Short-term outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a custom baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency

Bodendorfer, Blake M.; Loughran, Galvin J.; Looney, Austin M.; Velott, Anthony T.; Stein, Jason; Lutton, David M.; Wiesel, Brent B.; Murthi, Anand M.

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.002

Cited by 40 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They observed increases in all clinical parameters (CMS improved by 9.83 points, ASES score by 30.57 points), but no information regarding statistical significance was provided. Other studies by Bodendorfer et al (11 patients, significant improvements in range of motion, no complications) and DeBeer et al (10 patients, postoperative CMS 41.3 points, complications in 20%) came to the same conclusion [3,14]. DeBeer et al also performed a radiological evaluation, which investigated the mean difference between planned and postoperative implant version and inclination (6 • ± 4 • and 4 • ± 4 • , respectively) [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Functional and Radiological Outcomes after Treatment with Custom-Made Glenoid Components in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Ortmaier

Wierer

Gruber

2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glenoid implant position and fixation are challenging in severe glenoid defects in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Custom-made glenoid implants are metal augmented implants that are specially produced for a certain defect. They provide the restoration of the joint line and proper fixation. This retrospective data analysis investigated the clinical and radiological outcomes after revision using custom-made glenoid implants. Between 2018 and 2020, nine patients (10 shoulders) with severe glenoid defects underwent revision rTSA using a custom-made glenoid implant (Materialise Glenius or Lima ProMade). The pre- and postoperative Constant Murley Score (CMS), UCLA Score and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) were assessed. Postoperative CT scans and X-rays in two planes were available. The minimum follow-up was 12 months, with a mean follow-up of 23.1 months. The mean preoperative CMS, UCLA Score and SSV were 10.9, 4.1 and 11.0, respectively. The mean postoperative CMS, UCLA Score and SSV showed significant increases of 51.7 (<0.001), 22.9 (<0.001) and 52.0 (<0.001), respectively. There were no signs of loosening implants or scapular notching, and no revision was necessary. This trial showed promising clinical and radiological short-term outcomes for custom-made glenoid components in revision rTSA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Functional and Radiological Outcomes after Treatment with Custom-Made Glenoid Components in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Ortmaier

Wierer

Gruber

2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…a further limitation of this review was that eight of the 19 included studies included a mix of revision and primary arthroplasty cohorts. [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] we are of the opinion that these represent distinct entities with regard to the associated outcomes. Furthermore, a high-quality statistical analysis of large volumes of continuous variable data across subgroups necessitates the use of Forest plots as well as an analysis of heterogeneity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Wilcox

Campbell

Low

et al. 2022

The Bone & Joint Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continue to grow. Glenoid bone loss and deformity remains a technical challenge to the surgeon and may reduce improvements in patients’ outcomes. However, there is no consensus as to the optimal surgical technique to best reconstruct these patients’ anatomy. This review aims to compare the outcomes of glenoid bone grafting versus augmented glenoid prostheses in the management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated study-level data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We performed searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed from their dates of inception to January 2022. From included studies, we analyzed data for preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported functional outcomes, and complication rates. Results A total of 13 studies (919 shoulders) were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients at initial evaluation was 72.2 years (42 to 87), with a mean follow-up time of 40.7 months (24 to 120). Nine studies with 292 rTSAs evaluated the use of bone graft and five studies with 627 rTSAs evaluated the use of augmented glenoid baseplates. One study was analyzed in both groups. Both techniques demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures and ROM assessment, with augmented prostheses outperforming bone grafting on improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score. There was a higher complication rate (8.9% vs 3.5%; p < 0.001) and revision rate among the bone grafting group compared with the patients who were treated with augmented prostheses (2.4% vs 0.6%; p = 0.022). Conclusion This review provides strong evidence that both bone graft and augmented glenoid baseplate techniques to address glenoid bone loss give excellent ROM and functional outcomes in primary rTSA. The use of augmented base plates may confer fewer complications and revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1334–1342.

show abstract

“…It is important to mention that 1-stage revision in case of RSA J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f can be contraindicated due to severe glenoid bone loss which requires a staged reconstruction. This is one of the primary reasons why only one patient in this cohort was treated with 1-stage exchange, and most with 2-stage exchange followed by, for example, introduction of a custom glenoid baseplate in a later phase 5 . In our study, six patients (17%) underwent a DAIR approach.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of periprosthetic infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Lemmens

Geelen

Depypere

et al. 2021

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Short-term outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a custom baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency

Cited by 40 publications

References 23 publications

Functional and Radiological Outcomes after Treatment with Custom-Made Glenoid Components in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Functional and Radiological Outcomes after Treatment with Custom-Made Glenoid Components in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Management of periprosthetic infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About