Literature DB >> 22621793

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty components and surgical techniques that restore glenohumeral motion.

Nazeem A Virani1, Andres Cabezas, Sergio Gutiérrez, Brandon G Santoni, Randall Otto, Mark Frankle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modifications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been made with the intent of maximizing motion, although there is little objective evidence outlining their benefit. This study investigated the RSA component combinations that impart the greatest effect on impingement-free glenohumeral motion.
METHODS: A previously validated virtual shoulder model was implanted with RSA components that varied by humeral implant type (inset/onset), glenosphere diameter (30, 36, and 42 mm), glenosphere placement (inferior/neutral), glenosphere center-of-rotation offset (0, 5, and 10 mm), humeral neck-shaft angle (130° and 150°), and humeral offset (zero, five, and ten mm). Motion was simulated in all technique combinations until the point of impingement in abduction, flexion/extension (F/E), and internal/external rotation (IR/ER). Regression analysis was used to rank combinations based on motion.
RESULTS: Of 216 possible study combinations, 126 constructs (58%) demonstrated no arm-at-side impingement and were included for analysis. Models with the largest motion in abduction, F/E, and IR/ER, respectively, were inset-42-inferior-10-150-zero (107°), inset-36-inferior-10-130-five (146°), and inset-42-inferior-10-130-ten (121°). Humeral neck-shaft angle, glenosphere center-of-rotation offset, glenosphere placement, and glenosphere diameter had a significant effect on motion in all planes tested. Of these variables, humeral neck-shaft angle was most predictive of a change in abduction and F/E motion, whereas glenosphere placement was most predictive of a change in IR/ER motion.
CONCLUSION: Higher glenosphere center-of-rotation offsets led to an increase in motion in all planes. To maximize motion in abduction, a valgus humeral component should be selected; to maximize F/E, a varus humeral component should be selected; and, to maximize IR/ER, the glenosphere should be placed inferiorly.
Copyright © 2013 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22621793     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  18 in total

1.  Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Patrick J Denard; Pascal Boileau; Alain Farron; Pierric Deransart; Alexandre Terrier; Julien Ston; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: research models.

Authors:  Stefano Petrillo; Umile Giuseppe Longo; Lawrence V Gulotta; Alessandra Berton; Andreas Kontaxis; Timothy Wright; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2017-02-07

3.  The effect of deltoid lengthening on functional outcome for reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  V J Sabesan; D Lombardo; D Josserand; D Buzas; T Jelsema; G R Petersen-Fitts; J M Wiater
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2016-03-30

4.  Development and Application of a Novel Metric to Characterize Comprehensive Range of Motion of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Josie A Elwell; George S Athwal; Ryan Willing
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-11-22       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Metallic humeral and glenoid lateralized implants in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy and primary osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk; Laurent Audigé; Viktoria Harzbecker; Philipp Moroder; Markus Scheibel
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-12-14

6.  Treatment of proximal humerus fractures using reverse shoulder arthroplasty: do the inclination of the humeral component and the lateral offset of the glenosphere influence the clinical outcome and tuberosity healing?

Authors:  Malte Holschen; Maria Körting; Patrick Khourdaji; Benjamin Bockmann; Tobias L Schulte; Kai-Axel Witt; Jörn Steinbeck
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 7.  Lateralized versus nonlateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yehia H Bedeir; Brian M Grawe; Magdy M Eldakhakhny; Ahmed H Waly
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-07-09

8.  Does lateralisation of the centre of rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty avoid scapular notching? Clinical and radiological review of one hundred and forty cases with forty five months of follow-up.

Authors:  Denis Katz; Philippe Valenti; Jean Kany; Kamil Elkholti; Jean-David Werthel
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-04       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Treating cuff tear arthropathy by reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: do the inclination of the humeral component and the lateral offset of the glenosphere influence the clinical and the radiological outcome?

Authors:  Malte Holschen; Alexandros Kiriazis; Benjamin Bockmann; Tobias L Schulte; Kai-Axel Witt; Jörn Steinbeck
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-04-20

10.  Factors influencing functional internal rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bettina Hochreiter; Anita Hasler; Julian Hasler; Philipp Kriechling; Paul Borbas; Christian Gerber
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-04-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.