Literature DB >> 26310680

Implant Design Variations in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Influence the Required Deltoid Force and Resultant Joint Load.

Joshua W Giles1,2,3, G Daniel G Langohr4,5, James A Johnson4,5, George S Athwal4,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is widely used; however, the effects of RTSA geometric parameters on joint and muscle loading, which strongly influence implant survivorship and long-term function, are not well understood. By investigating these parameters, it should be possible to objectively optimize RTSA design and implantation technique. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of RTSA implant design parameters on (1) the deltoid muscle forces required to produce abduction, and (2) the magnitude of joint load and (3) the loading angle throughout this motion. We also sought to determine how these parameters interacted.
METHODS: Seven cadaveric shoulders were tested using a muscle load-driven in vitro simulator to achieve repeatable motions. The effects of three implant parameters-humeral lateralization (0, 5, 10 mm), polyethylene thickness (3, 6, 9 mm), and glenosphere lateralization (0, 5, 10 mm)-were assessed for the three outcomes: deltoid muscle force required to produce abduction, magnitude of joint load, and joint loading angle throughout abduction.
RESULTS: Increasing humeral lateralization decreased deltoid forces required for active abduction (0 mm: 68% ± 8% [95% CI, 60%-76% body weight (BW)]; 10 mm: 65% ± 8% [95% CI, 58%-72 % BW]; p = 0.022). Increasing glenosphere lateralization increased deltoid force (0 mm: 61% ± 8% [95% CI, 55%-68% BW]; 10 mm: 70% ± 11% [95% CI, 60%-81% BW]; p = 0.007) and joint loads (0 mm: 53% ± 8% [95% CI, 46%-61% BW]; 10 mm: 70% ± 10% [95% CI, 61%-79% BW]; p < 0.001). Increasing polyethylene cup thickness increased deltoid force (3 mm: 65% ± 8% [95% CI, 56%-73% BW]; 9 mm: 68% ± 8% [95% CI, 61%-75% BW]; p = 0.03) and joint load (3 mm: 60% ± 8% [95% CI, 53%-67% BW]; 9 mm: 64% ± 10% [95% CI, 56%-72% BW]; p = 0.034).
CONCLUSIONS: Humeral lateralization was the only parameter that improved joint and muscle loading, whereas glenosphere lateralization resulted in increased loads. Humeral lateralization may be a useful implant parameter in countering some of the negative effects of glenosphere lateralization, but this should not be considered the sole solution for the negative effects of glenosphere lateralization. Overstuffing the articulation with progressively thicker humeral polyethylene inserts produced some adverse effects on deltoid muscle and joint loading. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This systematic evaluation has determined that glenosphere lateralization produces marked negative effects on loading outcomes; however, the importance of avoiding scapular notching may outweigh these effects. Humeral lateralization's ability to decrease the effects of glenosphere lateralization was promising but further investigations are required to determine the effects of combined lateralization on functional outcomes including range of motion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26310680      PMCID: PMC4586233          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4526-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  30 in total

1.  Effect of lateral offset center of rotation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study.

Authors:  Heath B Henninger; Alexej Barg; Andrew E Anderson; Kent N Bachus; Robert T Burks; Robert Z Tashjian
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  Kinematic analysis of dynamic shoulder motion in patients with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Young W Kwon; Vivek J Pinto; Jangwhon Yoon; Mark A Frankle; Page E Dunning; Ali Sheikhzadeh
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Development and performance evaluation of a multi-PID muscle loading driven in vitro active-motion shoulder simulator and application to assessing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joshua William Giles; Louis Miguel Ferreira; George Singh Athwal; James Andrew Johnson
Journal:  J Biomech Eng       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.097

4.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years.

Authors:  Eugene T H Ek; Lisa Neukom; Sabrina Catanzaro; Christian Gerber
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Stress analysis of glenoid component in design of reverse shoulder prosthesis using finite element method.

Authors:  Ching-Chieh Yang; Chun-Lin Lu; Chun-Hung Wu; Jiunn-Jer Wu; Teng-Le Huang; Rongshun Chen; Meng-Kao Yeh
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  The Bristow and Latarjet procedures: why these techniques should not be considered synonymous.

Authors:  Joshua W Giles; Ryan M Degen; James A Johnson; George S Athwal
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 7.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: update on indications, technique, and results.

Authors:  Daniel C Acevedo; Corinne Vanbeek; Mark D Lazarus; Gerald R Williams; Joseph A Abboud
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.019

8.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty-outcome and follow-up.

Authors:  Reinhold Ortmaier; Herbert Resch; Nicholas Matis; Martina Blocher; Alexander Auffarth; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl; Mark Tauber
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Biomechanical comparison of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty systems in soft tissue-constrained shoulders.

Authors:  Heath B Henninger; Frank K King; Robert Z Tashjian; Robert T Burks
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.019

10.  The weight of nations: an estimation of adult human biomass.

Authors:  Sarah Catherine Walpole; David Prieto-Merino; Phil Edwards; John Cleland; Gretchen Stevens; Ian Roberts
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 3.295

View more
  27 in total

1.  Does Humeral Component Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Affect Rotator Cuff Torque? Evaluation in a Cadaver Model.

Authors:  Kevin Chan; G Daniel G Langohr; Matthew Mahaffy; James A Johnson; George S Athwal
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  CORR Insights®: Does Humeral Component Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Affect Rotator Cuff Torque? Evaluation in a Cadaver Model.

Authors:  Konrad I Gruson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  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

Review 4.  Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Implant Design Considerations.

Authors:  Ujash Sheth; Matthew Saltzman
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2019-12

Review 5.  Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice.

Authors:  Jean-David Werthel; Gilles Walch; Emilie Vegehan; Pierric Deransart; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Philippe Valenti
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  The biomechanical effectiveness of tendon transfers to restore rotation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: latissimus versus lower trapezius.

Authors:  Kevin Chan; G Daniel G Langohr; George S Athwal; James A Johnson
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-08-02

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

Review 8.  Bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of the available evidence.

Authors:  Richard Dimock; Mohamed Fathi Elabd; Mohamed Imam; Mark Middleton; Arnaud Godenèche; A Ali Narvani
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-06-02

9.  Survivorship of a Medialized Glenoid and Lateralized Onlay Humerus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is High at Midterm Follow-up.

Authors:  Ryan C Rauck; Eric P Eck; Brenda Chang; Edward V Craig; Joshua S Dines; David M Dines; Russell F Warren; Lawrence V Gulotta
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-12-09

10.  Computer-Assisted Surgery in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Early Experience.

Authors:  Andrea Giorgini; Luigi Tarallo; Michele Novi; Giuseppe Porcellini
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-01-27       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.