CORR Insights®: Implant Design Variations in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Influence the Required Deltoid Force and Resultant Joint Load

Tashjian, Robert Z.

doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4551-z

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditionally, RTSA improves the deltoid moment arm by shifting the center of rotation in a medial and distal position compared with the native shoulder [8]. However, this places the rotator cuff at a biomechanical disadvantage, which may limit shoulder rotation [29]. Humeral lateralization may improve the moment arm of the rotator cuff [14], but available in vitro data are lacking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Humeral Component Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Affect Rotator Cuff Torque? Evaluation in a Cadaver Model

Chan

Langohr

Mahaffy

et al. 2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of this preliminary in vitro cadaveric study suggest that the lateral offset of the RTSA humeral component plays an important role in the torque generated by the anterior and posterior rotator cuff. However, further studies are needed before clinical application of these results. Increasing humeral offset may have adverse effects, such as the increased risk of implant modularity, increasing tension of the cuff and soft tissues, increased costs often associated with design modifications, and other possible as yet unforeseen negative consequences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Humeral Component Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Affect Rotator Cuff Torque? Evaluation in a Cadaver Model

Chan

Langohr

Mahaffy

et al. 2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Controversy remains regarding the ideal glenoid fixation method, reconstruction with a medialized or lateralized center of rotation, humeral versus glenoid lateralization, neck-shaft angle, and other parameters. [7][8][9][10][11] Of particular concern is the ''revisability'' of failed reverse arthroplasty. [12][13][14] This is particularly true with certain designs that utilize the majority of the glenoid vault at the time of primary surgery by replacing it with large pegs or cones.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Bone-preserving Glenoid Component: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

Sánchez-Sotelo

Nguyen

Morrey

2018

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty has been reported to provide good outcomes. The majority of designs utilize a large portion of the glenoid. Some studies have reported worrisome rates of notching and stress fractures of the acromion or scapular spine. The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome and complications of a bonepreserving reverse prosthesis with limited ingrowth glenoid surface paired with an onlay humeral component. Materials and methods: Between 2014 and 2015, 96 reverse arthroplasties were implanted using a bone-preserving reverse with a 135 onlay humeral bearing. Six patients died. The remaining 87 patients (90 shoulders) were followed for 2 years or until revision. Mean age was 69.3 years. The underlying diagnosis was cuff tear arthropathy (13), irreparable cuff tear (39), osteoarthritis (32), and other (6). Shoulders were followed for 2 years or until revision surgery. Results: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty resulted in significant improvements in pain, motion, and function. At most recent follow-up, 74 shoulders had no or mild pain. Elevation was 131 AE 31 and external rotation 46 AE 21 . The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was 76. There were 4 reoperations for deep infection (2), periprosthetic fracture, and glenoid loosening. None of the remaining arthroplasties were loose. There was one stress fracture of the acromion and one of the spine of the scapula. No radiographic notching or dislocation was observed. Discussion: Primary reverse arthroplasty using a bone-preserving glenoid component and an anatomic onlay humeral bearing provides satisfactory clinical outcomes with a very low rate of failure and complications.

show abstract

CORR Insights®: Implant Design Variations in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Influence the Required Deltoid Force and Resultant Joint Load

Cited by 2 publications

References 4 publications

Does Humeral Component Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Affect Rotator Cuff Torque? Evaluation in a Cadaver Model

Does Humeral Component Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Affect Rotator Cuff Torque? Evaluation in a Cadaver Model

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Bone-preserving Glenoid Component: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About