If a modular convertible total shoulder system is used as a primary implant for an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty, failure of the prosthesis or the rotator cuff can be addressed by converting it to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), with retention of the humeral stem and glenoid baseplate. This has the potential to reduce morbidity and improve the results. . In a retrospective study of 14 patients (15 shoulders) with a mean age of 70 years (47 to 83) we reviewed the clinical and radiological outcome of converting an anatomical shoulder arthroplasty (ASA) to a RSA using a convertible prosthetic system (SMR system, Lima, San Daniele, Italy). . The mean operating time was 64 minutes (45 to 75). All humeral stems and glenoid baseplates were found to be well-fixed and could be retained. There were no intra-operative or early post-operative complications and no post-operative infection. The mean follow-up was 43 months (21 to 83), by which time the mean visual analogue scale for pain had decreased from 8 pre-operatively to 1, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score from 12 to 76, the mean Oxford shoulder score from 3 to 39, the mean Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Score from 1618 to 418 and the mean Subjective shoulder value from 15 to 61. On radiological review, one patient had a lucency around the humeral stem, two had stress shielding. There were no fatigue fractures of the acromion but four cases of grade 1 scapular notching. . The use of a convertible prosthetic system to revise a failed ASA reduces morbidity and minimises the rate of complications. The mid-term clinical and radiological results of this technique are promising. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1662–7

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. 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. 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

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

The outcome of an anatomical shoulder replacement depends on an intact rotator cuff. In 1981 Grammont designed a novel large-head reverse shoulder replacement for patients with cuff deficiency. Such has been the success of this replacement that it has led to a rapid expansion of the indications. We performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the functional outcome of each indication for the reverse shoulder replacement. Secondary outcome measures of range of movement, pain scores and complication rates are also presented

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

Hypothesis. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has good mid-term results for rotator cuff deficient arthritic conditions. Methods and Analysis. 103 reverse shoulder arthroplasties were performed in 91 patients from January 2003 to September 2009. Twelve patients had bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasties. Results. Average clinical follow-up was 13 months (range 3-72 months). There were 38% left and 62% right shoulders. Sixty-eight percent were women and 32% were men. The average age was 72 years (range 47-88 years). Indications included: rotator cuff arthropathies (79%), failed previous hemiarthroplasties and total shoulder arthroplasties (9%), rheumatoid arthritis (5%). Fractures accounted for 7% of cases, including acute 4-part fractures in the elderly, revision of fractures with deficient cuffs, malunion and nonunion cases with deficient cuffs. There was a significant improvement in quality of life. The Constant Score increased by an average of 46 points. 62 radiographs were reviewed. 75% of these showed notching of the inferior glenoid, 53% had notching of the posterior glenoid, 10 % had heterotrophic ossification inferior to the glenoid, and 40% had an inferior glenoid spur. Complications included: 2 dislocations, 1 massive heterotrophic ossification, 3 deep infections, 1 loose glenoid related to a fall, 3 acromial fractures, and 3 scapula spine fractures (all trauma related). Conclusion. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a good salvage procedure for cuff deficient arthritic conditions. Clinical mid-term results are good, but notching inferiorly and posteriorly may lead to deterioration over time. Fractures of the scapula appear to originate from either the superior or posterior screws which act as stress risers and an external rotation force of the greater tuberosity against the spine of the scapula in a fall may contribute to these fractures

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of different treatment options for glenoid loosening following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) at a minimum follow-up of two years. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively studied the records of 79 patients (19 men, 60 women; 84 shoulders) aged 70.4 years (21 to 87) treated for aseptic loosening of the glenosphere following RSA. Clinical evaluation included pre- and post-treatment active anterior elevation (AAE), external rotation, and Constant score. Results. From the original cohort, 29 shoulders (35%) were treated conservatively, 27 shoulders (32%) were revised by revision of the glenosphere, and 28 shoulders (33%) were converted to hemiarthroplasty. At last follow-up, conservative treatment and glenoid revision significantly improved AAE, total Constant score, and pain, while hemiarthroplasty did not improve range of movement or clinical scores. Multivariable analysis confirmed that conservative treatment and glenoid revision achieved similar improvements in pain (glenoid revision vs conservative, beta 0.44; p = 0.834) but that outcomes were significantly worse following hemiarthroplasty (beta -5.00; p = 0.029). Conclusion. When possible, glenoid loosening after RSA should first be treated conservatively, then by glenosphere revision if necessary, and last by salvage hemiarthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:461–469

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

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA) has been widely accepted for the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathy. There are a number of other shoulder pathologies where the reverse shoulder prosthesis can salvage previously untreatable shoulder conditions and restore function to the shoulder. This is a series of cases where RSA has been used to treat shoulder fractures. Material. Our indications for the reverse prosthesis in fracture management were:. Revision of failed fracture fixation with a deficient rotator cuff – 2 patients;. Acute 3 and 4 part fractures in the elderly, osteoporotic – 1 patient;. Acute 4 part fracture dislocation in elderly, osteoporotic – 1 patient;. Revision of non-union and malunions – 5 patients;. Revision of hemiarthroplasties which were initially done for fracture management – 5 patients. Results. There were a total of 14 cases treated for fractures out of 123 reverse shoulder arthroplasties performed. The average age for the fracture cases was 68 years (range 47–87) and for non-fracture RSA cases 73 years (range 51–88). The average follow-up Constant Score was 53 for fracture cases and 67 for non-fracture RSA cases. Complications included 1 dislocation and 1 deep infection. The problem with treatment of complex cases is there is an increased risk of complications. Problems encountered in the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in complex diagnoses include: instability, notching of scapula, scapula fractures, sepsis, lack of bone stock, poor quality soft-tissue and deficient deltoid muscle due to numerous previous surgical procedures, distortion of anatomy due to trauma, subscapularis deficiency and problems encountered from metal implants in situ. Conclusion. RSA is a good salvage procedure for cuff deficient shoulder fracture cases

The aim of the study was to assess the rate of greater tuberosity non union in reverse shoulder arthroplasty performed for proximal humerus fractures and to assess if union is related to type of fracture or the intraoperative reduction of the greater tuberosity. All cases of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures at our institution over a three year period were retrospectively reviewed from casenotes and radiologically and the position of the greater tuberosity was documented at immediate post op, 6 months and 12 months. Any malunion or non union were noted. A total of 27 cases of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures were identified. 4 cases did not have complete follow up xrays and were excluded from analysis. The average age at operation of the cohort of the 23 remaining patients was 79 years (range 70–91). The greater tuberosity was anatomically well positioned intraoperatively in 17 of the 23 cases. At the end of 12 months there were 4 cases of tuberosity non union (17%), all except one occurring in poorly intraoperatively positioned greater tuberosity. 50% (3 out of 6) of greater tuberosities displaced further and remained ununited if the intraoperative position was poor. Only 6% (1 out of 17) greater tuberosities did not unite if the greater tuberosities was reduced anatomically. Intra operatively position of the greater tuberosity was strongly associated with their union (Fischer's exact test p<0.05). Union of greater tuberosity was not statistically associated with fracture pattern (Fischer's exact test p=0.48). Our case series show a low rate of tuberosity malunion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture. Good positioning and fixation of the greater tuberosity intra operatively is a strong predictor of their uneventful union to shaft

Background:. While reverse shoulder arthroplasty has shown successful outcomes for a variety of shoulder pathologies, postoperative instability continues to be one of the most common complications limiting outcomes. In the literature, reports of instability range from 2.4%–31%. Many authors recommend an initial attempt at closed reduction followed by a period of immobilization for management of the initial dislocation episode while others may seek to rule out infection or other secondary causes; however there is little data to support either practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients with postoperative dislocation following reverse shoulder arthroplasty managed with closed reduction. Methods:. A retrospective review of all reverse shoulder arthroplasties performed by a single surgeon (MF) from 2002-present was performed to identify all patients treated for postoperative dislocation treated with closed reduction, either in the office setting or under anesthesia in the operating room. A total of 21 patients were identified. Preoperative patient characteristics, implant selection, and time to initial dislocation episode were recorded. Final outcomes including recurrent instability need for revision surgery, ASES outcome score, and range of motion were evaluated. Results:. There were 9 male and 12 female patients. Nearly 50% (10/21) cases had previous surgery, with the vast majority of these being previous arthroplasty (8/10). The average time to first dislocation was 200 days (range: 2 days–961 days), with 62% (13/21) occurring in the first 90 days. At average follow-up of 28 months following the dislocation episode, 62% of these shoulders remained stable (13/21). Six shoulders (29%) required revision surgery for recurrent instability. The revision procedure included a larger glenosphere and socket in all cases. All of these patients remained stable at final follow-up (Ave 25.5 months). In those cases successfully treated with closed reduction the average time to dislocation was 188 days, whereas the average time to initial dislocation in cases requiring revision surgery was 224 days (p = 0.82). All of these patients remained stable at final follow-up. Two shoulders (9%) remained unstable and either declined or were medically unfit to undergo revision surgery. The average ASES score in patients treated with closed reduction for instability was 68.0, and 62.7 for those treated with revision surgery (p = 0.64). Conclusion:. This study shows that an initial dislocation episode following reverse shoulder arthroplasty can be successfully managed with closed reduction and temporary immobilization in over half of cases. The time to dislocation is not related to the likelihood of a successful closed reduction. Given that outcomes following revision surgery are not different from closed treatment we would continue to recommend an initial attempt at closed reduction in all cases of postoperative reverse shoulder arthroplasty dislocation

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

Objectives. To date, no study has considered the impact of acromial morphology on shoulder range of movement (ROM). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effects of lateralization of the centre of rotation (COR) and neck-shaft angle (NSA) on shoulder ROM after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with different scapular morphologies. Methods. 3D computer models were constructed from CT scans of 12 patients with a critical shoulder angle (CSA) of 25°, 30°, 35°, and 40°. For each model, shoulder ROM was evaluated at a NSA of 135° and 145°, and lateralization of 0 mm, 5 mm, and 10 mm for seven standardized movements: glenohumeral abduction, adduction, forward flexion, extension, internal rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, as well as external rotation with the arm at 10° and 90° of abduction. Results. CSA did not seem to influence ROM in any of the models, but greater lateralization achieved greater ROM for all movements in all configurations. Internal and external rotation at 90° of abduction were impossible in most configurations, except in models with a CSA of 25°. Conclusion. Postoperative ROM following RSA depends on multiple patient and surgical factors. This study, based on computer simulation, suggests that CSA has no influence on ROM after RSA, while lateralization increases ROM in all configurations. Furthermore, increasing subacromial space is important to grant sufficient rotation at 90° of abduction. In summary, increased lateralization of the COR and increased subacromial space improve ROM in all CSA configurations. Cite this article: A. Lädermann, E. Tay, P. Collin, S. Piotton, C-H Chiu, A. Michelet, C. Charbonnier. Effect of critical shoulder angle, glenoid lateralization, and humeral inclination on range of movement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:378–386. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.88.BJR-2018-0293.R1

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. Acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have a wide range of incidences in reported case series. This study evaluates their incidence following RSA by systematically reviewing the current literature. Materials and Methods. A systematic review using the search terms “reverse shoulder”, “reverse total shoulder”, or “inverted shoulder” was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2018. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Studies were included if they reported on RSA outcomes and the incidence rate of acromial and/or scapular spine fractures. The rate of these fractures was evaluated for primary RSA, revision RSA, RSA indications, and RSA implant design. Results. The review included 90 articles out of 686 identified after exclusions. The incidence rate of acromial and/or scapular spine fractures was 2.8% (253/9048 RSAs). The fracture rate was similar for primary and revision RSA (2.8% vs 2.1%; p = 0.4). Acromial fractures were most common after RSA for inflammatory arthritis (10.9%) and massive rotator cuff tears (3.8%). The incidence was lowest in RSA for post-traumatic arthritis (2.1%) and acute proximal humerus fractures (0%). Lateralized glenosphere design had a significantly higher rate of acromial fractures compared with medial glenosphere designs. Conclusion. Based on current English literature, acromial and/or scapular spine fractures occur at a rate of 2.8% after RSA. The incidence is slightly more common after primary compared with revision arthroplasty. Also, higher rates of acromial fractures are reported in RSA performed for inflammatory arthritis and in the lateralized glenoid design. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:627–634

The reverse ball and socket shoulder replacement, employing a humeral socket and glenosphere, has revolutionized the treatment of patients with arthritis and rotator cuff insufficiency. The RSP (DjO Surgical, Inc., Austin, Texas) is one such device, characterized by a lateral center of rotation and approved for use in the United States since 2004. Multiple studies by the implant design team have documented excellent outcomes and low revision rates for the RSP, but other published outcomes data are relatively sparse. The objective of this study is to report on the complications and early outcomes in the first consecutive 60 RSPs implanted in 57 patients by a single shoulder replacement surgeon between 2004 and 2010. Forty-four patients were female and mean age at the time of reverse shoulder arthroplasty was 75 years (range 54 to 92 years). The RSP was used as a primary arthroplasty in 42 shoulders and to revise a failed prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty in 18 shoulders. During the study period, 365 shoulder replacements were implanted so that the RSP was used selectively, accounting for only 17% of all shoulder arthroplasties (8.4% for 2004-2007, 24.2% for 2008-2010). Most patients had pseudoparalysis and profound shoulder dysfunction so that mean pre-operative active forward elevation was to 45°, active abduction to 43°, active internal rotation to the buttock, and the mean pre-operative Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score was 1 out of 12. At final follow-up, mean active forward elevation had improved to 101° (p<0.0001), active abduction to 91° (p<0.0001), active internal rotation to the lumbosacral junction (p<0.001), and the mean final SST score was 7 out of 12. There were 16 complications in 14 patients, including 7 reoperations in 6 patients (11%): 3 closed reductions for dislocation, 2 open revisions for instability and for a dissociated liner in the same patient, one evacuation of a hematoma, and one open reduction and internal fixation of a post-operative scapular spine fracture. Two additional scapular spine or acromion fractures and one acromioclavicular joint separation developed postoperatively that impacted outcome adversely but did not require re-operation. None of the glenoid baseplates or humeral stems has been revised and no deep infections have occurred. Experience with reverse shoulder arthroplasty appears to influence the reoperation rate, as 3 of the reoperations occurred following the first 15 reverse shoulder arthroplasties. Overall improvements in active motion and self-assessed shoulder function were comparable to those reported previously. Final active motion results were somewhat lower than those reported previously, which may relate to the selection of predominately pseudoparalytic patients for reverse shoulder arthroplasty in this series. Use of the RSP device for reverse shoulder arthroplasty leads to improved motion and function in carefully selected older patients with pseudoparalysis or a failed shoulder replacement. Re-operations and complications occur but the learning curve may not be as steep as previously reported. This may relate to specific features of the implant system used in this series, as well as to surgeon experience