scholarly journals Tomographic Analysis of Positioning of Reverse Baseplates Positioning

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 247154922098771
Author(s):  
Alexandre Almeida ◽  
Daniel C Agostini ◽  
Pietro FT Nesello ◽  
Nayvaldo C de Almeida ◽  
Rafael Mioso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Coracoid Process ◽  
Bone Deformity ◽  
Screw Position ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Tomographic Analysis ◽  
Ct Scan Analysis

Objective To verify whether reverse baseplate positioning without the support of intraoperative three-dimensional technology is within the acceptable parameters in the literature and whether glenoid bone deformity (GBD) compromises this positioning. Methods Sixty-nine reverse shoulder arthroplasties were evaluated with volumetric computed tomography (CT). Two radiologists performed blinded CT scan analysis and evaluated baseplate position within 2mm of the inferior glenoid; the inclination and version of the baseplate in relation to the Friedman line; and upper and lower screw and baseplate metallic peg end point positionings. The patients were divided according to the presence of GBD for statistical analyses. Results The two radiologists concurred reasonably in their interpretations of the following analyzed parameters: baseplate position within 2mm of the inferior glenoid rim (97.1% and 95.7%), baseplate inclination (82.6% and 81.2%), baseplate version (69.6% and 56.5%), the upper screw reaching the base of the coracoid process (71% and 79.7%), the inferior screw remaining inside the scapula (88.4% and 84.1%), and the metallic peg of the baseplate considered intraosseous (88.4% and 72.5%). Conclusion Reverse baseplate positioning without intraoperative three-dimensional technology is within the acceptable parameters of the literature, except for baseplate version and upper screw position. GBD did not interfere with baseplate positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Glenoid bone grafting in primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 175857322091765
Author(s):  
Betty Zhang ◽  
Gavinn Niroopan ◽  
Chetan Gohal ◽  
Bashar Alolabi ◽  
Timothy Leroux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Component Loosening ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties

Background Primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty can be challenging in patients with complex glenoid wear patterns and bone loss. Severe retroversion (>15°) or significant bone loss may require bone grafting. This review summarizes the rate of revision and long-term outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with bone graft. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases was conducted from the date of inception to 23 October 2018. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility and extracted data for analysis. The primary outcome was rate of revision. The secondary outcomes were rate of component loosening, functional outcome, and range of motion. Results Of the 1056 articles identified in the search, 26 underwent full-text screening and 7 articles were included in the analysis. All procedures were one-stage anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. The rate of revision was 5.4% with component loosening and infection listed as indications over a weighted mean follow-up period of 6.3 years. Complications occurred in 12.6% of patients. Conclusion Glenoid bone grafting in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty results in comparable revision rates and improvement in pain compared to augmented glenoid components and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Due to the low quality of evidence, further prospective studies should be conducted. Level of evidence IV

Anatomic versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up comparison

2020 ◽  
pp. 175857322092115
Author(s):  
Bradley S Schoch ◽  
Joseph J King ◽  
Joseph Zuckerman ◽  
Thomas W Wright ◽  
Chris Roche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties

Background Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty improves pain and function with a reported reoperation rate of approximately 1% per year. With improved glenoid fixation, reverse shoulder arthroplasty implants may outperform anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. We evaluate the functional outcomes and reoperation rate of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty at a minimum eight-year follow-up or revision. Methods Between 2005 and 2010, 187 shoulders (137 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, 50 reverse shoulder arthroplasty) were retrospectively reviewed at a mean of 8.8 years. The mean age at surgery was 67 years. Females were more commonly treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Both groups had similar body mass index and comorbidities. Outcome measures evaluated included abduction, forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Score, University of California Los Angeles Shoulder score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Results At follow-up, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty demonstrated greater overhead range of motion and external rotation. All patient-reported outcomes remained similar between groups. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients were more likely to rate shoulders as much better or better after surgery (90% versus 67%, p = 0.004). Complications were observed in 24% of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties and 8% of reverse shoulder arthroplasties (p = 0.02). Reoperation was more common in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (23% versus 4%, p = 0.003). Discussion At mid-to-long-term follow-up, reverse shoulder arthroplasties demonstrated significantly fewer complications and reoperations than anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. Despite similar patient-reported outcomes, reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients were more likely to be satisfied with their shoulder.

scholarly journals Coracoid Process Avulsion Fracture at the Coracoclavicular Ligament Attachment Site in an Osteoporotic Patient with Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshihiro Onada ◽  
Takahisa Umemoto ◽  
Kimitaka Fukuda ◽  
Tomomichi Kajino
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Acromioclavicular Joint ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Attachment Site ◽  
Coracoid Process ◽  
Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation ◽  
Coracoclavicular Ligament ◽  
Ct Reconstruction ◽  
Avulsion Fractures ◽  
Satisfactory Outcome

Coracoid fractures are uncommon, mostly occur at the base or neck of the coracoid process (CP), and typically present with ipsilateral acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) dislocation. However, CP avulsion fractures at the coracoclavicular ligament (CCL) attachment with ACJ dislocation have not been previously reported. A 59-year-old woman receiving glucocorticoid treatment fell from bed and complained of pain in her shoulder. Radiographs revealed an ACJ dislocation with a distal clavicle fracture. Three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) reconstruction showed a small bone fragment at the medial apex of the CP. She was treated conservatively and achieved a satisfactory outcome. CP avulsion fractures at the CCL attachment can occur in osteoporotic patients with ACJ dislocations. Three-dimensional computed tomography is useful for identifying this fracture type. CP avulsion fractures should be suspected in patients with ACJ dislocations and risk factors for osteoporosis or osteopenia.

scholarly journals Projections of Primary and Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty until 2040: Facing a Massive Rise in Fracture-Related Procedures

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 5123
Author(s):  
Alexander Klug ◽  
Eva Herrmann ◽  
Sebastian Fischer ◽  
Reinhard Hoffmann ◽  
Yves Gramlich
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Revision Arthroplasty ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Annual Number ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Population Forecasts ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties

Although the demand for shoulder arthroplasties has reached its highest number worldwide, there remains a lack of epidemiologic data regarding recent and future trends. In this study, data for all shoulder arthroplasties (hemiarthroplasty, reverse/anatomic shoulder arthroplasty) from the nationwide inpatient statistics of Germany (2010–2019) and population forecasts until 2040 were gathered. A Poisson and a negative binomial approach using monotone B-splines were modeled for all types of prostheses to project the annual number and incidence of primary and revision arthroplasty. Additionally, trends in main indicators were also gathered and expected changes were calculated. Overall, the number of primary shoulder replacements is set to increase significantly by 2040, reaching at least 37,000 (95% CI 32,000–44,000) procedures per year. This trend is mainly attributable to an about 10-fold increased use of fracture-related reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients over 80 years of age, although the number of procedures in younger patients will also rise substantially. In contrast, hemiarthroplasties will significantly decrease. The number of revision procedures is projected to increase subsequently, although the revision burden is forecast to decline. Using these country-specific projection approaches, a massive increase of primary and revision shoulder arthroplasties is expected by 2040, mainly due to a rising number of fracture-related procedures. These growth rates are substantially higher than those from hip or knee arthroplasty. As these trends are similar in most Western countries, this draws attention to the international issue, of: if healthcare systems will be able to allocate human and financial resources adequately, and if future research and fracture-prevention programs may help to temper this rising burden in the upcoming decades.

scholarly journals Risk factors for instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
pp. 175857321986426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Guarrella ◽  
Mikael Chelli ◽  
Peter Domos ◽  
Francesco Ascione ◽  
Pascal Boileau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Constant Score ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Postoperative Instability

Background This study aims to identify risk factors related to postoperative instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty and evaluate the modalities and results of treatments in a large series of patients, with medium to long-term follow-up. Methods Retrospective multicenter series of 1035 consecutive Grammont type reverse shoulder arthroplasties implanted between 1992 and 2010. 19.9% had a reverse shoulder arthroplasty with bony lateralization on the glenoid side. Patients were reviewed and radiographed with minimum five years’ follow-up. Results At a mean follow-up of eight years, the overall rate of postoperative instability was 3.0%. Instability was more frequent in case of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for revision surgery, in younger patients, in case of scapular notching, and tuberosity resorption. Lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasties were associated with a lower instability rate. A reoperation to restore stability was needed in 70% of cases. The improvement in Constant Score was lower in patients with unstable reverse shoulder arthroplasties when compared to stable reverse shoulder arthroplasties. Conclusions Younger patients are at higher risk for instability after Grammont type reverse shoulder arthroplasty implantation. Conversely, lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasties resulted protective. When conservative treatment had failed, shoulder stability can be obtained with reoperation or prosthetic revision (needed in 70% of the cases), but to the price of lower functional results.

Mid-term radiological results of a cementless short humeral component in anatomical and reverse shoulder arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (5) ◽  
pp. 610-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. R. Aibinder ◽  
D. W. Bartels ◽  
J. W. Sperling ◽  
J. Sanchez-Sotelo
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Stress Shielding ◽  
Radiological Findings ◽  
Humeral Component ◽  
Bone Changes ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Glenoid Loosening

Aims Shoulder arthroplasty using short humeral components is becoming increasingly popular. Some such components have been associated with relatively high rates of adverse radiological findings. The aim of this retrospective review was to evaluate the radiological humeral bone changes and mechanical failure rates with implantation of a short cementless humeral component in anatomical (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Patients and Methods A total of 100 shoulder arthroplasties (35 TSA and 65 RSA) were evaluated at a mean of 3.8 years (3 to 8.3). The mean age at the time of surgery was 68 years (31 to 90). The mean body mass index was 32.7 kg/m2 (17.3 to 66.4). Results Greater tuberosity stress shielding was noted in 14 shoulders (two TSA and 12 RSA) and was graded as mild in nine, moderate in two, and severe in three. Medial calcar resorption was noted in 23 shoulders (seven TSA and 16 RSA), and was graded as mild in 21 and moderate in two. No humeral components were revised for loosening or considered to be loose radiologically. Nine shoulders underwent reoperation for infection (n = 3), fracture of the humeral tray (n = 2), aseptic glenoid loosening (n = 1), and instability (n = 3). No periprosthetic fractures occurred. Conclusion Implantation of this particular short cementless humeral component at the time of TSA or RSA was associated with a low rate of adverse radiological findings on the humeral side at mid-term follow-up. Our data do not raise any concerns regarding the use of a short stem in TSA or RSA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:610–614.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document