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

Background:. Glenoid component loosening remains as an unsolved clinical problem in total shoulder arthroplasty. Current clinical assessment relies on subjective quantification using a two-dimensional plane X-ray image with arbitrarily defined criteria. There is a need to develop a readily usable clinical tool to accurately and reliably quantify the glenoid component motion over time after surgery. A high-resolution clinical CT has the potential to quantify the glenoid motion, but is challenged by metal artifact from the prosthetic humeral components. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of using a clinical CT reconstruction to quantify the glenoid implant motion with the aid of tantalum markers. Methods:. Three spherical tantalum markers of 1.0 mm in diameter were inserted into three peripheral pegs of an all polyethylene glenoid component. The glenoid component was implanted in a sawbone scapula. To determine the effect of metal artifact on quantification of glenoid implant motion, two sawbone humerii were used: one without the prosthetic humeral components and the other with the prosthetic humeral head and stem. Three custom-made translucent spacers with the uniform thickness were placed between the glenoid component and the scapula to produce a gradual translation of the glenoid component from 1 mm to 3 mm. Before and after inserting each spacer, the surface of the glenoid component was digitized by a MicroScribe. The surface points were used to fit a sphere and the corresponding center of the sphere was calculated. The actual translation of the glenoid component was measured as the three-dimensional (3D) distance between the center of the sphere before and after insertion of each spacer. Then, the shoulder model was scanned by a clinical CT with and without the spacers for both humerii conditions. Velcro straps were used to secure the humerus to the glenoid component between the trials. All CT scans were reconstructed in VolNinja software to superimpose the scapula positions (Figure 1). The three tantalum markers were visualized and the center coordinates of the markers were used to measure the 3D distance before and after insertion of each spacer. The accuracy was defined by the difference between the averaged 3D distance measured by CT reconstruction and that measured by the MicroScribe. The standard deviation of the 3D distance measured by each tantalum marker was calculated to evaluate the reliability of the tantalum marker visualization. Results:. Without metal artifact, the accuracy and reliability of quantifying glenoid implant motion using a clinical CT were 0.4 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively (Figure 2). With the presence of metal artifact, the accuracy and reliability were 0.5 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively. The largest difference in quantifying the glenoid component motion with and without the metal artifact was only 0.12 mm. Conclusion:. The current study demonstrated the feasibility of using a clinical CT to quantify glenoid implant motion. With the aid of tantalum markers, a clinical CT can be readily used to quantify the glenoid implant motion accurately and reliably even with the presence of metal artifact from the humeral components

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

Background and Motivation. Accurate placement of glenoid components in reverse and total shoulder arthroplasty has been shown to reduce the risk of implant failure (1, 2, 6). Surgical techniques and literature describe methods to determine favorable positions for implant placement (3, 4, 5) but achieving that position surgically remains a challenge. Placement of glenoid components is faced with the challenge of variable glenoid morphology on which conventional instrumentation does not always provide a reliable reference (6, 7, 8). Limited surgical exposure is another challenge since many anatomic landmarks are not visible to the surgeon to use as spacial reference. Anatomic landmarks and angles can be more reliabily selected on CT scans with 3-dimentional reconstruction (9,10) yet few methods allow for the reproducible translation of these plans to surgery. Navigation has produced better accuracy and lower variability than conventional instrumentation (11), yet its regular usage remains limited, especially in the shoulder. Methods. A patient specific planning and guiding system has been developed for glenoid implant placement of total and reverse shoulder arthoplasty procedures. This method allows for preoperative planning on a patient specific virtual 3D model of the scapula derived from CT images (Figure 1), and guided placement of a pin which which serves as the central axis for determining proper implant position. An initial implant position was presented on the virtual model based on the methods described by the surgical technique of the corresponding procedure. These plans were either approved or adapted to a desired position within the planning software by the surgeons. Using this planned position as input, patient specific surgical guides were created which fit onto the exposed anatomy and guide the drilling of the pin (Figure 1). This method was tested on 14 cadavers, with attention directed to translation of the starting point from the original plan, the ability to reproduce the intended degree of inferior tilt, and the ability to reproduce the glenoid version angle. Results. The ability to reproduce the surgical plan was found to be highly accurate for the 14 cadaveric specimens. Translational accuracy amongst the 14 cadavers was found to be 1.01 ± 0.53 mm, tilt was 0.46 ± 0.53 degrees, and the accuracy of version was found to be 1.16 degrees ± 1.15 degrees. Conclusion. Surgical planning on patient specific virtual bone models and the corresponding surface matched drilling guides for glenoid implant positiong provide surgeons with an accurate method to achieve the desired surgical implant position. The measured accuracy compares favorably to both conventional and navigated techniques

Purpose: Finite element analysis can be used to assess the behaviour of loaded structures. We used this method to evaluate the influence of glenoid implant design on the behaviour of an osteoarthritic scapula. Material and methods: A 76-year-old female patient scheduled for a shoulder prosthesis underwent preoperative computed tomography of the osteoarthritic shoulder. Two polyethylene implants were evaluated: one with a triangular stem and the same prosthesis with three studs. 3D reconstruction of the glenoid cavity with the implants was then obtained and processed with the finite elements method. Three loadings were applied to the model: centred loading to reproduce the case of an ideally stable prosthesis with a normal tendinomuscular environment and excentred loading to simulate a deficient rotator cuff or prosthesis instability. Results: With centred loading, stress remained low, to the order of 7 MPa, at the stem-glenoid cavity interface. Excentered loading produced peak stress on the borders of the glenoid implants, directly under the loading zone and at the tip of the stem, at the bone-cement interface, reaching 20 MPa. The implant tended to bend in the anteroposterior direction producing strong shear forces on the posterior part of the glenoid cavity. These forces caused micromovement at the cement-bone interface. There was no significant difference between the stem and stud implants. Discussion: Eccentric loading of the glenoid implant appears to have a negative effect on long-term survival, the stress reaching levels greater than the values of cement fatigue fracture. Peak stress was situated on the posterior border of the cement layer due to the small space available between the implant the cortical bone in the posterior part of the osteoarthritic scapula. In this situation, the tip of the stem or the studs tend to come into contact with the posterior cortical of the scapula. When inserting a total shoulder prosthesis, it appears to be more important to keep in mind the geometry and the mechanical properties of the scapula than the implant design

Common post-operative problems in shoulder arthroplasty such as glenoid loosening and joint instability can be reduced by improvements in glenoid design shape, material choice and fixation method [1]. Innovation in shoulder replacement is usually carried out by introducing incremental changes to functioning implants [2], possibly overlooking other successful design combinations. We propose an automated framework for parametric analysis of implant design in order to efficiently assess different possible glenoid configurations. Parametric variations of reference geometries of a glenoid implant were automatically generated in SolidWorks. The different implants were aligned and implanted with repeatability using Rhino. The glenoid-bone models were meshed in Abaqus, and boundary conditions and loading applied via a custom-made Python script. Finally, another MATLAB script integrated and automated the different steps, extracted and analysed the results. This study compared the influence of reference shape (keel vs. 2-pegged) and material on the von Mises stresses and tensile and compressive strains of glenoid components with bearing surface thickness and fixation feature width of 3, 4, 5 or 6 mm. A total of 96 different glenoid geometries were implanted into a bone cube (E = 300 MPa, ν = 0.3). Fixed boundary conditions were applied at the distal surface of the cube and a contact force of 1000 N was distributed between the central nodes on the bearing surface. The implants were assigned UHMWPE (E = 1 GPa, ν = 0.46), Vitamin E PE (E = 800 MPa, ν = 0.46), CFR-PEEK (E = 18 GPa, ν = 0.41) or PCU (E = 2 GPa, ν = 0.38) material properties and the bone-implant surface was tied (Figure 1). The von Mises stresses, compressive and tensile strains for the different models were extracted. The influence of design parameters in the mechanical environment of the implant could be assessed. In this particular example, the 95. th. percentile values of the tensile and compressive strains induced by modifications in reference shape could be evaluated for all the different geometries simultaneously in form of radar plots. 2-pegged geometries (green) consistently produced lower tensile and compressive strains than the keeled (blue) configurations (Figure 2). Vitamin E PE and PCU glenoids also produced lower maximum von Mises stresses values than CFR-PEEK and UHMWPE designs (Figure 3). The developed method allows for simple, direct, rapid and repeatable comparison of different design features, material choices or fixation methods by analysing how they influence the mechanical environment of the bone surrounding the implant. Such tool can provide invaluable insight in implant design optimisation by screening through multiple potential design modifications at an early design evaluation stage and highlighting the best performing combinations. Future work will introduce physiological bone geometries and loading, a wider variety of reference geometries and fixation features, and look at bone/interface strength and osteointegration predictions

Purpose: Loosening of glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty is a common clinical problem which can necessitate revision surgery. The mechanism of loosening is poorly understood and may relate to implant design, component fixation techniques, and interfacial tensile stresses. We are unaware of any studies that have examined the fundamental aspects of load transfer to bone for various joint loading configurations. Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the effect of joint loading on bone strain adjacent to a poly-ethylene glenoid implant. Method: Five specimens (4 males; avg age: 59.5 yrs) implanted with a cemented, all polyethylene component (Anatomical Shoulder; Zimmer) were tested using an apparatus capable of producing loading vectors with various angles, magnitudes and directions. Each specimen was tested using a ramp load of 0–150 N (at 10N/sec) in two directions (superior and inferior) and with six angles of load application. A uniaxial strain gauge was placed in each of the four quadrants of the glenoid, approximately 1 mm medial to the glenoid rim. The primary axis of each strain gauge was oriented medio-laterally to record bone strains. The humeral head was simulated by a custom steel ball with a radius of curvature consistent with a nonconforming humeral prosthesis. Results: The relationship between strain and applied force was not linear (superior quadrant at 40o: linear fit R2=0.96; quadratic fit R2=0.999; p< 0.0005), and was dependent on the loading angle. During pure compressive loading, tension was observed in the superior and inferior quadrants of the glenoid; while less consistent results in the anterior and posterior quadrants revealed variable tension and compression. Superior and inferior loading each caused increasing ipsilateral tension, occurring from 0–30o and 0–20o, respectively. Conclusion: The current study is thought to be the first to directly measure load transfer at the implant-bone interface. We demonstrated load transfer nonlinearities between a surgically implanted glenoid component and the underlying bone in all locations and for a wide range of loading conditions. This has important implications towards the modeling of these constructs using finite element analyses. The results also illustrate tensile loading during compressive and small eccentricity loading cases. These results suggest a polyethylene flexure, causing the periphery of the glenoid implant to flex upwards placing the cement mantle and underlying bone in tension. Tensile loads that are linked to cement mantle fracture and implant loosening are produced under loading conditions associated with activities of daily living. This study has provided insight into the mechanisms of load transfer between a cemented polyethylene glenoid implant and the underlying bone. Reduction or elimination of these interfacial tensile stresses around the glenoid periphery should be considered when developing novel methods for component fixation

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

Summary Statement. In this study, excellent positioning of custom-made glenoid components was achieved using patient-specific guides. Achieving the preoperatively planned orientation of the component improved significantly and more screws were located inside the scapular bone compared to implantations without such guide. Introduction. Today's techniques for total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty are limited when dealing with severe glenoid defects. The available procedures, for instance the use of bone allografts in combination with available standard implants, are technically difficult and tend to give uncertain outcomes (Hill et al. 2001; Elhassan et al. 2008; Sears et al. 2012). A durable fixation between bone and implant with optimal fit and implant positioning needs to be achieved. Custom-made defect-filling glenoid components are a new treatment option for severe glenoid defects. Despite that the patient-specific implants are uniquely designed to fit the patient's bone, it can be difficult to achieve the preoperatively planned position of the component, resulting in less optimal screw fixation. We hypothesised that the use of a patient-specific guide would improve implant and screw positioning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the added value of a newly developed patient-specific guide for implant and screw positioning, by comparing glenoid implantations with and without such guide. Patients & Methods. Large glenoid defects, representative for the defects encountered in clinical practice, were created in ten cadaveric shoulders. A CT scan of each cadaver was taken to evaluate the defects and to generate three-dimensional models of the scapular bones. Based on these models, custom glenoid components were designed. Furthermore, a newly developed custom guide was designed for five randomly selected shoulders. New CT scans were taken after implantation to generate 3D models of the bone and the implanted component and screws. This enabled to compare the experimentally achieved and preoperatively planned reconstruction. The location and orientation of the glenoid component and screw positioning were determined and differences with the optimal preoperative planning were calculated. Results. An excellent component positioning (difference in location: 1.4±0, 7mm; difference in orientation: 2, 5±1, 2°) was achieved when using the guide compared to implantations without guidance (respectively 1, 7±0, 5mm; 5, 1±2, 3°). The guide improved component orientation significantly (P<0.1). After using the guide, all screws were positioned inside the scapular bone whereas 25% of the screws placed without guidance were positioned outside the scapular bone. Discussion/Conclusion. In this study, excellent positioning of custom-made glenoid components was achieved using patient-specific guides. Achieving the preoperatively planned orientation of the component improved significantly and more screws were located inside the scapular bone compared to implantations without such guide

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

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

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a high complication rate related to glenoid implant instability and screw loosening. Better radiographic post-operative evaluation may help in understanding complications causes. Medical radiographic imaging is the conventional technique for post-operative component placement analysis. Studies suggest that volumetric CT is better than use of CT slices or conventional radiographs. Currently, post-operative CT use is limited by metal-artifacts in images. This study evaluated inter-observer reliability of pre-operative and post-operative CT images registration to conventional approaches using radiographs and CT slices in measuring reverse shoulder arthroplasty glenoid implant and screw percentage in bone. Pre-operative and post-operative CT scans, and post-operative radiographs were obtained from six patients that had reverse shoulder arthroplasty. CT scans images were imported into a medical imaging processing software and each scapula, glenoid implant and inferior screw were reconstructed as 3D models. Post-operative 3D models were imported into the pre-operative reference frame and matched to the pre-operative scapula model using a paired-point and a surface registration. Measurements on registered CT models were done in reference to the pre-operative scapula model coordinate frame defined by a computer-assisted designed triad positioned in respect to the center of the glenoid fossa and trigonum scapulae (medial-lateral, z axis) and superior and inferior glenoid tubercle (superior-inferior, y axis). The orthogonal triad third axis defined the anterior-posterior axis (x axis). A duplicate triad was positioned along the central axis of the glenoid implant model. Using a virtual protractor, the glenoid implant inclination was measured from its central axis and the scapula transverse plane (x - z axes) and version from the coronal plane (y - z axes). Inferior screw percentage in bone was measured from a Boolean intersection operation between the pre-operative scapula model and the inferior screw model. For CT slices and radiographic measurements, a first 90-degree Cobb angle, from medical records software, was positioned from the trigonum scapulae to the centre of the central peg. Using the 90-degree line as reference, a second Cobb angle was drawn from the most superior to the most inferior point of the glenoid implant for inclination and from of the most anterior to the most posterior point for version. Version can only be measured using CT slices. Screw percentage in bone was calculated from screw length measures collected with a distance-measuring tool from the software. For testing the inter-observer reliability of the three methods, measures taken by three qualified observers were analysed using an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) method. The 3D registration method showed excellent reliability (ICC > 0.75) in glenoid implant inclination (0.97), version (0.98) and screw volume in bone (0.99). Conventional methods showed poor reliability (ICC < 0.4); CT-slice inclination (0.02), version (0.07), percentage of screw in bone (0.02) and for radiographic inclination (0.05) and percentage screw in bone (0.05). This CT registration of post-operative to pre-operative novel method for quantitatively assessing reverse shoulder arthroplasty glenoid implant positioning and screw percentage in bone, showed excellent inter-observer reliability compared to conventional 2D approaches. It overcomes metal-artifact limitations of post-operative CT evaluation

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

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

Introduction. Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (rTSA) is an efficient treatment, to relieve from pain and to increase function. However, scapular notching remains a serious issue and post-operative range of motion (ROM) presents many variations. No study compared implant positioning, different implant combinations, different implant sizes on different types of patient representative to undergo for rTSA, on glenohumeral ROM in every degree of freedom. Material and Methods. From a CT-scan database classified by a senior surgeon, CT-exams were analysed by a custom software Glenosys® (Imascap®, Brest, France). Different glenoid implants types and positioning were combined to different humerus implant types. Range of motion was automatically computed. Patients with an impingement in initialisation position were excluded from the statistical analysis. To validate those measures, a validation bench was printed in 3D to analyse different configurations. Results. 25 patients were included; 50 configurations were realised per patient. The validation bench on 5 configurations retrieved an error of 1,5° ± 0,88°. The impingement rate and ROM were improved using lateralised glenoid implant types, inferior positioning glenoid implant types, 42mm glenospheres, decreased Neck Shaft Angles for humerus implants and humerus inset. Conclusion. Impingement in resting arm at side position and ROM can be maximised with an adequate implant choice. A surgical planning software could assist the surgeon to choose the best configuration for each patient to maximise the post-operative outcome (scapular notching and global range of motion)

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

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

Purpose: There is no consensus concerning the ideal incongruency of the prosthetic head and the glenoid implant in total shoulder arthroplasty. Certain recent publications suggest the rate of periglenoid lucency is lower if the incongruency is greater than 5.5 mm. The purpose of this experimental in vitro work was to study the influence of changing humeral head-glenoid congruency on periglenoid bony malformations of prosthesis-bearing cadaveric scapulae and on the motion of the glenoid implants. Material and methods: Five scapulae from subjects aged 76 to 91 years at death were harvested and implanted with five stem cemented glenoid implants with an identical curvature. Five metallic balls with different radii were used to simulate incongruency of the humeral head-glenoid implant varying from 0 (perfect congruency) to 6 mm (0.2, 4.5, and 6 mm). The protocol involved preloading at 400 N following a normal axis for the glenoid implant and then posteroanterior translation and inferosuperior translation of 2.5 mm. The force necessary to impose the translation displacement, periglenoid bony deformations, and implant displacement compared with the bony glenoid were measured with a traction-compression device using deformation gauges and two CCD cameras in compliance with a published protocol. Results: Increasing incongruency decreased the force necessary to displace the metallic balls, decreased periglenoid bony deformations around the loaded zones and decreased the degree of prosthetic displacement facing the loaded zone. Discussion: The limitations of this experimentation are the small number of implants tested and the subsequent lack of statistical analysis concerning the reality of the differences observed. Besides, the experimental protocol cannot reproduce the normal conditions of the prosthesis articulation. Nevertheless, these results appear to favour the idea of greater bone and prosthetic tolerance with lesser humeral head-glenoid implant congruency. This might provide an explanation for the fewer glenoid lucent lines found in vivo in similar congruency situations. Conclusion: These results suggest that a certain degree of incongruency of total shoulder prostheses could reduce the risk of periprosthetic lucency. Ideal incongruency remains to be determined with further in vitro and in vivo studies