Clinico-radiological correlation of reverse shoulder arthroplasty outcomes

Amr Elshahhat; Naser Selim; Yehia Basyoni; Khaled Nour

doi:10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20223454

Authors

Amr Elshahhat Department of Orthopedics, Mansoura University, Egypt http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9600-7754
Naser Selim Department of Orthopedics, Mansoura University, Egypt
Yehia Basyoni Department of Orthopedics, Mansoura University, Egypt
Khaled Nour Department of Orthopedics, Mansoura University, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20223454

Keywords:

Reverse, Shoulder arthroplasty, Radiological, AHI, Glenoid version

Abstract

Positioning of prosthetic components is essential for the success and longevity of the prosthesis. Judging prosthetic implantation radiologically is always beneficial; plain radiographs and computed tomography can provide information regards inclination and version of glenoid component, besides, lateralization of prosthetic components. This study aims at postoperative radiological evaluation of component positioning of reverse shoulder prosthesis and correlating measured radiological parameters with clinical outcome. Radiological assessment was carried on by radiographs taking advantage of true anteroposterior projection, and midaxial two-dimensional computed tomography cut. Radiographs evaluated glenoid inclination in coronal plane (superior-inferior tilt) via global inclination angle, and critical shoulder angle. Center of rotation was evaluated by calculating acromion index. Additionally, acromiohumeral interval, and deltoid lever arm distance were documented. Midaxial CT cuts evaluated glenoid version. Each parameter was correlated to postoperative clinical outcome represented in range of motion and total functional scores. the mean acromion index revealed significant change to 63.82±9.06%, total medialization surged significantly with average 1.51 cm with a mean postoperative calibrated center of rotation-distance of 3.72±0.78 cm. The mean increase in acro-mio-humeral interval was 1.57 cm with a new postoperative value of 2.49±0.9 cm. The mean glenoid version declined to 5.7º±5º, however, this change was not significant. In conclusion, accurate positioning of shoulder prosthesis components with proper tensioning of soft tissue envelope within acceptable measurement parameters is considered crucial for stability and longevity of implant with the best clinical outcomes.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biographies

Naser Selim, Department of Orthopedics, Mansoura University, Egypt

Department of orthopedics, Mansoura university

Yehia Basyoni, Department of Orthopedics, Mansoura University, Egypt

Department of orthopedics, Mansoura university

Khaled Nour, Department of Orthopedics, Mansoura University, Egypt

Department of orthopedics, Mansoura university

References

Cuff D, Pupello D, Virani N, Levy J, Frankle M. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. JBJS. 2008;90(6):1244-51.

Boileau P, Gonzalez J-F, Chuinard C, Bicknell R, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty after failed rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4):600-6.

Grammont P. Etude et réalisation d'une nouvelle prothèse d'épaule. J Rheumatol. 1987;39:27-38.

Maurer A, Fucentese SF, Pfirrmann CW, Wirth SH, Djahangiri A, Jost B et al. Assessment of glenoid inclination on routine clinical radiographs and computed tomography examinations of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(8):1096-103.

Roberson TA, Shanley E, Abildgaard JT, Granade CM, Adams KJ, Griscom JT et al. The influence of radiographic markers of biomechanical variables on outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Open Access. 2019;10.

Poon PC, Ting FSH. A 2-dimensional glenoid vault method for measuring glenoid version on computed tomography. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):329-35.

Boileau P, Gauci M-O, Wagner ER, Clowez G, Chaoui J, Chelli M et al. The reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle: a new measurement of glenoid inclination for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;1.

AB M, FH B, GH L. CT measurement of glenoid erosion in arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76-B(3):384-8.

Constant C, Murley A. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. J Clin Orthop Related Res. 1987(214):160-4.

Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(6):587-94.

Nascimento AT, Claudio GK, Rocha PBJRbdo. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Functional results in rotator cuff arthropathy. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2020;55(1):106-11.

DeVito P, Damodar D, Berglund D, Vakharia R, Moeller EA, Giveans MR et al. Predicting outstanding results after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using percentage of maximal outcome improvement. J Shoulder and Elbow Surg. 2019;28(7):1223-31.

Roberson TA, Shanley E, Abildgaard JT, Granade CM, Adams KJ, Griscom JT et al. The influence of radiographic markers of biomechanical variables on outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. JSES. 2019;3(1):59-64.

Yeazell ST, Inacio J, Malige A, Dailey H, Carolan GF. Bone density and its relation to the development of acromial stress fracture following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020:1758573220949992.

Cagle Jr PJ, Brochin RL, Gluck MJ, Zastrow RK, Parsons BO, Sanchez-Sotelo J, editors. Referencing the pectoralis major tendon for humeral stem height placement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture. Seminars in Arthroplasty: JSES: Elsevier. 2020

Mahendraraj KA, Colliton E, Muniz AR, Menendez ME, Jawa A. Assessing the validity of the distalization and lateralization shoulder angles following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. 2020.

Beltrame A, Di Benedetto P, Cicuto C, Cainero V, Chisoni R, Causero A. Onlay versus Inlay humeral steam in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA): clinical and biomechanical study. Acta Biomed. 2019;90(12-S):54-63.

Gutiérrez S, Keller TS, Levy JC, Lee WE, Luo Z-P. Hierarchy of stability factors in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Rel Res. 2008;466(3):670-6.

Patel M, Martin JR, Campbell DH, Fernandes RR, Amini MHJJoS, Surgery E. Inferior Tilt of the Glenoid Leads to Medialization and Increases Impingement on the Scapular Neck in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;30(6):1273-81.

Sanchez-Sotelo J, Athwal GSJCRiMM. How to optimize reverse shoulder arthroplasty for irreparable cuff tears. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13:553-60.

Li X, Dines JS, Warren RF, Craig EV, Dines DM. Inferior glenosphere placement reduces scapular notching in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop. 2015;38(2):e88-93.

Gates S, Sager B, Khazzam M. Preoperative glenoid considerations for shoulder arthroplasty: a review. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5(3):126-37.

Lansdown D, Cheung EC, Xiao W, Lee A, Zhang AL, Feeley BT et al. Do Preoperative and Postoperative Glenoid Retroversion Influence Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Arthroplasty. 2020;4:2471549220912552.

Sprowls GR, Wilson CD, Stewart W, Hammonds KAP, Baruch NH, Ward RA et al. Intraoperative navigation and preoperative templating software are associated with increased glenoid baseplate screw length and use of augmented baseplates in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Int. 2021;5(1):102-8.