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

The three-dimensional (3D) correction of glenoid erosion is critical to the long-term success of total shoulder replacement (TSR). In order to characterise the 3D morphology of eroded glenoid surfaces, we looked for a set of morphological parameters useful for TSR planning. We defined a scapular coordinates system based on non-eroded bony landmarks. The maximum glenoid version was measured and specified in 3D by its orientation angle. Medialisation was considered relative to the spino-glenoid notch. We analysed regular CT scans of 19 normal (N) and 86 osteoarthritic (OA) scapulae. When the maximum version of OA shoulders was higher than 10°, the orientation was not only posterior, but extended in postero-superior (35%), postero-inferior (6%) and anterior sectors (4%). The medialisation of the glenoid was higher in OA than normal shoulders. The orientation angle of maximum version appeared as a critical parameter to specify the glenoid shape in 3D. It will be very useful in planning the best position for the glenoid in TSR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:513–18.

This study provides recommendations on the position of the implant in reverse shoulder replacement in order to minimise scapular notching and osteophyte formation. Radiographs from 151 patients who underwent primary reverse shoulder replacement with a single prosthesis were analysed at a mean follow-up of 28.3 months (24 to 44) for notching, osteophytes, the position of the glenoid baseplate, the overhang of the glenosphere, and the prosthesis scapular neck angle (PSNA).

A total of 20 patients (13.2%) had a notch (16 Grade 1 and four Grade 2) and 47 (31.1%) had an osteophyte. In patients without either notching or an osteophyte the baseplate was found to be positioned lower on the glenoid, with greater overhang of the glenosphere and a lower PSNA than those with notching and an osteophyte. Female patients had a higher rate of notching than males (13.3% vs 13.0%) but a lower rate of osteophyte formation (22.9% vs 50.0%), even though the baseplate was positioned significantly lower on the glenoid in females (p = 0.009) and each had a similar mean overhang of the glenosphere.

Based on these findings we make recommendations on the placement of the implant in both male and female patients to avoid notching and osteophyte formation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:530–5.