Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2024; 59(02): e254-e259
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770976
Artigo Original
Mão

Glenosphere Size Does Not Matter in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Article in several languages: português | English
Akshar V. Patel 
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Christopher A. White
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Troy Li
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Bradford O. Parsons
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Evan L. Flatow
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
,
Paul J. Cagle
1   Departamento de Cirurgia Ortopédica, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, Estados Unidos
› Author Affiliations Financial Support Evan L. Flatow, MD: Innomed: intellectual property royalties; Springer: publishing royalties, financial or material support; Zimmer: intellectual property royalties.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective There are few studies to date reporting on outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with cohorts stratified by glenosphere size. The purpose of this study is to investigate the role that glenosphere size has on postoperative outcomes.

Methods Patients who underwent reverse TSA between 1987 with minimum of 2.0 years of follow-up were included. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on glenosphere size of 36mm or 40mm. Patients' range of motion, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic variables (glenoid preoperative morphology, scapular notching, humeral loosening) were evaluated.

Results All measurements of range of motion measurements with the exception of internal rotation saw significant preoperative to postoperative improvements within each cohort. There were no significant differences in postoperative range of motion, ASES, or VAS pain scores across the two cohorts. Overall, forward elevation improved to 134° ± 16° in the 36mm cohort and 133° ± 14° in the 40mm cohort (p = 0.47). External rotation improved to 37° ± 13° for 36mm patients and 35° ± 19° for 40mm patients (p = 0.58). In the 36mm group, internal rotation increased by 1.3 vertebral levels and 2.3 vertebral levels in the 40mm cohort. At final follow-up, the 36mm cohort had a VAS score of 2 ± 2, ASES score of 66 ± 19, and SST score of 6 ± 3. Similarly, the 40mm cohort had a VAS score of 2 ± 3, ASES score of 77 ± 28, and SST score of 9 ± 3.

Conclusions Reverse TSA provides sustained improvements in range of motion and shoulder function irrespective of glenosphere size.

Level of Evidence III.

Keywords

arthroplasty - shoulder - scapula - shoulder joint - range of motion articular

Work developed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York, United States.




Publication History

Received: 28 October 2022

Accepted: 24 January 2023

Article published online:
10 April 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Bacle G, Nové-Josserand L, Garaud P, Walch G. Long-Term Outcomes of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Follow-up of a Previous Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (06) 454-461
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Shields E, Koueiter DM, Wiater MJ. Rate of improvement in outcomes measures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a longitudinal study with 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Arthroplasty 2019; 3: 247154921986144
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Ernstbrunner L, Andronic O, Grubhofer F, Camenzind RS, Wieser K, Gerber C. Long-term results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff dysfunction: a systematic review of longitudinal outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28 (04) 774-781
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Ek ET, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22 (09) 1199-1208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Jobin CM, Galdi B, Anakwenze OA, Ahmad CS, Levine WN. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the management of proximal humerus fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2015; 23 (03) 190-201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Drake GN, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB. Indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in rotator cuff disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (06) 1526-1533
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Mizuno N, Denard PJ, Raiss P, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (14) 1297-1304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Urch E, Dines JS, Dines DM. Emerging Indications for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 2016; 65: 157-169
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Lévigne C, Chelli M, Johnston TR. et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis: survival and outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021; 30 (10) 2312-2324
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Day JS, Paxton ES, Lau E, Gordon VA, Abboud JA, Williams GR. Use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (05) 766-772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Westermann RW, Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Wolf BR, Hettrich CM. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States: A Comparison of National Volume, Patient Demographics, Complications, and Surgical Indications. Iowa Orthop J 2015; 35: 1-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Rauck RC, Eck EP, Chang B. et al. Survivorship of a Medialized Glenoid and Lateralized Onlay Humerus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is High at Midterm Follow-up. HSS J 2020; 16 (Suppl. 02) 293-299
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Patel AV, Matijakovich DJ, Brochin RL. et al. Mid-term outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with latissimus dorsi transfer. Shoulder Elbow 2022; 14 (03) 286-294
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Mollon B, Mahure SA, Roche CP, Zuckerman JD. Impact of glenosphere size on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 297 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (05) 763-771
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Müller AM, Born M, Jung C. et al. Glenosphere size in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: is larger better for external rotation and abduction strength?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27 (01) 44-52
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Werner BS, Chaoui J, Walch G. Glenosphere design affects range of movement and risk of friction-type scapular impingement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (09) 1182-1186
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Haidamous G, Lädermann A, Hartzler RU. et al. Radiographic parameters associated with excellent versus poor range of motion outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow 2022; 14 (01) 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Schoch BS, Vasilopoulos T, LaChaud G. et al. Optimal glenosphere size cannot be determined by patient height. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29 (02) 258-265
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Langohr GDG, Giles JW, Athwal GS, Johnson JA. The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24 (06) 972-979
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Sabesan VJ, Lombardo DJ, Shahriar R, Petersen-Fitts GR, Wiater JM. The effect of glenosphere size on functional outcome for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg 2016; 100 (02) 115-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Amroodi MN, Behshad V, Motaghi P. Long-term Results, Functional Outcomes and Complications after Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Neglected and Displaced Greater Tuberosity of Humerus Fractures. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2016; 4 (04) 330-336
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 1999; 14 (06) 756-760
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sanchez-Sotelo J, O'Driscoll SW, Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Radiographic assessment of cemented humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001; 10 (06) 526-531
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Torrens C, Guirro P, Miquel J, Santana F. Influence of glenosphere size on the development of scapular notching: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25 (11) 1735-1741
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar