Effect of reverse shoulder arthroplasty humeral component retroversion on acromial strain

被引:1
|
作者
O'Leary, Michael [1 ]
Haislup, Brett [1 ]
Gillin, Thomas [1 ]
Abbasi, Pooyan [1 ]
Austin, Luke [2 ]
Wright, Melissa [1 ]
Murthi, Anand M. [1 ]
机构
[1] MedStar Union Mem Hosp, Dept Orthopaed, Shoulder & Elbow Serv, Baltimore, MD USA
[2] Rothman Orthopaed Inst, Philadelphia, PA USA
关键词
Biomechanics; shoulder; scapular spine; acromion; reverse shoulder arthroplasty; acromial stress fracture; GLENOSPHERE DESIGN; OUTCOMES; VERSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.012
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Acromion and scapular spine stress fractures can be catastrophic complications following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). A variety of host, implant, and technical factors have been identified that increase the risk of this complication. The glenoid component in particular has been closely evaluated for its impact on rates of stress fractures following RSA. The goal of this biomechanical study is to evaluate if humeral stem version has an impact on acromion and scapular spine strain after RSA. Methods: Eight cadaveric specimens were tested on a custom dynamic shoulder frame. Commercially available RSA components were implanted with the humeral component inserted in 0 degrees of retroversion. Acromion and scapular spine strain were measured at 0 degrees, 30 degrees, and 60 degrees of abduction using strain rosettes secured to the acromion and scapular spine in the typical locations for Levy type II and type III stress fractures, respectively. The humeral stem was then removed and reimplanted in 30 degrees of retroversion and the measurements were repeated. Student t test was performed to analyze the relationship between humeral stem version and acromion and scapular spine strain at various abduction angles. Results: Strain at the both the acromion and scapular spine were found to have no significant difference at any abduction angle when comparing 0 degrees and 30 degrees version of the humeral stem. With 0 degrees and 30 degrees versions pooled together, there is significantly lower acromion and scapular spine strain at 60 degrees of abduction when compared to 0 degrees of abduction (strain at 0 degrees abduction - strain at 60 degrees abduction: acromion 313.1 m.; P <.0409, Scapular spine 304.9 m.; P <.0407). There was no significant difference in strain at either location when comparing 0 degrees of abduction to 30 degrees of abduction and when comparing 30 degrees of abduction to 60 degrees of abduction. Conclusions: This biomechanical study found no significant difference in scapular spine and acromion strain after RSA when comparing variations in humeral stem version. There does appear to be lower strain at both the acromion and scapular spine at 60 degrees of abduction when compared to 0 degrees of abduction regardless of stem version. Level of Evidence: Basic Science Study; Biomechanics (C) 2023 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:S69 / S74
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Postoperative assessment of the individualized humeral component retroversion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a novel method applying computed tomography scans without an elbow
    Jeon, Young Dae
    Heo, Kang
    Iran, Luan Khoi
    Yoon, Ji Young
    Jeong, Hyeon Jang
    Oh, Joo Han
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2025, 34 (04) : e187 - e195
  • [22] The incidence of radiographic aseptic loosening of the humeral component in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
    Gilot, Gregory
    Alvarez-Pinzon, Andres M.
    Wright, Thomas W.
    Flurin, Pierre-Henri
    Krill, Michael
    Routman, Howard D.
    Zuckerman, Joseph D.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2015, 24 (10) : 1555 - 1559
  • [23] Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty
    Alexandre Lädermann
    Patrick J. Denard
    Pascal Boileau
    Alain Farron
    Pierric Deransart
    Alexandre Terrier
    Julien Ston
    Gilles Walch
    International Orthopaedics, 2015, 39 : 2205 - 2213
  • [24] The effect of glenoid component version and humeral polyethylene liner rotation on subluxation and impingement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty
    Permeswaran, Vijay N.
    Caceres, Andrea
    Goetz, Jessica E.
    Anderson, Donald D.
    Hettrich, Carolyn M.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2017, 26 (10) : 1718 - 1725
  • [25] Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty
    Laedermann, Alexandre
    Denard, Patrick J.
    Boileau, Pascal
    Farron, Alain
    Deransart, Pierric
    Terrier, Alexandre
    Ston, Julien
    Walch, Gilles
    INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2015, 39 (11) : 2205 - 2213
  • [26] Tribocorrosion in shoulder arthroplasty humeral component retrievals
    Teeter, Matthew G.
    Carroll, Michael J.
    Walch, Gilles
    Athwal, George S.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2016, 25 (02) : 311 - 315
  • [27] A morphometric evaluation of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty
    Iyem, Cihan
    Serbest, Sancar
    Inal, Mikail
    Burulday, Veysel
    Kaya, Ahmet
    Kultur, Turgut
    Tiftikci, Ugur
    BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH-INDIA, 2017, 28 (06): : 2666 - 2672
  • [28] The role of acromial morphometry in the development of acromial stress fracture following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
    Yeazell, Shawn T.
    Malige, Ajith
    Visser, Timothy
    Carolan, Gregory F.
    SHOULDER & ELBOW, 2021, 13 (03) : 296 - 302
  • [29] Functional and radiologic outcomes of uncemented reverse shoulder arthroplasty in proximal humeral fractures: cementing the humeral component is not necessary
    Youn, Seung-Min
    Deo, Shaneel
    Poon, Peter C.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2016, 25 (04) : E83 - E89
  • [30] The influence of reverse arthroplasty humeral component design features on scapular spine strain
    Kerrigan, Alicia M.
    Reeves, Jacob M.
    Langohr, G. Daniel G.
    Johnson, James A.
    Athwal, George S.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2021, 30 (03) : 572 - 579