medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2021, Number 3

Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2021; 35 (3)

Comparative analysis of three models of reverse shoulder prosthesis based on the new angles of distalization and lateralization

Bernal N, Paccot D, Franz P, Calvo A, Toro F, Reinares F

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 245-251
PDF size: 215.42 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose: Compare functional and radiological outcomes of three different designs of reverse shoulder arthroplasty according to distalization and lateralization shoulder angle, in heterogenic diagnostics (fracture, cuff arthropathy, fracture sequela and osteoarthritis). Material and methods: Prospective cohort of 33 patients of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) between December 2014 and July 2017 with a minimum one year of follow-up. We defined three groups, G: 10 patients with Grammont (155o, Medialized Glena), B: 9 patients with Bio-RSA (155º, lateralized bone glena) and A: 14 patients with Arrow (135o, lateralized metallic glena). We analyze demographic, clinical, functional and radiological outcomes (lateralization shoulder angle (LSA) and distalization shoulder angle (DSA)). For the statistical analysis, ANOVA, T-tests and linear regression tests were used, with a statistical significance of 5%. Results: The LSA was significantly higher in group A (98o A, 79o G, 80o B) (p < 0.05). In DSA, group B was significantly higher than A (52o B, 39o A) (p < 0.05) and not significant to G (48o G) (p = 0.06). There was no correlation of LSA and DSA with external rotation (p = 0.51) and active elevation (p = 0.41), respectively. There was no significant clinical (anterior elevation, external rotation, internal rotation) and functional outcomes (adjusted Constant score and subjective shoulder evaluation) differences between the different RSA models (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The LSA was higher in the Arrow and the DSA was higher in Bio-RSA. We did not find Clinical - Radiological correlation in this heterogeneous series of patients.


REFERENCES

  1. Grammont PM, Baulot E. Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture. Orthopedics. 1993; 16(1): 65-8.

  2. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14(1Suppl S): 147S-61S.

  3. Mizuno N, Denard PJ, Raiss P, Walch G. The clinical and radiographical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with eccentric glenosphere. Int Orthop. 2012; 36(8): 1647-53. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1539-0.

  4. Melis B, DeFranco M, Ladermann A, Molé D, Favard L, Nérot C, Maynou C, Walch G. An evaluation of the radiological changes around the Grammont reverse geometry shoulder arthroplasty after eight to 12 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(9): 1240-6. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B9.25926.

  5. Boileau P, Moineau G, Roussanne Y, O'Shea K. Bony increased-offset reversed shoulder arthroplasty: minimizing scapular impingement while maximizing glenoid fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(9): 2558-67. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-1775-4.

  6. Katz D, Valenti P, Kany J, Elkholti K, Werthel JD. Does lateralisation of the centre of rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty avoid scapular notching? Clinical and radiological review of one hundred and forty cases with forty five months of follow-up. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(1): 99-108. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2976-3.

  7. Frankle M, Siegal S, Pupello D, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M. The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(8): 1697-705.

  8. Ladermann A, Denard PJ, Boileau P, Farron A, Deransart P, Terrier A, et al. Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015; 39(11): 2205-13. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2984-3.

  9. Keener JD, Patterson BM, Orvets N, Aleem AW, Chamberlain AM. Optimizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty component position in the setting of advanced arthritis with posterior glenoid erosion: a computer-enhanced range of motion analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(2): 339-49. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.011.

  10. Greiner S, Schmidt C, Herrmann S, Pauly S, Perka C. Clinical performance of lateralized versus non-lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24(9): 1397-404. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.041.

  11. Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Romeo AA. The effect of humeral inclination on range of motion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016; 45(4): E174-9.

  12. Chan K, Langohr GDG, Mahaffy M, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. Does humeral component lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty affect rotator cuff torque? Evaluation in a cadaver model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(10): 2564-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-017-5413-7.

  13. Ladermann A, Williams MD, Melis B, Hoffmeyer P, Walch G. Objective evaluation of lengthening in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(4): 588-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.012.

  14. Boutsiadis A, Lenoir H, Denard PJ, Panisset JC, Brossard P, Delsol P, Guichard F, Barth J. The lateralization and distalization shoulder angles are important determinants of clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(7): 1226-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.02.036.

  15. Schwartz DG, Cottrell BJ, Teusink MJ, Clark RE, Downes KL, Tannenbaum RS, et al. Factors that predict postoperative motion in patients treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(9): 1289-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.12.032.

  16. Collin P, Liu X, Denard PJ, Gain S, Nowak A, Ladermann A. Standard versus bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(1): 59-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.020.

  17. Gobezie R, Shishani Y, Lederman E, Denard PJ. Can a functional difference be detected in reverse arthroplasty with 135o versus 155o prosthesis for the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathy: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(5): 813-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.064.

  18. Werner BS, Ascione F, Bugelli G, Walch G. Does arm lengthening affect the functional outcome in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26(12): 2152-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.05.021.

  19. Boileau P, Gauci MO, 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; 28(7): 1281-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.074.



EVIDENCE LEVEL

IV




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com