-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was initially used to manage complex shoulder problems. Indications have been expanded to include rotator cuff arthropathy, massive rotator cuff tear, failed shoulder arthroplasty, and fracture sequelae. Increased use of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has led to reports of associated problems unique to the procedure. The most common complications include neurologic injury, periprosthetic fracture, hematoma, infection, scapular notching, dislocation, mechanical baseplate failure, and acromial fracture. Little information has been published regarding best practices for managing these complications.
The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 07/2011; 19(7):439-49. · 2.66 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of patients with proximal humeral malunions treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).
Sixteen patients were treated with RSA for sequelae of a proximal humeral fracture with a malunion. Clinical outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score, Simple Shoulder Test, visual analog scale [VAS] score for pain and function, range of motion, and patient satisfaction) and radiographs were evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to analyze preoperative and postoperative data.
All patients required alteration of humeral preparation with increased retroversion of greater than 30°. The total ASES score improved from 28 to 63 (P = .001), ASES pain score from 15 to 35 (P = .003), ASES functional score from 15 to 27 (P = .015), VAS pain score from 7 to 3 (P = .003), VAS function score from 0 to 5 (P = .001), and Simple Shoulder Test score from 1 to 4 (P = .0015). Forward flexion improved from 53° to 105° (P = .002), abduction from 48° to 105° (P = .002), external rotation from 5° to 30° (P = .015), and internal rotation from S1 to L3 (P = .005). There were no major complications reported. Postoperative radiographic evaluation showed 2 patients with evidence of notching and 1 patient with proximal humeral bone resorption.
RSA is indicated for treating the most severe types of proximal humeral fracture sequelae. The results of RSA for proximal humeral malunions with altered surgical technique yield satisfactory outcomes in this difficult patient population.
Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery / American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ... [et al.] 04/2011; 21(4):507-13. · 1.93 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was introduced to treat the rotator cuff-deficient shoulder. Since its introduction, an improved understanding of the biomechanics of rotator cuff deficiency and reverse shoulder arthroplasty has facilitated the development of modern reverse arthroplasty designs.
We review (1) the basic biomechanical challenges associated with the rotator cuff-deficient shoulder; (2) the biomechanical rationale for newer reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs; (3) the current scientific evidence related to the function and performance of reverse shoulder arthroplasty; and (4) specific technical aspects of reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
A PubMed search of the English language literature was conducted using the key words reverse shoulder arthroplasty, rotator cuff arthropathy, and biomechanics of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Articles were excluded if the content fell outside of the biomechanics of these topics, leaving the 66 articles included in this review.
Various implant design factors as well as various surgical implantation techniques affect stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty and patient function. To understand the implications of individual design factors, one must understand the function of the normal and the cuff-deficient shoulder and coalesce this understanding with the pathology presented by each patient to choose the proper surgical technique for reconstruction.
Several basic science and clinical studies improve our understanding of various design factors in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. However, much work remains to further elucidate the performance of newer designs and to evaluate patient outcomes using validated instruments such as the American Society for Elbow Surgery, simple shoulder test, and the Constant-Murley scores.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 04/2011; 469(9):2440-51. · 2.53 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is being used with greater frequency for patients with severe rotator cuff deficiency. There are several commercially available reverse shoulder devices, each with different glenosphere options. The purpose of this study was to determine: (1) forces at the baseplate-bone interface in glenospheres with centers of rotation located concentrically and eccentrically to the center of the baseplate; and (2) if baseplate-bone forces can be optimized by altering tilt of the baseplate.
A validated computer model was used to compare concentric glenospheres with neutral offset to eccentrically offset glenospheres (6 mm inferior or 6 mm lateral) in 3 baseplate tilts: 15° inferior, neutral, or 15° superior. A baseplate, simulated bone, screws, and humeral component were modeled, and forces underneath the baseplate were calculated as the arm was abducted through 90° of glenohumeral motion.
For lateral and concentric glenospheres, inferior tilt provides the most even distribution of forces (mean difference in force between superior and inferior portions of baseplate: 11.3 N and 24.7 N, respectively) and superior tilt provides the most uneven distribution of forces (109.3 N and 78.7 N, respectively). For inferior eccentric glenospheres, inferior tilt provides the most uneven distribution of forces (58.7 N) and neutral tilt provides the most even distribution of forces (27.7 N).
This is the first study to investigate force distribution under the baseplate in inferior eccentric glenospheres. Although inferior tilting of the baseplate is recommended for concentric and laterally offset glenospheres, this same recommendation may be detrimental to inferiorly offset glenospheres and warrants further investigation.
Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery / American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ... [et al.] 01/2011; 20(5):732-9. · 1.93 Impact Factor
