superior position, measurements of between two surgical platforms are in agreement

INTRODUCTION. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) provides an effective alternative to anatomic shoulder replacements for individuals with cuff tear arthropathy, but certain osteoarthritic glenoid deformities make it challenging to achieve sufficient long term fixation. To compensate for bone loss, increase available bone stock, and lateralize the glenohumeral joint center of rotation, bony increased offset RSA (BIO-RSA) uses a cancellous autograft for baseplate augmentation that is harvested prior to humeral head resection. The motivations for this computational study are twofold: finite element (FE) studies of BIO-RSA are absent from the literature, and guidance in the literature on screw orientations that achieve optimal fixation varies. This study computationally evaluates how screw configuration affects BIO-RSA graft micromotion relative to the implant baseplate and glenoid. METHODS. A senior shoulder specialist (GSA) selected a scapula with a Walch Type B2 deformity from patient CT scans. DICOM images were converted to a 3D model, which underwent simulated BIO-RSA with three screw configurations: 2 divergent superior & inferior locking screws with 2 convergent anterior & posterior compression screws (SILS); 2 convergent anterior & posterior locking screws and 2 superior & inferior compression screws parallel to the baseplate central peg (APLS); and 2 divergent superior & inferior locking screws and 2 divergent anterior & posterior compression screws (AD). The scapula was assigned heterogeneous bone material properties based on the DICOM images’ Hounsfield unit (HU) values, and other components were assigned homogenous properties. Models were then imported into an FE program for analysis. Anterior-posterior and superior-inferior point loads and a lateral-medial distributed load simulated physiologic loading. Micromotion data between the RSA baseplate and bone graft as well as between the bone graft and glenoid were sub-divided into four quadrants. RESULTS. In all but 1 quadrant, APLS performed the worst with the graft having an average micromotion of 347.1µm & 355.9 µm relative to the glenoid and baseplate, respectively. The SILS configuration ranked second, having 211.2 µm & 274.4 µm relative to the glenoid and baseplate. AD performed best, allowing 247.4 µm & 225.4 µm of graft micromotion relative to the glenoid and baseplate. DISCUSSION. Both APLS and SILS techniques are described in the literature for BIO-RSA fixation; however, the data indicate that AD is superior in its ability to reduce graft micromotion, and thus some revision to common practices may be necessary. While these micromotion data are larger than data in the extant RSA literature, there are several factors that account for this. First, to properly model the difference between locking and compression screws, we simulated friction between the compression screw heads and baseplate rather than a tied constraint as done in other studies, resulting in larger micromotion. Second, the trabecular bone graft is at greater risk of deforming than metallic spacers used when studying micromotion with glenosphere lateralization, increasing graft deflection magnitude. Future work will investigate the effects of various BIO-RSA variables. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Anatomic and accurate placement of components is a primary goal in all arthroplasty procedures. Unique to total shoulder arthroplasty, challenging glenoid exposure and osteoarthritic glenoid deformity offer significant challenges and impediments to this goal. Despite thorough pre-operative planning strategies and contemporary cannulated pin-based shoulder systems, it is often times still difficult to accurately aim the guide pin to the medial border of the scapula when the deformity is substantial or exposure is difficult. Even small errors in guide pin position can result in problems with final component version, inclination and glenoid vault perforation. In addition, a malpositioned glenoid component has been shown to have a negative impact on implant longevity and clinical performance. Image-based patient specific instrumentation has been available in the lower extremity for nearly a decade with reliable results. The application of similar technology in the shoulder has demonstrated reliable positioning of the guide pin to a pre-operative plan with subsequent accurate placement of the glenoid component. This surgical demonstration will feature one of the currently available CT-based patient specific glenoid guides using a standard deltopectoral approach

Background. Total shoulder arthroplasty is technically demanding in regards to implantation of the glenoid component, especially in the setting of increased glenoid deformity and posterior glenoid wear. Augmented glenoid implants are an important and innovative option; however, there is little evidence accessible to surgeons to guide in the selection of the appropriate size augmented glenoid. Methods. Solid computer models of a commercially available augmented glenoid components (+3, +5, +7) contained within the software allowed for placement of the best fit glenoid component within the 3D reconstruct of each patient's scapula. Peg perforation, amount of bone reamed and amount of medialization were recorded for each augment size. Results. There was strong correlation between the medialization of the joint line and the glenoid retroversion for each augmented component (R. 2. of 0.785 for the +3 augment, an R. 2. of 0.792 for the +5 component, and an R. 2. of 0.701 for the +7 component). The range of retroversion that restored anatomic joint line using the +3 augmented glenoid was −3° to −17°, −5° to −24° using the +5 augmented glenoid, and −9° to −31° for a +7 augmented glenoid. Conclusions. Our results provide a general guideline for clinicians to select an appropriate sized augmented glenoid implant based on range of glenoid retroversion that can be corrected to restore the native joint line and minimize peg perforation. There was a strong correlation between glenoid retroversion and medialization for all augment sizes supporting the recommendation for glenoid retroversion as the primary guide in selecting the amount of augmentation