Literature DB >> 20563805

Effect of posterior offset humeral components on range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Nicolas J Dedy1, Martin Stangenberg, Dennis Liem, Christof Hurschler, Beat Simmen, Marc Riner, Bjoern Marquardt, Joern Steinbeck.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of eccentric humeral components with different degrees of posterior offset on range of glenohumeral motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Uncemented PROMOS® reverse shoulder prostheses were implanted in eight human cadaveric shoulder specimens. Passive range of motion was evaluated with a robot-assisted shoulder simulator. Three movements were tested: abduction, anterior elevation and external rotation. Each specimen was tested with a customary reverse humeral component and two eccentric components with 3 and 6 mm of posterior offset respectively. Mean abduction was 81° (standard deviation [SD] 12) for the customary reverse components, 81° (SD 13) for the 3 mm eccentric and 82° (SD 15) for 6-mm eccentric implants. Mean anterior elevation was 68° (SD 13) in the regular group and 66° (SD 14) and 63° (SD 14) for 3- and 6-mm eccentric groups. With all configurations, 90° of external rotation were achieved without requiring more than 2 N·m of applied rotational moment. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the conventional and the eccentric implants, anterior elevation was decreased by almost 20° in three of eight shoulders with the posterior offset configurations. This was due to a conflict between the proximal humerus and the anterior aspect of the acromion or the coracoid. Although eccentric humeral components can be useful in reverse shoulder arthroplasty to avoid anterior cortical defects in individuals with pronounced humeral head posterior offset, a potential conflict between proximal humerus and scapula may have an unfavourable effect on range of anterior elevation. However, this observation is only true for the uncemented PROMOS® reverse prosthesis. Other reverse shoulder designs with posterior offset components are yet to be tested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20563805      PMCID: PMC3066319          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-010-1079-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  14 in total

1.  Medially based anterior capsular shift of the glenohumeral joint. Passive range of motion and posterior capsular strain.

Authors:  C Hurschler; N Wülker; H Windhagen; P Plumhoff; N Hellmers
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2001 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design.

Authors:  Ralph Hertel; Ulf Knothe; Franz T Ballmer
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  [The preservation of the whole corpse with natural color].

Authors:  W Thiel
Journal:  Ann Anat       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.698

4.  The geometry of the humeral head and the design of prostheses.

Authors:  S N Roberts; A P Foley; H M Swallow; W A Wallace; D P Coughlan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-07

5.  Quantitative assessment of glenohumeral translation after anterior shoulder dislocation and subsequent arthroscopic bankart repair.

Authors:  Björn Marquardt; Christof Hurschler; Johannes Schneppendahl; Kai-Axel Witt; Wolfgang Pötzl; Jörn Steinbeck
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2006-07-13       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Frederick A Matsen; Pascal Boileau; Gilles Walch; Christian Gerber; Ryan T Bicknell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Contribution of the reverse endoprosthesis to glenohumeral kinematics.

Authors:  Jeroen H M Bergmann; M de Leeuw; Thomas W J Janssen; DirkJan H E J Veeger; W J Willems
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-02-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design.

Authors:  P Boileau; G Walch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1997-09

9.  Translation of the glenohumeral joint with simulated active elevation.

Authors:  N Wuelker; H Schmotzer; K Thren; M Korell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Rupture of the subscapularis tendon after shoulder arthroplasty: diagnosis, treatment, and outcome.

Authors:  Bruce S Miller; Thomas A Joseph; Thomas J Noonan; Marilee P Horan; Richard J Hawkins
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2005 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.019

View more
  5 in total

1.  The clinical and radiographical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with eccentric glenosphere.

Authors:  Naoko Mizuno; Patrick J Denard; Patric Raiss; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-04-26       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Arm lengthening after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review.

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Tom Bradley Edwards; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Radiographic parameters associated with excellent versus poor range of motion outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Georges Haidamous; Alexandre Lädermann; Robert U Hartzler; Bradford O Parsons; Evan S Lederman; John M Tokish; Patrick J Denard
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-07-09

Review 4.  Complications with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and recent evolutions.

Authors:  Marius M Scarlat
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-03-03       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  A Critical Review on Prosthetic Features Available for Reversed Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bart Middernacht; Alexander Van Tongel; Lieven De Wilde
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-12-25       Impact factor: 3.411

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.