Literature DB >> 33877406

Effects of implant rotational malposition on contact surface area after implantation of the augmented glenoid baseplate in the setting of glenoid bone loss.

Aimee Bobko1, Gary Edwards1, Jose Rodriguez1, Taylor Southworth1, Adam Miller1, Dmitriy Peresada2, Leonard Onsen1, Benjamin Goldberg1.   

Abstract

AIM OF THE STUDY: Augmented glenoid baseplates are utilized in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss. These implants permit lateralization of the joint line and correction of bony version abnormalities. To allow bone preservation in the setting of abnormal bony version or deficiency, the backside of the augmented glenoid baseplate is not perpendicular to the axis of the central post/screw. Thus, if the baseplate is implanted with any rotational malposition, this could affect the backside contact area available for ingrowth. The purpose of this study was to assess if rotational malpositioning of a full-wedge augmented baseplate alongside the axis of the central screw significantly affects the glenoid implant backside contact area.
METHODS: Seven synthetic scapulas (Sawbones, Vashon, WA) were used to implant a 15° full-wedge glenoid baseplate (Wright Medical, Memphis, TN) according to the manufacturer's technique. The contact pressure between the baseplate and the glenoid surface at rotational positions 5°, 10°, and 15° clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) from the central axis was measured with Extreme Low Fujifilm Prescale (Tekscan, Boston, MA). The data was analyzed digitally to obtain a percentage of contact surface area. To evaluate gross contact, a computed tomography (CT) scan was performed and manual measurements of contact between the glenoid and the baseplate were conducted using a standardized axial CT slice.
RESULTS: The average contact area at zero degrees of malrotation was 37.26 ± 3.27%. Average contact areas for the simulated malposition cases were 13.99 ± 9.39% at 15° CCW, 24.89 ± 5.11% at 10° CW, and 19.32 ± 3.13% at 15° CW. Each of these results was significant (p < 0.003). On computed tomography, at 15° CCW, the contact area decreased by 39%; at 15° CW, the contact area decreased by 38%. DISCUSSION: The use of augmented glenoid baseplates presents a technical challenge. It is difficult to avoid implant malrotation along the axis of the central peg/screw, because the final rotation of the baseplate must be chosen while the implant is several centimeters away from the bone. This study found that 10° and 15° malrotation about the glenoid baseplate's central axis leads to significant decreases in the implant-bone contact area.
CONCLUSIONS: When implanting an augmented baseplate for total shoulder arthroplasty, it is important to minimize baseplate malrotation to decrease the risk of baseplate loosening.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Augment; Baseplate; Glenoid; Revision; Shoulder

Year:  2021        PMID: 33877406     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-021-05047-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  12 in total

1.  Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Patrick J Denard; Pascal Boileau; Alain Farron; Pierric Deransart; Alexandre Terrier; Julien Ston; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Measuring contact area, force, and pressure for bioengineering applications: using Fuji Film and TekScan systems.

Authors:  Kent N Bachus; Alyssa L DeMarco; Kyle T Judd; Daniel S Horwitz; Darrel S Brodke
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2005-09-21       Impact factor: 2.242

3.  Biomechanical model of distal articular humeral fractures-influence of bone density on the fracture threshold.

Authors:  Axel Marcoin; David Eichler; Jean-François Kempf; Philippe Clavert
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-05-30       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Aseptic Glenoid Baseplate Loosening After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jorge Rojas; Kyubo Choi; Jacob Joseph; Uma Srikumaran; Edward G McFarland
Journal:  JBJS Rev       Date:  2019-05

5.  Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants.

Authors:  R M Pilliar; J M Lee; C Maniatopoulos
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Authors:  Alexandre Lädermann; Patrick J Denard; Pascal Boileau; Alain Farron; Pierric Deransart; Gilles Walch
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice.

Authors:  Jean-David Werthel; Gilles Walch; Emilie Vegehan; Pierric Deransart; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Philippe Valenti
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Authors:  G Walch; R Badet; A Boulahia; A Khoury
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using helical blade to optimize glenoid fixation and bone preservation: preliminary results in thirty five patients with minimum two year follow-up.

Authors:  Sebastien Zilber; Eleonora Camana; Peter Lapner; Emil Haritinian; Laurent Nove Josserand
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Compressive properties of commercially available polyurethane foams as mechanical models for osteoporotic human cancellous bone.

Authors:  Purvi S D Patel; Duncan E T Shepherd; David W L Hukins
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2008-10-09       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.