Literature DB >> 26704359

Contact mechanics of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty during abduction: the effect of neck-shaft angle, humeral cup depth, and glenosphere diameter.

G Daniel G Langohr1, Ryan Willing1, John B Medley1, George S Athwal1, James A Johnson2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implant design parameters can be changed during reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) to improve range of motion and stability; however, little is known regarding their impact on articular contact mechanics. The purpose of this finite element study was to investigate RSA contact mechanics during abduction for different neck-shaft angles, glenosphere sizes, and polyethylene cup depths.
METHODS: Finite element RSA models with varying neck-shaft angles (155°, 145°, 135°), sizes (38 mm, 42 mm), and cup depths (deep, normal, shallow) were loaded with 400 N at physiological abduction angles. The contact area and maximum contact stress were computed.
RESULTS: The contact patch and the location of maximum contact stress were typically located inferomedially in the polyethylene cup. On average for all abduction angles investigated, reducing the neck-shaft angle reduced the contact area by 29% for 155° to 145° and by 59% for 155° to 135° and increased maximum contact stress by 71% for 155° to 145° and by 286% for 155° to 135°. Increasing the glenosphere size increased the contact area by 12% but only decreased maximum contact stress by 2%. Decreasing the cup depth reduced the contact area by 40% and increased maximum contact stress by 81%, whereas increasing the depth produced the opposite effect (+52% and -36%, respectively). DISCUSSION: The location of the contact patch and maximum contact stress in this study matches the area of damage seen frequently on clinical retrievals. This finding suggests that damage to the inferior cup due to notching may be potentiated by contact stresses. Increasing the glenosphere diameter improved the joint contact area and did not affect maximum contact stress. However, although reducing the neck-shaft angle and cup depth can improve range of motion, our study shows that this also has some negative effects on RSA contact mechanics, particularly when combined.
Copyright © 2016 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FEA; RSA; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; contact mechanics; finite element analysis; glenosphere diameter; humeral cup constraint; neck-shaft angle

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26704359     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.024

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


  12 in total

Review 1.  Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Biomechanics and Indications.

Authors:  Caitlin M Rugg; Monica J Coughlan; Drew A Lansdown
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2019-12

2.  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 3.  Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Implant Design Considerations.

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

4.  Grammont versus lateralizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture: functional and radiographic outcomes.

Authors:  M A Verdano; D Aliani; C Galavotti; C Maroun; E Vaienti; F Ceccarelli
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2018-10-20

5.  Early clinical and radiological outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty with an eccentric all-polyethylene glenosphere to treat failed hemiarthroplasty and the sequelae of proximal humeral fractures.

Authors:  Giovanni Merolla; Antonio Tartarone; John W Sperling; Paolo Paladini; Elisabetta Fabbri; Giuseppe Porcellini
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Glenoid morphology in light of anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a dissection- and 3D-CT-based study in male and female body donors.

Authors:  Sandra Mathews; Marco Burkhard; Nabil Serrano; Karl Link; Martin Häusler; Nakita Frater; Ingeborg Franke; Helena Bischofberger; Florian M Buck; Dominic Gascho; Michael Thali; Steffen Serowy; Magdalena Müller-Gerbl; Gareth Harper; Ford Qureshi; Thomas Böni; Hans-Rudolf Bloch; Oliver Ullrich; Frank-Jakobus Rühli; Elisabeth Eppler
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  Assessment of Embedded Conjugated Polymer Sensor Arrays for Potential Load Transmission Measurement in Orthopaedic Implants.

Authors:  Carolina Micolini; Frederick Benjamin Holness; James A Johnson; Aaron David Price
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  A comparison of patient-specific instrumentation to navigation for conducting humeral head osteotomies during shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joseph Cavanagh; Jason Lockhart; G Daniel G Langohr; James A Johnson; George S Athwal
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2021-07-14

9.  The effect of humeral polyethylene insert constraint on reverse shoulder arthroplasty biomechanics.

Authors:  Irfan Abdulla; Daniel G Langohr; Joshua W Giles; James A Johnson; George S Athwal
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2017-04-05

10.  Impact of Age and Subscapularis Tendon Reparability on Return to Recreational Sports Activities and 2-Year Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jonathan A Godin; Jonas Pogorzelski; Marilee P Horan; Lucca Lacheta; Zaamin B Hussain; Burak Altintas; Salvatore Frangiamore; Sandeep Mannava; Erik M Fritz; Peter J Millett
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-10-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.