Failed internal fixation of a fracture of the proximal humerus produces many challenges with limited surgical options. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes after the use of a reverse shoulder arthroplasty under these circumstances. Between 2007 and 2012, 19 patients (15 women and four men, mean age 66 years; 52 to 82) with failed internal fixation after a proximal humeral fracture, underwent implant removal and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The mean follow-up was 36 months (25 to 60). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Score improved from 27.8 to 50.1 (p = 0.019). The mean Simple Shoulder Test score improved from 0.7 to 3.2 (p = 0.020), and the mean visual analogue scale for pain improved from 6.8 to 4.3 (p = 0.012). Mean forward flexion improved from 58.7° to 101.1° (p < 0.001), mean abduction from 58.7° to 89.1° (p = 0.012), mean external rotation from 10.7° to 23.1° (p = 0.043) and mean internal rotation from buttocks to L4 (p = 0.034). A major complication was recorded in five patients (26%) (one intra-operative fracture, loosening of the humeral component in two and two peri-prosthetic fractures). A total of 15 patients (79%) rated their outcome as excellent or good, one (5%) as satisfactory, and three (16%) as unsatisfactory. . An improvement in outcomes and pain can be expected when performing a RSA as a salvage procedure after failed internal fixation of a fracture of the proximal humerus. Patients should be cautioned about the possibility for major complications following this technically demanding procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:967–72

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. Patients with a failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have limited salvage options. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of revision RSA when used as a salvage procedure for a failed primary RSA. Patients and Methods. We reviewed all revision RSAs performed for a failed primary RSA between 2006 and 2012, excluding patients with a follow-up of less than two years. A total of 27 revision RSAs were included in the study. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (58 to 82). Of the 27 patients, 14 (52% were female). The mean follow-up was 4.4 years (2 to 10). Results. Six patients (22%) developed complications requiring further revision surgery, at a mean of 1.7 years (0.1 to 5.3) postoperatively. The indication for further revision was dislocation in two, glenoid loosening in one, fracture of the humeral component in one, disassociation of the glenosphere in one, and infection in one. The five-year survival free of further revision was 85%. Five additional RSAs developed complications that did not need surgery, including dislocation in three and periprosthetic fracture in two. Overall, patients who did not require further revision had excellent pain relief, and significant improvements in elevation and external rotation of the shoulder (p < 0.01). The mean postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and simple shoulder test (SST) scores were 66 and 7, respectively. Radiological results were available in 26 patients (96.3%) at a mean of 4.3 years (1.5 to 9.5). At the most recent follow-up, six patients (23%) had glenoid lucency, which were classified as grade III or higher in three (12%). Smokers had a significantly increased risk of glenoid lucency (p < 0.01). Conclusion. Revision RSA, when used to salvage a failed primary RSA, can be a successful procedure. At intermediate follow-up, survival rates are reasonable, but dislocation and glenoid lucency remain a concern, particularly in smokers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1493–98

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of L-shaped and reverse L-shaped rotator cuff tears. Methods. A total of 82 shoulders (81 patients) after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were retrospectively enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 62 years (SD 6), 33 shoulders (40.2%) were in male patients, and 57 shoulders (69.5%) were the right shoulder. Of these, 36 shoulders had an L-shaped tear (group L) and 46 had a reverse L-shaped tear (group RL). Both groups were compared regarding characteristics, pre- and postoperative pain, and functional outcomes. Muscle status was assessed by preoperative MRI, and re-tear rates by postoperative ultrasonography or MRI. Results. Patients in group RL were significantly older than in group L (p = 0.008), and group RL was significantly associated with female sex (odds ratio 2.5 (95% confidence interval 1.03 to 6.32); p = 0.041). Mean postoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score was significantly greater (group L = 0.8 (SD 1.5), group RL = 1.7 (SD 2.2); p = 0.033) and mean postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was significantly lower in group RL than group L (group L = 91.4 (SD 13.1), group RL = 83.8 (SD 17.9); p = 0.028). However, postoperative mean VAS for pain and ASES score were not lower than the patient-acceptable symptom state scores. Mean retracted tear length was significantly larger in group L (group L = 24.6 mm (SD 6.5), group RL = 20.0 mm (SD 6.8); p = 0.003). Overall re-tear rate for 82 tears was 11.0% (nine shoulders), and re-tear rates in group L and RL were similar at 11.1% (four shoulders) and 10.9% (five shoulders), respectively (p = 1.000). No significant intergroup difference was found for fatty degeneration (FD) or muscle atrophy. Within group L, postoperative FD grades of supraspinatus and subscapularis worsened significantly (p = 0.034 and p = 0.008, respectively). Mean postoperative pain VAS (male = 1.2 (SD 1.8), female = 1.3 (SD 2.0)) and ASES scores (male = 88.7 (SD 15.5), female = 86.0 (SD 16.8)) were similar in male and female patients (p = 0.700 and p = 0.475, respectively). Regression analysis showed age was not a prognostic factor of postoperative pain VAS or ASES scores (p = 0.188 and p = 0.150, respectively). Conclusion. Older age and female sex were associated with reverse L-shaped tears. Although the postoperative functional outcomes of patients with reverse L-shaped tears were satisfactory, the clinical scores were poorer than those of patients with L-shaped tears. Surgeons should be aware of the differences in clinical outcome between L-shaped and reverse L-shaped rotator cuff tears. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):394–400

Aims. Instability is a common cause of failure after total hip arthroplasty. A novel reverse total hip has been developed, with a femoral cup and acetabular ball, creating enhanced mechanical stability. The purpose of this study was to assess the implant fixation using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), and the clinical safety and efficacy of this novel design. Methods. Patients with end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled in a prospective cohort at a single centre. The cohort consisted of 11 females and 11 males with mean age of 70.6 years (SD 3.5) and BMI of 31.0 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.7). Implant fixation was evaluated using RSA as well as Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, 38-item Short Form survey, and EuroQol five-dimension health questionnaire scores at two-year follow-up. At least one acetabular screw was used in all cases. RSA markers were inserted into the innominate bone and proximal femur with imaging at six weeks (baseline) and six, 12, and 24 months. Independent-samples t-tests were used to compare to published thresholds. Results. Mean acetabular subsidence from baseline to 24 months was 0.087 mm (SD 0.152), below the critical threshold of 0.2 mm (p = 0.005). Mean femoral subsidence from baseline to 24 months was -0.002 mm (SD 0.194), below the published reference of 0.5 mm (p < 0.001). There was significant improvement in patient-reported outcome measures at 24 months with good to excellent results. Conclusion. RSA analysis demonstrates excellent fixation with a predicted low risk of revision at ten years of this novel reverse total hip system. Clinical outcomes were consistent with safe and effective hip replacement prostheses. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):385–392

Introduction. Initial fixation of noncemented implants is critical to achieve a stable bone/implant interface during the first few months after surgery to potentiate bone in-growth and avoid aseptic loosening. Numerous reverse shoulder glenoid implant designs have been conceived in an attempt to improve implant performance and decrease the rate of aseptic glenoid loosening, commonly reported to be 5%. Design variations include: baseplate profile, baseplate size, backside geometry, center of rotation, surface finish and coatings, fixation screw diameters, number of fixation screw options, and type of screw fixation. However, little comparative biomechanical data exist to substantiate one design consideration over another. To that end, this study quantified glenoid fixation before and after cyclic loading of simulated abduction of 6 different reverse shoulder glenoid designs when secured to a low density polyurethane bone substitute block. Methods. A displacement test quantified fixation of 6 different reverse shoulder designs: 38 mm Equinoxe standard offset (EQ), 38 mm Equinoxe lateral offset (EQL), 36 mm Depuy Delta III (DRS), 36 mm Zimmer, (ZRS), 32 mm neutral DJO RSP (DJO), and a 36 mm Tornier BIO-RSA (BIO), secured to a 0.24 g/cm. 3. polyurethane block as a shear (357 N) and compressive (50 N) load was applied before and after cyclic loading. (Figure 1) Glenoid displacement was measured relative to the block using dial indicators in the directions of the applied loads along the superior/inferior axis. A cyclic test rotated each glenosphere (n = 7 for each design) about a 55° arc of abduction at 0.5 Hz for 10k cycles as 750N was constantly applied. (Figure 2) Each implant was cycled using a 145° humeral liner of the appropriate diameter to ensure each device is subjected to the same shear load. A two-tailed unpaired student's t-test was used to compare pre- and post-cyclic mean displacements between designs; p < 0.05 denotes significance. Results. The average pre-cyclic displacement of the EQ, EQL, DRS, ZRS, DJO, and BIO devices was 181, 137, 186, 381, 238, 232 microns, respectively. The average post-cyclic displacement of the EQ, EQL, DRS, DJO, and BIO devices was 186, 129, 189, 368, 249 microns, respectively. During the cyclic test, 6 of 7 ZRS devices failed at an average of 2603 cycles, 1 of 7 DJO failed at 7342 cycles, and 4 of 7 BIO devices failed at an average of 2926 cycles. All 7 of the EQ, EQL, and DRS devices remained well fixed throughout cyclic loading. Discussion and Conclusions. The results of this study demonstrate significant difference in fixation associated 6 different reverse shoulder designs. Despite many similarities in geometry between these designs, significant differences in fixation were observed between nearly every implant design tested. This suggests that subtle changes in glenoid baseplate design can dramatically impact fixation, particularly in low density bone substitutes which are intended to simulate the bone quality of the recipient population for reverse shoulders. Future work should attempt to isolate which design parameters are the most critical contributors for initial fixation and ultimately, long-term stability

Introduction. The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is becoming increasingly common in the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathy. Standard RSA technique involves medialising the centre of rotation (COR) maximising the deltoid lever arm and compensating for rotator cuff deficiency. However reported complications include scapular notching, prosthetic loosening and loss of shoulder contour. As a result the use of Bony Increased Offset Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) has been gaining in popularity. The BIO-RSA is reported to avoid these complications by lateralising the COR using a modified base plate, longer central post and augmentation with cancellous bone graft harvested from the patients humeral head. Objectives. This study aims to compare the outcome in terms of analgesic effect, function and satisfaction, in patients treated with standard RSA and BIO-RSA. Methods. All cases were performed in a single centre by one of two upper limb consultant orthopaedic surgeons over a consecutive 2-year period. At time of listing for operation, the decision as to whether to undertake a bony-increased offset reverse total shoulder was made. Standard deltopectoral approach was performed. Standard and Bony increased offset Tournier reverse was the implant of choice (BIO-RSA). All patients underwent a standardised rehabilitation programme. Standard follow up was clinical review with radiographs at 2 weeks, 6weeks and 3months. Retrospective data was collected using case notes on patient reported stausfaction and oxford shoulder score, analgesia requirement at final follow up, and final range of movement. Results. A total of 60 patients (65 shoulders) were treated with reverse total shoulder replacements (RSA) within a 2-year period in a single centre for chronic complex shoulder conditions. Mean age at time of intervention was 74.1years (49.3 – 88.7). Mean follow up was 7.1 months (3.4 – 24). Average time to discharge 16.1 months (3.4 – 37.4). 43 patients currently under review. Of the 65 shoulders, 40 underwent BIO-RSA procedures. Indications for surgery were predominantly rotator cuff arthropathy (N=36). Other indications included severe osteoarthritis (N=1) and complex proximal humeral fracture (N=3). The remaining 25 patients treated with standard RSA were similar in terms of indication and basic demographics. In terms of range of movement, outcomes between the two groups were broadly similar. Patients receiving BIO-RSA demonstrated mean active forward flexion of 92.2° (70–120°) and abduction 93.3° (80–120°). The RSA group had mean forward flexion 90.5° (50–130°) and mean abduction 88.6° (40–160°). Both groups had excellent analgesic effect with 92% in each either being completely pain free or requiring only occasional analgesia. The majority of patients were either very satisfied or satisfied with the outcome of the surgery. Mean Oxford shoulder score for the BIO-RSA group was 4.9 (0–13) preoperatively and 43.7 (36–48) postoperatively. The mean RSA pre-operative score was 7.9 (0–19) and postoperatively 40.2(32–48). In total three patients experienced complications; 1 haematoma (BIO-RSA), 1 brachial plexus contusion (BIO-RSA) and 1 deep infection (RSA). Conclusion. If grafting is necessary, the use of BIO-RSA within this centre seems to have comparable results to those undergoing standard RSA. Early results also suggest the Bio-RSA allows earlier improvement and conserves a larger bone stock. These early result are encouraging however a further study with longer follow-up is required

Aims. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the most common type of shoulder arthroplasty used in the UK, and a better understanding of the outcomes after revision of a failed RSA is needed. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence systematically to determine patient-reported outcome measures and the rates of re-revision and complications for patients undergoing revision of a RSA. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Studies involving adult patients who underwent revision of a primary RSA for any indication were included. Those who underwent a RSA for failure of a total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Pre- and postoperative shoulder scores were evaluated in a random effects meta-analysis to determine the mean difference. The rates of re-revision and complications were also calculated. Results. The initial search elicited 3,166 results and, following removal of duplicates and screening, 13 studies with a total of 1,042 RSAs were identified. An increase in shoulder scores pre- to postoperatively was reported in all the studies. Following revision of a RSA to a further RSA, there was a significant increase in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (mean difference 20.78 (95% CI 8.16 to 33.40); p = 0.001). A re-revision rate at final follow-up ranging from 9% to 32%, a one-year re-revision rate of 14%, and a five-year re-revision rate of 23% were reported. The complication rate in all the studies was between 18.5% and 36%, with a total incidence of 29%. Conclusion. This is the largest systematic review of the outcomes following revision of a RSA. We found an improvement in functional outcomes after revision surgery, but the rates of re-revision and complications are high and warrant consideration when planning a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1293–1300

Aims. We present our experience of using a metal-backed prosthesis and autologous bone graft to treat gross glenoid bone deficiency. Patients and Methods. A prospective cohort study of the first 45 shoulder arthroplasties using the SMR Axioma Trabecular Titanium (TT) metal-backed glenoid with autologous bone graft. Between May 2013 and December 2014, 45 shoulder arthroplasties were carried out in 44 patients with a mean age of 64 years (35 to 89). The indications were 23 complex primary arthroplasties, 12 to revise a hemiarthroplasty or resurfacing, five for aseptic loosening of the glenoid, and five for infection. Results. Of the 45 patients, 16 had anatomical shoulder arthroplasties (ASA) and 29 had reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSA). Postoperatively, 43/45 patients had a CT scan. In 41 of 43 patients (95%), the glenoid peg achieved > 50% integration. In 40 of 43 cases (93%), the graft was fully or partially integrated. There were seven revisions (16%) but only four (9%) required a change of baseplate. Four (25%) of the 16 ASAs were revised for instability or cuff failure. At two-year radiological follow-up, five of the 41 cases (11%) showed some evidence of lucent lines. Conclusion. The use of a metal baseplate with a trabecular titanium surface in conjunction with autologous bone graft is a reliable method of addressing glenoid bone defects in primary and revision RSA setting in the short term. ASAs have a higher rate of complications with this technique

Aims. This study aimed to assess the impact of using the metal-augmented glenoid baseplate (AGB) on improving clinical and radiological outcomes, as well as reducing complications, in patients with superior glenoid wear undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Methods. From January 2016 to June 2021, out of 235 patients who underwent primary RSA, 24 received a superior-AGB after off-axis reaming (Group A). Subsequently, we conducted propensity score matching in a 1:3 ratio, considering sex, age, follow-up duration, and glenoid wear (superior-inclination and retroversion), and selected 72 well-balanced matched patients who received a standard glenoid baseplate (STB) after eccentric reaming (Group B). Superior-inclination, retroversion, and lateral humeral offset (LHO) were measured to assess preoperative glenoid wear and postoperative correction, as well as to identify any complications. Clinical outcomes were measured at each outpatient visit before and after surgery. Results. There were no significant differences in demographic data and preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Both groups showed significant improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (visual analogue scale for pain, visual analogue scale for function, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, and Simple Shoulder Test scores) from preoperative to final assessment (p < 0.001). However, AGB showed no additional benefit. Notably, within range of motion, Group B showed significant postoperative decrease in both external rotation and internal rotation, unlike Group A (p = 0.028 and 0.003, respectively). Both groups demonstrated a significant correction of superior-inclination after surgery, while patients in Group B exhibited a significant decrease in LHO postoperatively (p = 0.001). Regarding complications, Group A experienced more acromial stress fractures (3 cases; 12.5%), whereas Group B had a higher occurrence of scapular notching (24 cases; 33.3%) (p = 0.008). Conclusion. Both eccentric reaming with STB and off-axis reaming with AGB are effective methods for addressing superior glenoid wear in RSA, leading to improved clinical outcomes. However, it is important to be aware of the potential risks associated with eccentric reaming, which include excessive bone loss leading to reduced rotation and scapular notching. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):268–276

Background. Locked anterior shoulders (LAS) with static instability and anterior glenoid bone loss are challenging in the elderly population. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has been employed in treating these patients. No study has compared RSA for LAS to classically indicated RSA. Methods. A case-control study of patients treated with RSA for LAS with glenoid bone loss and static instability was performed using matched controls treated with primary RSA for classic indications. Twenty-four cases and 48 controls were evaluated. Average follow-up was 25.5 months and median age was 76. Motion, outcome assessments, and postoperative radiographs were compared. Results. Preoperatively, LAS had significantly less rotation and lower baseline outcome scores. Glenoid bone grafting was more common (p=0.05) in control group (26%) than LAS group (6.3%). Larger glenospheres were utilized more often (p=0.001) in LAS group (75%) than control group (29%). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain, function, and outcome scores. Postoperatively, control group had significantly better elevation and functional outcome scores. With the exception of flexion and SST, effectiveness of treatment was similar between groups. Postoperative acromion stress fractures were seen in 21% of LAS and 9% of control (p=0.023) with a predominance of type 3 fractures in LAS. Two LAS patients remained dislocated. Conclusion. Treatment with RSA for LAS may anticipate improvements in pain and function using larger glenospheres often without the need for glenoid bone grafting. Worse postoperative motion, function, and a higher incidence of acromion stress fracture may be expected

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate implant survival of reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) at medium-term follow-up. Patients and Methods. A consecutive series of 1082 THAs in 982 patients with mean follow-up of 7.9 years (5 to 11.3) is presented. Mean age was 69.2 years (21 to 94). Of these, 194 (17.9%) were in patients under 60 years, 663 (61.3%) in female patients and 348 (32.2%) performed by a trainee. Head size was 28 mm in 953 hips (88.1%) or 32 mm in 129 hips (11.9%). Survival analysis was performed and subgroups compared using log rank tests. Results. Ten-year survival (122 hips at risk) was 97.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.77 to 98.11) for all-cause revision. There was no difference in survival by age (p = 0.50), gender (p = 0.78), head size (p = 0.63) or surgeon grade (p = 0.36). No acetabular components underwent revision for aseptic loosening in the entire series. Four (0.4%) aseptic stem failures occurred early at a mean of 2.5 years (0.6 to 4.8) and were associated with age under 60 years (p = 0.015). There was no difference in survival by gender (p = 0.12), head size (p = 0.43) or surgeon grade (p = 0.77) for stem revision. Conclusion. This is the largest reported study into reverse hybrid THA and it confirms successful outcomes, irrespective of age, gender, head size and surgeon grade. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1010–17

Aims. The aim of this study was to use national registry database information to estimate cumulative rates and relative risk of revision due to infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Patients and Methods. We included 17 730 primary shoulder arthroplasties recorded between 2004 and 2013 in The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data set. With the Kaplan–Meier method, we illustrated the ten-year cumulative rates of revision due to infection and with the Cox regression model, we reported the hazard ratios as a measure of the relative risk of revision due to infection. Results. In all, 188 revisions were reported due to infection during a mean follow-up of three years and nine months. The ten-year cumulative rate of revision due to infection was 1.4% overall, but 3.1% for reverse shoulder arthroplasties and 8.0% for reverse shoulder arthroplasties in men. Reverse shoulder arthroplasties were associated with an increased risk of revision due to infection also when adjusted for sex, age, primary diagnosis, and year of surgery (relative risk 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 5.59); p = 0.001). Conclusion. The overall incidence of revision due to infection was low. The increased risk in reverse shoulder arthroplasty must be borne in mind, especially when offering it to men. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:702–707

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is becoming a frequent treatment of choice for patients with shoulder disorders. Complication rates after reverse shoulder arthroplasty may be three-fold that of conventional total shoulder arthroplasty especially in high risk patient populations and diagnoses like revision arthroplasty, fracture sequelae, and severe glenoid bone loss. Complications include component malposition, stiffness, neurological injury, infection, dislocation or instability, acromial or scapular spine fractures, scapular notching, and loosening of implants. Recognition of preoperative risk factors and appropriate 3D planning are essential in optimizing patient outcome and intraoperative success. Failure of reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a significant challenge requiring appropriate diagnosis of the failure mode. The most common neurological injuries involve the brachial plexus and the axillary nerve due to traction, manipulation of the arm, aberrant retractor placement, or relative lengthening of the arm. Intraoperative fractures are relatively uncommon but include the greater tuberosity, acromion, and glenoid. Tuberosity fracture can be repaired intraoperatively with suture techniques, glenoid fractures may be insignificant rim fractures or jeopardise baseplate fixation and require abandoning RSA until glenoid fracture ORIF heals and then a second stage RSA. Periprosthetic infection after RSA ranges from 1 to 10% and may be higher in revision cases and frequently is Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Dislocation was one of the most common complications after RSA approximately 5% but with increased surgeon experience and prosthetic design, dislocation rates are approaching 1–2%. An anterosuperior deltoid splitting approach has been associated with increased stability as well as subscapularis repair after RSA. Scapular notching is the most common complication after RSA. Notching may be caused by direct mechanical impingement of the humerosocket polyethylene on the scapular neck and from osteolysis from polyethylene wear. Sirveaux classified scapular notching based on the defect size as it erodes behind the baseplate towards the central post. Acromial fractures are infrequent but more common is severely eroded acromions from CTA, with osteoporosis, with excessive lengthening, and with superior baseplate screws that penetrate the scapular spine and create a stress riser. Nonoperative care is the mainstay of acromial and scapular spine fractures. Recognizing preoperative risk factors and understanding component positioning and design is essential to maximizing successful outcomes

Scapular notching is a common problem following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This is due to impingement between the humeral polyethylene cup and scapular neck in adduction and external rotation. Various glenoid component strategies have been described to combat scapular notching and enhance impingement-free range of motion (ROM). There is limited data available detailing optimal glenosphere position in RSA with an onlay configuration. The purpose of this study was to determine which glenosphere configurations would maximise impingement free ROM using an onlay RSA prosthesis. A three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) scan of a shoulder with Walch A1, Favard E0 glenoid morphology was segmented using validated software. An onlay RSA prosthesis was implanted and a computer model simulated external rotation and adduction motion of the virtual RSA prosthesis. Four glenosphere parameters were tested; diameter (36mm, 41mm), lateralization (0mm, 3mm, 6mm), inferior tilt (neutral, 5 degrees, 10 degrees), and inferior eccentric positioning (0.5mm, 1.5mm. 2.5mm, 3.5mm, 4.5mm). Eighty-four combinations were simulated. For each simulation, the humeral neck-shaft angle was 147 degrees and retroversion was 30 degrees. The largest increase in impingement-free range of motion resulted from increasing inferior eccentric positioning, gaining 15.0 degrees for external rotation and 18.8 degrees for adduction. Glenosphere lateralization increased external rotation motion by 13. 6 degrees and adduction by 4.3 degrees. Implanting larger diameter glenospheres increased external rotation and adduction by 9.4 and 10.1 degrees respectively. Glenosphere tilt had a negligible effect on impingement-free ROM. Maximizing inferior glenosphere eccentricity, lateralizing the glenosphere, and implanting larger glenosphere diameters improves impingement-free range of motion, in particular external rotation, of an onlay RSA prosthesis. Surgeons’ awareness of these trends can help optimize glenoid component position to maximise impingement-free ROM for RSA. Further studies are required to validate these findings in the context of scapulothoracic motion and soft tissue constraints

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

There is a large and growing population of patients with shoulder arthritis that are over 70 years old. Many of these patients live alone and sling immobilization after shoulder arthroplasty is problematic. Other than improved internal rotation, there are limited benefits of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty compared to reverse arthroplasty. Anatomic arthroplasty is associated with longer OR time, longer recovery with need for assistance to allow the subscapularis to heal, and more challenging glenoid exposure. The reverse arthroplasty is a faster operation without the need for subscapularis healing and the sphere provides a more forgiving implant position. Additional benefits of reverse arthroplasty include better ability to manage glenoid bone loss and joint subluxation. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry shows that within the first year of surgery the rate of revision of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty is less than reverse arthroplasty. However, after one year, the overall revision rate of reverse arthroplasty is less than anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Therefore, increased technical difficulty of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty together with concerns of subscapularis insufficiency, glenoid loosening, and lack of strong evidence of superiority do not warrant changing from reverse for patients over 70 years old

The treatment of proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. The literature is full of articles and commentary supporting one method over another. Options include open reduction and internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Treatment options in an active 65-year-old are exceptionally controversial given the fact that people in this middle-aged group still wished to remain active and athletic in many circumstances. A hemiarthroplasty offers the advantage of a greater range of motion, however, this has a high incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion and this is a very common reason for revision of that hemiarthroplasty for fracture to a reverse shoulder replacement. One recent study showed a 73% incidence of tuberosity malunion or nonunion in shoulders that had a revised hemiarthroplasty to a reverse shoulder replacement. Progressive glenoid wear and erosion is also a risk after a hemiarthroplasty in the younger patient, especially someone who is young and active. In addition, studies show shorter operative time in hemiarthroplasty. The range of motion is highly dependent on proper tuberosity healing and this is often one of the most challenging aspects of the surgical procedure as well as the healing process. A reverse shoulder replacement in general has less range of motion compared to a hemiarthroplasty with anatomically healed tuberosities, however, the revision rate is lower compared to a hemiarthroplasty. (This is likely related to few were options for revision). The results after a reverse shoulder replacement may not be as dependent on tuberosity healing, however, importantly the tuberosities do need to be repaired and the results are significantly better if there is healing of the greater tuberosity, giving some infraspinatus and/or teres minor function to the shoulder. Complete lack of tuberosity healing forces the shoulder into obligate internal rotation with attempted elevation and this can be functionally disabling. Academic discussion is beginning surrounding the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of glenohumeral joint arthritis in a primary setting as it is believed that the glenosphere and baseplate may have greater longevity than a polyethylene glenoid. Along with this discussion, we will likely see greater application of the use of a reverse shoulder replacement in the setting of fracture for younger patients. In general, open reduction internal fixation should still remain the treatment of choice in the setting of a fracture that can be fixed. However, a strong argument can be made that if an arthroplasty is necessary, a reverse shoulder replacement is the implant of choice

The 2021 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry report indicated that total shoulder replacement using both mid head (TMH) length humeral components and reverse arthroplasty (RTSA) had a lower revision rate than stemmed humeral components in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) - for all prosthesis types and diagnoses. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of component variables in the various primary total arthroplasty alternatives for osteoarthritis in the shoulder. Data from a large national arthroplasty registry were analysed for the period April 2004 to December 2020. The study population included all primary aTSA, RTSA, and TMH shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis (OA) using either cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or non-cross-linked polyethylene (non XLPE). Due to the previously documented and reported higher revision rate compared to other anatomical total shoulder replacement options, those using a cementless metal backed glenoid components were excluded. The rate of revision was determined by Kaplan-Meir estimates, with comparisons by Cox proportional hazard models. Reasons for revision were also assessed. For a primary diagnosis of OA, aTSA with a cemented XLPE glenoid component had the lowest revision rate with a 12-year cumulative revision rate of 4.7%, compared to aTSA with cemented non-XLPE glenoid component of 8.7%, and RTSA of 6.8%. The revision rate for TMH was lower than aTSA with cemented non-XLPE, but was similar to the other implants at the same length of follow-up. The reason for revision for cemented aTSR was most commonly component loosening, not rotator cuff deficiency. Long stem humeral components matched with XLPE in aTSA achieve a lower revision rate compared to shorter stems, long stems with conventional polyethylene, and RTSA when used to treat shoulder OA. In all these cohorts, loosening, not rotator cuff failure was the most common diagnosis for revision

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