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. 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.Aims
Methods
Glenoid bone loss is a significant problem in the management of shoulder instability. The threshold at which the bone loss is considered “critical” requiring bony reconstruction has steadily dropped and is now approximately 15%. This necessitates accurate measurement in order that the correct operation is performed. CT scanning is the most commonly used modality and there are a number of techniques described to measure the bone loss however few have been validated. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the most commonly used techniques for measuring glenoid bone loss on CT. Anatomically accurate models with known glenoid diameter and degree of bone loss were used to determine the mathematical and statistical accuracy of six of the most commonly described techniques (relative diameter, linear ipsilateral circle of best fit (COBF), linear contralateral COBF, Pico, Sugaya, and circle line methods). The models were prepared at 13.8%, 17.6%, and 22.9% bone loss. Sequential CT scans were taken and randomized. Blinded reviewers made repeated measurements using the different techniques with a threshold for theoretical bone grafting set at 15%.Aims
Methods
