Nadine Ott1, Arad Alikah1, Michael Hackl1, Dominik Seybold2, Lars Peter Müller1, Kilian Wegmann1. 1. University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Kerpener Street 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 2. Department of General and Trauma Surgery, BG University Hospital Bergmannsheil, Bürkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Use of a relatively larger glenosphere with some larger overhang helps to minimize posterior impingement and some degree of glenoid lateralization is also beneficial in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The optimal amounts of inferior overhang and lateralization are not agreed upon. The purpose of this in-vitro biomechanical study is to analyze the effect of glenosphere size and glenoid lateralization on deltoid load, focusing on differences in its three distinct heads. METHODS: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (DeltaXtend, Fa. Depuy/Synthes) was performed on six cadaveric specimens. The load on each head of the deltoid muscle (spinalis, acromialis, and clavicularis) was measured indirectly by transferring deformation (μm/m) via strain gauges (Fa. Vishay) with stepwise lateralization: +0 mm (subgroup I), +5 mm (subgroup II), +10 mm (subgroup III). Each scenario was done with a 38 mm (group A) and a 42 mm (group B) glenosphere. RESULTS: In group A as well in group B, the mean measured deformation in the respective titanium omega increased with lateralization in the clavicular (AI: 119.6 μm/m, AIII: 307.3 μm/m; BI: 173.3 μm/m, BIII: 358.5 μm/m), in the spinal (AI: 85.3 μm/m, AIII: 188.5 μm/m; BI: 138.8 μm/m, BIII 261.2 μm/m) and in the acromial head (AI: 340.5 μm/μ; AIII: 454.2 μm/m; BI: 388.5 μm/m, BIII: 538.8 μm/m). A significant difference between the subgroups in the spinal (p = .048) and clavicular heads (p = .028) was found. The use of a 42 mm glenosphere increased significantly the load in each segment. CONCLUSION: Lateralization and glenosphere size increased significantly deltoid muscle loading, especially in the clavicular head. According to these in-vitro data, the high variability in the amount of lateralization influences the soft-tissue balance in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic science study.
PURPOSE: Use of a relatively larger glenosphere with some larger overhang helps to minimize posterior impingement and some degree of glenoid lateralization is also beneficial in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The optimal amounts of inferior overhang and lateralization are not agreed upon. The purpose of this in-vitro biomechanical study is to analyze the effect of glenosphere size and glenoid lateralization on deltoid load, focusing on differences in its three distinct heads. METHODS: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (DeltaXtend, Fa. Depuy/Synthes) was performed on six cadaveric specimens. The load on each head of the deltoid muscle (spinalis, acromialis, and clavicularis) was measured indirectly by transferring deformation (μm/m) via strain gauges (Fa. Vishay) with stepwise lateralization: +0 mm (subgroup I), +5 mm (subgroup II), +10 mm (subgroup III). Each scenario was done with a 38 mm (group A) and a 42 mm (group B) glenosphere. RESULTS: In group A as well in group B, the mean measured deformation in the respective titanium omega increased with lateralization in the clavicular (AI: 119.6 μm/m, AIII: 307.3 μm/m; BI: 173.3 μm/m, BIII: 358.5 μm/m), in the spinal (AI: 85.3 μm/m, AIII: 188.5 μm/m; BI: 138.8 μm/m, BIII 261.2 μm/m) and in the acromial head (AI: 340.5 μm/μ; AIII: 454.2 μm/m; BI: 388.5 μm/m, BIII: 538.8 μm/m). A significant difference between the subgroups in the spinal (p = .048) and clavicular heads (p = .028) was found. The use of a 42 mm glenosphere increased significantly the load in each segment. CONCLUSION: Lateralization and glenosphere size increased significantly deltoid muscle loading, especially in the clavicular head. According to these in-vitro data, the high variability in the amount of lateralization influences the soft-tissue balance in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic science study.
Authors: Daniel G Schwartz; Sang Hoon Kang; T Sean Lynch; Sara Edwards; Gordon Nuber; Li-Qun Zhang; Matthew Saltzman Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2012-05-19 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Pascal Boileau; Nicolas Morin-Salvo; Marc-Olivier Gauci; Brian L Seeto; Peter N Chalmers; Nicolas Holzer; Gilles Walch Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Joshua K Helmkamp; Garrett S Bullock; Nnamdi R Amilo; Evan M Guerrero; Leila S Ledbetter; Timothy C Sell; Grant E Garrigues Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Lukas Ernstbrunner; Jean-David Werthel; Eric Wagner; Taku Hatta; John W Sperling; Robert H Cofield Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Stefan H Greiner; David A Back; Sebastian Herrmann; Carsten Perka; Patrick Asbach Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Alexander Paszicsnyek; Olivia Jo; Harshi Sandeepa Rupasinghe; David C Ackland; Thomas Treseder; Christopher Pullen; Greg Hoy; Eugene T Ek; Lukas Ernstbrunner Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 4.241