Literature DB >> 29975263

Scapular Notching After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Prediction Using Patient-Specific Osseous Anatomy, Implant Location, and Shoulder Motion.

Joel Kolmodin1, Iyooh U Davidson1, Bong Jae Jun1, Nipun Sodhi1, Naveen Subhas2, Thomas E Patterson1, Zong-Ming Li1, Joseph P Iannotti1, Eric T Ricchetti1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Scapular notching is frequently observed following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), although the etiology is not well understood.
METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans who underwent rTSA with a Grammont design were evaluated after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up with video motion analysis (VMA), postoperative three-dimensional (3D) CT, and standard radiographs. The glenohumeral range of motion demonstrated by the VMA and the postoperative implant location on the CT were used in custom simulation software to determine areas of osseous impingement between the humeral implant and the scapula and their relationship to scapular notching on postoperative CT. Patients with and without notching were compared with one another by univariable and multivariable analyses to determine factors associated with notching.
RESULTS: Seventeen patients (59%) had scapular notching, which was along the posteroinferior aspect of the scapular neck in all of them and along the anteroinferior aspect of the neck in 3 of them. Osseous impingement occurred in external rotation with the arm at the side in 16 of the 17 patients, in internal rotation with the arm at the side in 3, and in adduction in 12. The remaining 12 patients did not have notching or osseous impingement. Placing the glenosphere in a position that was more inferior (by a mean of 3.4 ± 2.3 mm) or lateral (by a mean of 6.2 ± 1.4 mm) would have avoided most impingement in the patients' given range of motion. Notching was associated with glenosphere placement that was insufficiently inferior (mean inferior translation, -0.3 ± 3.4 mm in the notching group versus 3.0 ± 2.9 mm in the no-notching group; p = 0.01) or posterior (mean, -0.3 ± 3.5 mm versus 4.2 ± 2.2 mm; p < 0.001). Two-variable models showed inferior and posterior (area under the curve [AUC], 0.887; p < 0.001), inferior and lateral (AUC, 0.892; p < 0.001), and posterior and lateral (AUC, 0.892; p < 0.001) glenosphere positions to be significant predictors of the ability to avoid scapular notching.
CONCLUSIONS: Osseous impingement identified using patients' actual postoperative range of motion and implant position matched the location of scapular notching seen radiographically. Inferior, lateral, and posterior glenosphere positions are all important factors in the ability to avoid notching. Only small changes in implant position were needed to avoid impingement, suggesting that preoperative determination of the ideal implant position may be a helpful surgical planning tool to avoid notching when using this implant design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29975263     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.00242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  11 in total

Review 1.  Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Implant Design Considerations.

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

2.  Clinical implications of scapular notching at 2 and 5-year follow-up after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Robert J Shelley; Mikalyn T DeFoor; Stephen A Parada; Lynn A Crosby
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-08-19

3.  Tomographic Analysis of Positioning of Reverse Baseplates Positioning.

Authors:  Alexandre Almeida; Daniel C Agostini; Pietro Ft Nesello; Nayvaldo C de Almeida; Rafael Mioso; Ana Paula Agostini
Journal:  J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast       Date:  2021-02-15

4.  Patient Posture Affects Simulated ROM in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Modeling Study Using Preoperative Planning Software.

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

5.  Complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a concise review.

Authors:  Su Cheol Kim; Il Su Kim; Min Chang Jang; Jae Chul Yoo
Journal:  Clin Shoulder Elb       Date:  2021-03-02

6.  Influence of glenoid wear pattern on glenoid component placement accuracy in shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kevin A Hao; Christopher D Sutton; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Jonathan O Wright; Aimee M Struk; Edward T Haupt; Thiago Leonor; Joseph J King
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2022-01-15

7.  Do reverse total shoulder replacements have better clinical and functional outcomes than hemiarthroplasty for patients undergoing proximal humeral tumor resection using devitalized autograft composite reconstruction: a case-control study.

Authors:  Dongqing Zuo; Haoran Mu; Qingbo Yang; Mengxiong Sun; Jiakang Shen; Hongsheng Wang; Xiaojun Ma; Chongren Wang; Chuanping Li; Wei Sun; Zhengdong Cai
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  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

9.  Adjusting Implant Size and Position Can Improve Internal Rotation After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in a Three-dimensional Computational Model.

Authors:  Eric G Huish; George S Athwal; Lionel Neyton; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 10.  The Evolution of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty-From the First Steps to Novel Implant Designs and Surgical Techniques.

Authors:  Julia K Frank; Paul Siegert; Fabian Plachel; Philipp R Heuberer; Stephanie Huber; Jakob E Schanda
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.