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.

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.

We retrospectively reviewed 11 consecutive patients with an infected reverse shoulder prosthesis. Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically, and standard laboratory tests were carried out. Peroperative samples showed Propionbacterium acnes in seven, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in five, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in one and Escherichia coli in one. Two multibacterial and nine monobacterial infections were seen. Post-operatively, patients were treated with intravenous cefazolin for at least three days and in all antibiotic therapy was given for at least three months. Severe pain (3 of 11) or severe limitation of function (3 of 11) are not necessarily seen. A fistula was present in eight, but function was not affected. All but one patient were considered free of infection after one-stage revision at a median follow-up of 24 months, and without antibiotic treatment for a minimum of six months. One patient had a persistent infection despite a second staged revision, but is now free of infection with a spacer. Complications included posterior dislocation in one, haematoma in one and a clavicular fracture in one. At the most recent follow-up the median post-operative Constant-Murley score was 55, 6% adjusted for age, gender and dominance.

A one-stage revision arthroplasty reduces the cost and duration of treatment. It is reliable in eradicating infection and good functional outcomes can be achieved.