Caitlin M Rugg1, Monica J Coughlan2, Drew A Lansdown3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Ave, MU 320 West, Room W314, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0728, USA. Caitlin.rugg@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Ave, MU 320 West, Room W314, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0728, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 1500 Owens Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past decade, our understanding of the biomechanics of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has advanced, resulting in design adjustments, improved outcomes, and expanding indications. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent literature regarding the biomechanics of RTSA and the evolving indications for its use. RECENT FINDINGS: While Grammont's principles of RTSA biomechanics remain pillars of contemporary designs, a number of modifications have been proposed and trialed in later generations to address complications such as impingement and glenoid failure. Clinical and biomechanical literature suggest that less medialized, more inferior glenospheres result in less impingement and notching. On the humerus, a more vertical neck cut is associated with less impingement. Indications for RTSA continue to expand beyond the classic indication of cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). Patients without a functional cuff but no arthritis now have a reliable option in the RTSA. RTSA has also replaced hemiarthroplasty as the implant of choice for displaced three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures in the elderly. Finally, updated design options and modular components now allow for treatment of glenoid bone loss, failed arthroplasty, and proximal humerus tumors with RTSA implants. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty design has been modernized on both the glenoid and humerus to address biomechanical challenges of early implants. As outcomes improve with these modifications, RTSA indications are growing to address complex bony pathologies such as tumor and bone loss. Longitudinal follow-up of patients with updated designs and novel indications is essential to judicious application of RTSA technology.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past decade, our understanding of the biomechanics of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has advanced, resulting in design adjustments, improved outcomes, and expanding indications. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent literature regarding the biomechanics of RTSA and the evolving indications for its use. RECENT FINDINGS: While Grammont's principles of RTSA biomechanics remain pillars of contemporary designs, a number of modifications have been proposed and trialed in later generations to address complications such as impingement and glenoid failure. Clinical and biomechanical literature suggest that less medialized, more inferior glenospheres result in less impingement and notching. On the humerus, a more vertical neck cut is associated with less impingement. Indications for RTSA continue to expand beyond the classic indication of cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). Patients without a functional cuff but no arthritis now have a reliable option in the RTSA. RTSA has also replaced hemiarthroplasty as the implant of choice for displaced three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures in the elderly. Finally, updated design options and modular components now allow for treatment of glenoid bone loss, failed arthroplasty, and proximal humerus tumors with RTSA implants. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty design has been modernized on both the glenoid and humerus to address biomechanical challenges of early implants. As outcomes improve with these modifications, RTSA indications are growing to address complex bony pathologies such as tumor and bone loss. Longitudinal follow-up of patients with updated designs and novel indications is essential to judicious application of RTSA technology.
Authors: Vijay N Permeswaran; Andrea Caceres; Jessica E Goetz; Donald D Anderson; Carolyn M Hettrich Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Stephanie E Wong; Austin A Pitcher; David Y Ding; Nicola Cashman; Alan L Zhang; C Benjamin Ma; Brian T Feeley Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Matthew Walker; Matthew P Willis; Jordan P Brooks; Derek Pupello; Philip J Mulieri; Mark A Frankle Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Josef Stolberg-Stolberg; Jeanette Köppe; Robert Rischen; Moritz Freistühler; Andreas Faldum; J Christoph Katthagen; Michael J Raschke Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Shannon E Linderman; James R L Hall; Joshua E Johnson; Andrea P Caceres; Carolyn M Hettrich; Donald D Anderson Journal: Iowa Orthop J Date: 2022-06
Authors: Akshar H Patel; J Heath Wilder; Sione A Ofa; Olivia C Lee; Felix H Savoie; Michael J O'Brien; William F Sherman Journal: JSES Int Date: 2021-10-13
Authors: Leanne S Blaas; Jian Z Yuan; Charlotte M Lameijer; Peter M van de Ven; Frank W Bloemers; Robert Jan Derksen Journal: JSES Int Date: 2021-10-09
Authors: Alexander Nilsskog Fraser; Berte Bøe; Tore Fjalestad; Jan Erik Madsen; Stephan M Röhrl Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 3.717