V J Sabesan1, D J Lombardo2, R Shahriar2, G R Petersen-Fitts2, J M Wiater3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 18100 Oakwood Blvd. Suite 305, Dearborn, MI, 48124, USA. Sabes001@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 18100 Oakwood Blvd. Suite 305, Dearborn, MI, 48124, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an effective surgery for a variety of patients with difficult shoulder pathology. Since postsurgical outcomes are often variable, there has been great effort made to optimize the design and use of these implants. Previous studies demonstrated an association between increased glenosphere size and improved range of motion. The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship between glenosphere size, range of motion, and functional outcome scores. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 140 patients (148 shoulders) undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively for range of motion, Constant score, ASES score, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Improvements in these variables were compared for patients treated with three different glenosphere sizes (36, 40, 42 mm). RESULTS: All groups had a mean improvement in range of motion and functional outcome scores, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups when controlling for preoperative differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support a strong role for glenosphere size as a singular factor affecting range of motion or patient-reported outcome following RSA. These problems are most likely due to the multifactorial nature of shoulder dynamics. For this reason, assessing the effect a single surgical or biomechanical parameter on function has been challenging.
PURPOSE: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an effective surgery for a variety of patients with difficult shoulder pathology. Since postsurgical outcomes are often variable, there has been great effort made to optimize the design and use of these implants. Previous studies demonstrated an association between increased glenosphere size and improved range of motion. The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship between glenosphere size, range of motion, and functional outcome scores. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 140 patients (148 shoulders) undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively for range of motion, Constant score, ASES score, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Improvements in these variables were compared for patients treated with three different glenosphere sizes (36, 40, 42 mm). RESULTS: All groups had a mean improvement in range of motion and functional outcome scores, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups when controlling for preoperative differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support a strong role for glenosphere size as a singular factor affecting range of motion or patient-reported outcome following RSA. These problems are most likely due to the multifactorial nature of shoulder dynamics. For this reason, assessing the effect a single surgical or biomechanical parameter on function has been challenging.
Entities:
Keywords:
Glenosphere size; Prosthesis design; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Shoulder range of motion; Surgical outcomes
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: Chris Roche; Pierre-Henri Flurin; Thomas Wright; Lynn A Crosby; Michael Mauldin; Joseph D Zuckerman Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Michael W Maier; Mira Caspers; Felix Zeifang; Thomas Dreher; Matthias C Klotz; Sebastian I Wolf; Philip Kasten Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2014-06-13 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Roberto Castricini; Giorgio Gasparini; Francesco Di Luggo; Massimo De Benedetto; Marco De Gori; Olimpio Galasso Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2013-03-19 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; Manuel Urvoy; Patric Raiss; Jean-David Werthel; Doruk Akgün; Jean Chaoui; Paul Siegert Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 4.755