Jean-David Werthel1,2, Gilles Walch3, Emilie Vegehan4, Pierric Deransart5, Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo6, Philippe Valenti4. 1. Hôpital Ambroise Paré, 9 avenue Charles de Gaulle, 92100, Boulogne-Billancourt, France. jdwerthel@gmail.com. 2. Paris Shoulder Unit, Clinique Bizet, 21 rue Georges Bizet, 75116, Paris, France. jdwerthel@gmail.com. 3. Centre Orthopédique Santy, 24 Avenue Paul Santy, 69008, Lyon, France. 4. Paris Shoulder Unit, Clinique Bizet, 21 rue Georges Bizet, 75116, Paris, France. 5. SDOD, 38410, Saint Martin d'Uriage, France. 6. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Since its first description, the concept of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has evolved. The term lateralization remains unclear and is used to describe implants that lateralize on the glenoid side, the humeral side, or both. The objective of this study was to provide a clear definition of lateralization and to measure the lateralization achieved by the most commonly used implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight different configurations with 22 different implants were analyzed. Glenoid, humeral, and global lateralization was measured on digitized templates. Implant lateralization was normalized to the lateral offset of the Delta III. Each implant was defined as a combination of one of two glenoid categories (medialized glenoid (MG), lateralized glenoid (LG), and one of four humeral categories (medialized humerus (MH), minimally lateralized humerus (LH), lateralized humerus (LH+). In addition, implants were separated in categories of 5-mm increments for global offset (medialized RSA (M-RSA), minimally lateralized RSA (ML-RSA), lateralized RSA (L-RSA), highly lateralized RSA (HL-RSA), and very highly lateralized RSA (VHL-RSA). RESULTS: The global lateral offset of the Delta III was 13.1 mm; global lateral offset of all designs in this study varied between 13.1 and 35.8 mm. Regarding their global lateral offset, five implants are M-RSA (lateral offset < 18.1 mm), five ML-RSA (18.1-23.1 mm), seven L-RSA (23.1-28.1 mm), six HL-RSA (28.1-33.1 mm), and one VHL-RSA (33.1-38.1 mm). CONCLUSION: There is high variability in the amount of lateralization provided by the majority of RSAs currently available. This descriptive analysis can help surgeons understand the features of implants in the market based on their lateralization in order to adapt the surgical technique depending on the expected lateral offset of the design being implanted.
INTRODUCTION: Since its first description, the concept of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has evolved. The term lateralization remains unclear and is used to describe implants that lateralize on the glenoid side, the humeral side, or both. The objective of this study was to provide a clear definition of lateralization and to measure the lateralization achieved by the most commonly used implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight different configurations with 22 different implants were analyzed. Glenoid, humeral, and global lateralization was measured on digitized templates. Implant lateralization was normalized to the lateral offset of the Delta III. Each implant was defined as a combination of one of two glenoid categories (medialized glenoid (MG), lateralized glenoid (LG), and one of four humeral categories (medialized humerus (MH), minimally lateralized humerus (LH), lateralized humerus (LH+). In addition, implants were separated in categories of 5-mm increments for global offset (medialized RSA (M-RSA), minimally lateralized RSA (ML-RSA), lateralized RSA (L-RSA), highly lateralized RSA (HL-RSA), and very highly lateralized RSA (VHL-RSA). RESULTS: The global lateral offset of the Delta III was 13.1 mm; global lateral offset of all designs in this study varied between 13.1 and 35.8 mm. Regarding their global lateral offset, five implants are M-RSA (lateral offset < 18.1 mm), five ML-RSA (18.1-23.1 mm), seven L-RSA (23.1-28.1 mm), six HL-RSA (28.1-33.1 mm), and one VHL-RSA (33.1-38.1 mm). CONCLUSION: There is high variability in the amount of lateralization provided by the majority of RSAs currently available. This descriptive analysis can help surgeons understand the features of implants in the market based on their lateralization in order to adapt the surgical technique depending on the expected lateral offset of the design being implanted.
Authors: Matthew A Hamilton; Phong Diep; Chris Roche; Pierre Henri Flurin; Thomas W Wright; Joseph D Zuckerman; Howard Routman Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Ryan W Simovitch; Matthias A Zumstein; Eveline Lohri; Naeder Helmy; Christian Gerber Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Jason D Vourazeris; Thomas W Wright; Aimee M Struk; Joseph J King; Kevin W Farmer Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Jacob M Kirsch; Moin Khan; Patrick Thornley; Mark Gichuru; Michael T Freehill; Andrew Neviaser; James Moravek; Bruce S Miller; Asheesh Bedi Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-10-16 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: 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: Philippe Valenti; Leila Oryadi Zanjani; Bradley S Schoch; Efi Kazum; Jean David Werthel Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2021-01-30 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Peter N Chalmers; Spencer R Lindsay; Weston Smith; Jun Kawakami; Ryan Hill; Robert Z Tashjian; Jay D Keener Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 3.019