Alexandre Lädermann1,2,3, Patrick J Denard4,5, Pascal Boileau6, Alain Farron7, Pierric Deransart8, Alexandre Terrier9, Julien Ston9, Gilles Walch10. 1. Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, La Tour Hospital, Rue J.-D. Maillard 3, 1217, Meyrin, Switzerland. alexandre.laedermann@gmail.com. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Rue Michel-Servet 1, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland. alexandre.laedermann@gmail.com. 3. Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211, Geneva 14, Switzerland. alexandre.laedermann@gmail.com. 4. Southern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, OR, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Hôpital de L'Archet-University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis, 151, Route de St Antoine de Ginestière, 06202, Nice, France. 7. Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland. 8. Tornier SA, Montbonnot Saint-Martin, France. 9. Laboratory of Biomechanical Orthopedics, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland. 10. Department of Orthopaedics, Shoulder Unit, Santy Orthopaedic Center and Jean Mermoz Hospital, Lyon, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The impacts of humeral offset and stem design after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have not been well-studied, particularly with regard to newer stems which have a lower humeral inclination. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of different humeral stem designs on range of motion and humeral position following RSA. METHODS: Using a three-dimensional computer model of RSA, a traditional inlay Grammont stem was compared to a short curved onlay stem with different inclinations (155°, 145°, 135°) and offset (lateralised vs medialised). Humeral offset, the acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and range of motion were evaluated for each configuration. RESULTS: Altering stem design led to a nearly 7-mm change in humeral offset and 4 mm in the AHD. Different inclinations of the onlay stems had little influence on humeral offset and larger influence on decreasing the AHD. There was a 10° decrease in abduction and a 5° increase in adduction between an inlay Grammont design and an onlay design with the same inclination. Compared to the 155° model, the 135° model improved adduction by 28°, extension by 24° and external rotation of the elbow at the side by 15°, but led to a decrease in abduction of 9°. When the tray was placed medially, on the 145° model, a 9° loss of abduction was observed. CONCLUSIONS: With varus inclination prostheses (135° and 145°), elevation remains unchanged, abduction slightly decreases, but a dramatic improvement in adduction, extension and external rotation with the elbow at the side are observed.
PURPOSE: The impacts of humeral offset and stem design after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have not been well-studied, particularly with regard to newer stems which have a lower humeral inclination. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of different humeral stem designs on range of motion and humeral position following RSA. METHODS: Using a three-dimensional computer model of RSA, a traditional inlay Grammont stem was compared to a short curved onlay stem with different inclinations (155°, 145°, 135°) and offset (lateralised vs medialised). Humeral offset, the acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and range of motion were evaluated for each configuration. RESULTS: Altering stem design led to a nearly 7-mm change in humeral offset and 4 mm in the AHD. Different inclinations of the onlay stems had little influence on humeral offset and larger influence on decreasing the AHD. There was a 10° decrease in abduction and a 5° increase in adduction between an inlay Grammont design and an onlay design with the same inclination. Compared to the 155° model, the 135° model improved adduction by 28°, extension by 24° and external rotation of the elbow at the side by 15°, but led to a decrease in abduction of 9°. When the tray was placed medially, on the 145° model, a 9° loss of abduction was observed. CONCLUSIONS: With varus inclination prostheses (135° and 145°), elevation remains unchanged, abduction slightly decreases, but a dramatic improvement in adduction, extension and external rotation with the elbow at the side are observed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arm position; Complications; Humeral offset; Impingement; Inlay and onlay design; Range of motion; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Reverse tray
Authors: Lawrence V Gulotta; Dan Choi; Patrick Marinello; Zakary Knutson; Joseph Lipman; Timothy Wright; Frank A Cordasco; Edward V Craig; Russell F Warren Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Sergio Gutiérrez; Charles A Comiskey; Zong-Ping Luo; Derek R Pupello; Mark A Frankle Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: A Lädermann; A Lübbeke; B Mélis; R Stern; P Christofilopoulos; G Bacle; G Walch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Charles M Jobin; Gabriel D Brown; Maher J Bahu; Thomas R Gardner; Louis U Bigliani; William N Levine; Christopher S Ahmad Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-11-06 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Daniel Grant Schwartz; Benjamin J Cottrell; Matthew J Teusink; Rachel E Clark; Katheryne L Downes; Richard S Tannenbaum; Mark A Frankle Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2014-04-13 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Bryan Wall; Laurent Nové-Josserand; Daniel P O'Connor; T Bradley Edwards; Gilles Walch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Philipp Moroder; Lukas Ernstbrunner; Christine Zweiger; Maximilian Schatz; Gerd Seitlinger; Robert Skursky; Johannes Becker; Herbert Resch; Rolf Michael Krifter Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Aimee Bobko; Gary Edwards; Jose Rodriguez; Taylor Southworth; Adam Miller; Dmitriy Peresada; Leonard Onsen; Benjamin Goldberg Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Giovanni Merolla; Francesco Cuoghi; George S Athwal; Ilaria Parel; Maria V Filippi; Andrea G Cutti; Elisabetta Fabbri; Antonio Padolino; Paolo Paladini; Fabio Catani; Giuseppe Porcellini Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.075