Edge displacement and deformation of glenoid components in response to eccentric loading. The effect of preparation of the glenoid bone.

Collins, Dwayne L.; Tencer, Allan F.; Sidles, John A.; Matsen, Frederick A.

doi:10.2106/00004623-199274040-00005

Cited by 174 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study confirms the potential limitations of DG measurements or linear variable differential transducers to quantify micromotion that have been acknowledged by others (Anglin et al, 2000a, Bicknell et al, 2003, Collins et al, 1992, Karduna et al, 1998. The use of a single DG placed inferiorly on the glenosphere can only quantify vertical motion, and therefore any "Rocking Horse" effect is not detected (Anglin et al, 2000a, Anglin et al, 2000b, Franklin et al, 1988.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In reverse implant testing, the inferior-superior motion of the whole construct was measured, and this after only 1'000 cycles to model the immediate postoperative situation. The lack of micromotion in the reverse shoulder implants we observed may be due to less aggressive biomechanical loading or more robust fixation than has been reported for conventional total shoulder arthroplasty (Anglin et al, 2000a, Collins et al, 1992. On the other hand, our in vitro results may confirm clinical studies that rarely observed glenoid loosening in the initial postoperative period (Boileau et al, 2006, Werner et al, 2005.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vitro assessments of reverse glenoid stability using displacement gages are misleading — Recommendations for accurate measurements of interface micromotion

Favre

Perala

Vogel

et al. 2011

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Baseplate micromotion of the reverse shoulder glenoid component can lead to implant loosening. We hypothesized that a remotely positioned displacement gage measures elastic deformation of the system rather than actual micromotion at the implant/bone interface. METHODS: Reverse glenoid components were implanted into polyurethane blocks of 3 different densities. A 700 N compressive load was maintained and a vertical 700 N shear load was applied for 1000 cycles. In addition to the typical gage measurement, a digital image analysis of micromotion at the implant/block interface using high resolution cameras was performed. The measurements were validated on human specimens. A finite element model was implemented to study the isolated effect of block deformation on baseplate displacements. FINDINGS: With the gage, typically reported micromotions were measured. Two orders of magnitude lower micromotions were detected using interface image-based analysis. The finite element simulation showed that elastic deformation alone can cause micromotion magnitudes as measured with displacement gages. Polyurethane blocks of 20 and 15 lbs per cubic foot density best reproduced micromotions as measured on human specimens. INTERPRETATION: We found considerably less relative micromotion at the implant/bone interface than previously assumed. Gage measurements quantify elastic deformation and not true interface micromotion. High resolution digital imaging at the implant/bone interface is strongly recommended for an accurate assessment of reverse glenoid component micromotion. Originally published at: Favre, P; Perala, S; Vogel, P; Fucentese, S F; Goff, J R; Gerber, C; Snedeker, J G (2011). In vitro assessments of reverse glenoid stability using displacement gages are misleading -recommendations for accurate measurements of interface micromotion. Clinical Biomechanics, 26 (9)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

In vitro assessments of reverse glenoid stability using displacement gages are misleading — Recommendations for accurate measurements of interface micromotion

Favre

Perala

Vogel

et al. 2011

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A K-wire was driven through the center of the articular surface using a drill guide manufactured with a 12°-posterior angle referenced from the glenoid face [32]. A cannulated reamer was used in line with the guidewire to create a posterior glenoid defect at a 12°-angle in all specimens [11]. Reaming was performed to the same anatomic level among all specimens and was stopped before removal of anterior glenoid rim bone to maintain a consistent amount of substrate.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Posterior Glenoid Wear in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Eccentric Anterior Reaming Is Superior to Posterior Augment

Wang

Abrams

Behn

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Uncorrected glenoid retroversion during total shoulder arthroplasty may lead to an increased likelihood of glenoid prosthetic loosening. Augmented glenoid components seek to correct retroversion to address posterior glenoid bone loss, but few biomechanical studies have evaluated their performance. Questions/purposes We compared the use of augmented glenoid components with eccentric reaming with standard glenoid components in a posterior glenoid wear model. The primary outcome for biomechanical stability in this model was assessed by (1) implant edge displacement in superior and inferior edge loading at intervals up to 100,000 cycles, with secondary outcomes including (2) implant edge load during superior and inferior translation at intervals up to 100,000 cycles, and (3) incidence of glenoid fracture during implant preparation and after cyclic loading. Methods A 12°-posterior glenoid defect was created in 12 composite scapulae, and the specimens were divided in two equal groups. In the posterior augment group, glenoid version was corrected to 8°and an 8°-augmented polyethylene glenoid component was placed. In the eccentric reaming group, anterior glenoid reaming was performed to neutral version and a standard polyethylene glenoid component was placed. Specimens were cyclically loaded in the superoinferior direction to 100,000 cycles. Superior and inferior glenoid edge displacements were recorded. Results Surviving specimens in the posterior augment group showed greater displacement than the eccentric reaming group of superior (1.01 ± 0.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.13] versus 0. 83 ± 0.10 [95% CI,

show abstract

“…9,12,[16][17][18]28 These translations are constrained by eccentric forces, which may create excessive rim stress 15,31 and may lead to implant loosening. 5 Therefore, because glenohumeral conformity is related to opposite mechanisms, an ideal value may be hypothesized. Finally, it seems obvious that the stress pattern at the glenohumeral interface influences the longevity of the joint replacement with respect to stability, loosening of the glenoid component, and wear of the components.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of glenohumeral conformity on glenoid stresses after total shoulder arthroplasty

Terrier

Büchler

Farron

2006

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Edge displacement and deformation of glenoid components in response to eccentric loading. The effect of preparation of the glenoid bone.

Cited by 174 publications

References 0 publications

In vitro assessments of reverse glenoid stability using displacement gages are misleading — Recommendations for accurate measurements of interface micromotion

In vitro assessments of reverse glenoid stability using displacement gages are misleading — Recommendations for accurate measurements of interface micromotion

Posterior Glenoid Wear in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Eccentric Anterior Reaming Is Superior to Posterior Augment

Influence of glenohumeral conformity on glenoid stresses after total shoulder arthroplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About