Literature DB >> 34334984

Effects of Increased Retroversion Angle on Glenoid Baseplate Fixation in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Finite Element Analysis.

Richard J Friedman1,2, Shuchun Sun1, Xin She1, Jordan Esposito2, Josef Eichinger2, Hai Yao1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increased glenoid retroversion occurs in patients with severe arthritis but its effect on baseplate fixation of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is not clear. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of increasing glenoid retroversion on baseplate fixation in rTSA using finite element analysis (FEA) modelling.
METHODS: Five sets of computerized tomographic (CT) images of healthy normal shoulders were selected and segmented with Amira (Thermo Fisher Scientific) to obtain the solid geometries. Scapula FEA models with 5°, 10°, 15°, 20° and 25° retroversion angles were generated for each healthy scapula geometry and a rTSA glenoid baseplate was implanted on each model. Maximum stress at the anterior and posterior portions of the glenoid and the micromotion between the bone and baseplate were recorded. After simulation with normal scapular bone material properties (Young's modulus 4GPa and Poisson's ratio 0.3), another set of simulations was run on each subject with a 25° retroversion angle and poor bone quality (Young's modulus 500 MPa and Poisson's ratio 0.3) to study a worst-case scenario. Micromotions in each model were also recorded. All statistical analysis was done with SPSS.
RESULTS: Simulation results of models generated from the same subject but with different retroversion angles showed a clear pattern: as retroversion angle increased, the stresses increased posteriorly and decreased anteriorly. Also, micromotion between the bone and the baseplate increased with the increase of retroversion angle. With analysis of variance (ANOVA), we found that all three values change significantly as the retroversion angle increases (p < 0.001). The simulation results also showed that micromotion was large in shoulders with small glenoid size and poor bone quality. However, even in the model with the worst-case scenario (smallest glenoid size, poorest bone quality and 25° retroversion angle), the maximum micromotion and the maximum stresses are still within the safe range. DISCUSSION: In all cases with both normal and poor bone quality, the stresses and micromotion stayed below the threshold to allow for bone ingrowth of the glenoid baseplate to occur. Based on these results, for glenoid baseplates with a central peg/post and 4 screws for fixation, rTSA baseplate retroversion does not need to be corrected to less than 10° to provide good initial fixation as has been recommended for a cemented glenoid component and can withstand the initial stresses and micromotion up to 25° of retroversion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science Study; Computer Modeling.

Entities:  

Keywords:  finite element analysis; glenoid component; glenoid size; osteoporosis; retroversion angle; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Year:  2021        PMID: 34334984      PMCID: PMC8323535          DOI: 10.1053/j.sart.2020.11.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Arthroplasty        ISSN: 1045-4527


  22 in total

1.  Comparison of the elastic and yield properties of human femoral trabecular and cortical bone tissue.

Authors:  Harun H Bayraktar; Elise F Morgan; Glen L Niebur; Grayson E Morris; Eric K Wong; Tony M Keaveny
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 2.712

2.  An experimental glenoid rim strain analysis for an improved reverse anatomy shoulder implant fixation.

Authors:  Simon C Mordecai; Simon M Lambert; Jay M Meswania; Gordon W Blunn; Ian L Bayley; Stephen J G Taylor
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  A biomechanical study of posterior glenoid bone loss and humeral head translation.

Authors:  Chris D Bryce; Andrew C Davison; Nori Okita; Gregory S Lewis; Neil A Sharkey; April D Armstrong
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2010-07-24       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  The impact of the reverse prosthesis on revision shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of a high-volume shoulder practice.

Authors:  Eric R Wagner; Michelle J Chang; Kathryn M Welp; Muriel J Solberg; Tyler J Hunt; Jarret M Woodmass; Laurence D Higgins; Jon J P Warner
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 3.019

5.  Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion.

Authors:  Alain Farron; Alexandre Terrier; Philippe Büchler
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.019

6.  Friction properties at the bone-metal interface: comparison of four different porous metal surfaces.

Authors:  M Dammak; A Shirazi-Adl; M Schwartz; L Gustavson
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1997-06-05

7.  Muscle and Joint Function After Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Modular Shoulder Prosthesis.

Authors:  David C Ackland; Wen Wu; Richard Thomas; Minoo Patel; Richard Page; Morgan Sangeux; Martin Richardson
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 3.494

8.  Cement stress predictions after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty are correlated with preoperative glenoid bone quality.

Authors:  Alexandre Terrier; Raphaël Obrist; Fabio Becce; Alain Farron
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 3.019

9.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid.

Authors:  Naoko Mizuno; Patrick J Denard; Patric Raiss; Gilles Walch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Total shoulder arthroplasty: downward inclination of the glenoid component to balance supraspinatus deficiency.

Authors:  Alexandre Terrier; Francesco Merlini; Dominique P Pioletti; Alain Farron
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 3.019

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.