Abstract. Shoulder replacements have evolved and current 4th generation implants allow intraoperative flexibility to perform anatomic, reverse, trauma, and revision shoulder arthroplasty. Despite high success rates with shoulder arthroplasty, complication rates high as 10–15% have been reported and progressive glenoid loosening remains a concern. Objectives. To report medium term outcomes following 4th generation VAIOS® shoulder replacement. Methods. We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data following VAIOS® shoulder arthroplasty performed by the senior author between 2014–2020. This included anatomical (TSR), reverse(rTSR), revision and trauma shoulder replacements. The primary outcome was implant survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Secondary outcomes were Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS), radiological outcomes and complications. Results. 172 patients met our inclusion criteria with 114 rTSR, 38 anatomical TSR, and 20 hemiarthroplasty. Reverse TSR- 55 primary, 31 revision, 28 for trauma. Primary rTSR- 0 revisions, average 3.35-year follow-up. Revision rTSR-1 revision (4.17%), average 3.52-year follow-up. Trauma rTSR- 1 revision (3.57%), average 4.56-year follow-up OSS: Average OSS improved from 15.39 to 33.8 (Primary rTSR) and from 15.11 to 29.1 (Revision rTSR). Trauma rTSR-Average post-operative OSS was 31.4 Anatomical TSR38 patients underwent primary anatomical TSR, 8 were revisions following hemiarthroplasty. In 16/38 patients, glenoid bone loss was addressed by bone grafting before implantation of the metal back glenoid component. Mean age at time of surgery was 68.3 years (53 – 81 years). Mean follow-up was 34 months (12 – 62 months). The average Oxford shoulder score improved from 14 (7–30) to 30 (9–48). There were 3 revisions (7.8%); two following subscapularis failure requiring revision conversion to reverse shoulder replacement and one for glenoid graft failure. Conclusions. The medium-term results of the VAIOS® system suggest much lower revision rates across multiple configurations of the system than previously reported, as well as a low incidence of scapular notching. This system allows conversion to rTSR during primary and revision surgery

Abstract. Background/Objectives. The incidence of reverse total shoulder replacement (rTSR) implantation is increasing globally, but apprehension exists regarding complications and associated challenges. We retrospectively analysed the senior author's series of rTSR from a tertiary centre using the VAIOS shoulder system, a modular 4th generation implant. We hypothesised that the revision rTSR cohort would have less favourable outcomes and more complications. Methods. 114 patients underwent rTSR with the VAIOS system, over 7 years. The primary outcome was implant survival. Secondary outcomes were Oxford shoulder scores (OSS), radiographic analysis (scapular notching, tuberosity osteolysis, and periprosthetic radiolucent lines) and complications. Results. There were 55 Primary rTSR, 31 Revision rTSR and 28 Trauma rTSR. Implant survival: Primary rTSR- 0 revisions, average 3.35-year follow-up. Revision rTSR-1 revision (4.17%), average 3.52-year follow-up. Trauma rTSR- 1 revision (3.57%), average 4.56-year follow-up OSS: Average OSS improved from 15.39 to 33.8 (Primary rTSR) and from 15.11 to 29.1 (Revision rTSR). Average post-operative OSS for the Trauma rTSR was 31.4 Radiological analysis and complications: Low incidence of scapular notching One hairline fracture below the tip of stem, noted incidentally, which required no treatment. One periprosthetic fracture after alcohol related fall. Treated non-surgically One joint infection requiring two-stage revision to rTSR. One dislocation noted at 2 year follow up. This patient had undergone nerve grafting within 6 months of rTSR for axillary nerve injury sustained during the original fracture dislocation. One acromial fracture with tibial and distal humeral fracture after a fall. Conclusions. The 4th generation modular VAIOS implant is a reliable option for various indications. The revision rTSR cohort had favourable outcomes with low complication rates. In this series, early-to-medium term results suggest lower revision rates and good functional outcomes when compared to published reports. We plan to monitor long-term implant survivorship and patient reported outcomes. Declaration of Interest. (a) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest

Arthritis of the glenohumeral joint accompanied by an irreparable tear of the rotator cuff can cause severe pain, disability and loss of function, particularly in the elderly population. Anatomical shoulder arthroplasty requires a functioning rotator cuff, however, reverse shoulder arthroplasty is capable of addressing both rotator cuff disorders and glenohumeral deficiencies. The Aequalis Reversed Shoulder Prosthesis design is based on two bio-mechanical principles by Grammont; a medialized center of rotation located inside the glenoid bone surface and second, a 155 degree angle of inclination. Combined, they increase the deltoid lever arm by distalizing the humerus and make the prosthesis inherently stable. 24 consecutive primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasties were performed by a single surgeon for arthritis with rotator cuff compromise and 1 as a revision for a failed primary total shoulder replacement between December 2009 and October 2012. Patients were assessed postoperatively with the use of the DASH score, Oxford shoulder score, range of shoulder motion and plain radiography with Sirveaux score for scapular notching. Mean age at the time of surgery was 72.5 years (range 59 to 86). Average follow up time was 19.4 months (range 4 to 38). Functional outcome scores from our series were comparable with patients from other follow up studies of similar prosthesis design. All patients showed improvement in range of shoulder movement postoperatively. Complications included one dislocation, one acromion fracture and one humeral shaft fracture. No cases of deep infection were recorded. Overall, the short-term clinical results were promising for this series of patients and indicate reverse shoulder arthroplasty as an appropriate treatment for this group of patients

Wear of polyethylene is associated with aseptic loosening of orthopaedic implants and has been observed in hip and knee prostheses and anatomical implants for the shoulder. The reversed shoulder prostheses have not been assessed as yet. We investigated the volumetric polyethylene wear of the reversed and anatomical Aequalis shoulder prostheses using a mathematical musculoskeletal model. Movement and joint stability were achieved by EMG-controlled activation of the muscles. A non-constant wear factor was considered. Simulated activities of daily living were estimated from in vivo recorded data.

After one year of use, the volumetric wear was 8.4 mm³ for the anatomical prosthesis, but 44.6 mm³ for the reversed version. For the anatomical prosthesis the predictions for contact pressure and wear were consistent with biomechanical and clinical data. The abrasive wear of the polyethylene in reversed prostheses should not be underestimated, and further analysis, both experimental and clinical, is required.