Total shoulder arthroplasty implants have evolved to include more anatomically shaped components that replicate the native state. The geometry of the humeral head is non-spherical, with the sagittal diameter of the base of the head being up to 6% (or 2.1-3.9 mm) larger than the frontal diameter. Despite this, many TSA humeral head implants are spherical, meaning that the diameter must be oversized to achieve complete coverage, resulting in articular overhang, or portions of the resection plane will remain uncovered. It is suspected that implant-bone load transfer between the backside of the humeral head and the cortex on the resection plane may yield better load-transfer characteristics if resection coverage was properly matched without overhang, thereby mitigating proximal stress shielding. Eight paired cadaveric humeri were prepared for reconstruction with a short stem total shoulder arthroplasty by an orthopaedic surgeon who selected and prepared the anatomic humeral resection plane using a cutting guide and a reciprocating sagittal saw. The humeral head was resected, and the resulting cortical boundary of the resection plane was digitized using a stylus and an optical tracking system with a submillimeter accuracy (Optotrak,NDI,Waterloo,ON). A plane was fit to the trace and the viewpoint was transformed to be perpendicular to the plane. To simulate optimal sizing of both circular and elliptical humeral heads, both circles and ellipses were fit to the filtered traces using the sum of least squares error method. Two extreme scenarios were also investigated: upsizing until 100% total coverage and downsizing until 0% overhang. Total resection plane coverage for the fitted ellipses was found to be 98.2±0.6% and fitted circles was 95.9±0.9%Cortical coverage was found to be 79.8 ±8.2% and 60.4±6.9% for ellipses and circles respectively. By switching to an ellipsoid humeral head, a small 2.3±0.3% (P < 0.001) increase in total coverage led to a 19.5±1.3%(P < 0.001) increase in cortical coverage. The overhang for fitted ellipses and circles was 1.7 ±0.7% and 3.8 ±0.8% respectively, defined as a percentage of the total enclosed area that exceeded the bounds of the humerus resections. Using circular heads results in 2.0 ±0.1% (P < 0.001) greater overhang. Upsizing until 100% resection coverage, the ellipse produced 5.4 ±3.5% (P < 0.001) less overhang than the circle. When upsizing the overhang increases less rapidly for the ellipsoid humeral head that the circular one (Figure 1). Full coverage for the head is achieved more rapidly when up-sizing with an ellipsoid head as well. Downsizing until 0% overhang, total coverage and cortical coverage were 7.5 ±2.8% (P < 0.001) and 7.9 ±8.2% (P = 0.01) greater for the ellipse, respectively. Cortical coverage exhibits a crossover point at −2.25% downsizing, where further downsizing led to the circular head providing more cortical coverage. Reconstruction with ellipsoids can provide greater total resection and cortical coverage than circular humeral heads while avoiding excessive overhang. Elliptical head cortical coverage can be inferior when undersized. These initial findings suggest resection-matched humeral heads may yield benefits worth pursuing in the next generation of TSA implant design. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly