» Articles » PMID: 36919511

Implant Selection for Successful Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Overview
Date 2023 Mar 15
PMID 36919511
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) emerged as a new concept of arthroplasty that does not restore normal anatomy but does restore function. It enables the function of the torn rotator cuff to be performed by the deltoid and shows encouraging clinical outcomes. Since its introduction, various modifications have been designed to improve the outcome of the RTSA. From the original cemented baseplate with peg or keel, a cementless baseplate was designed that could be fixed with central and peripheral screws. In addition, a modular-type glenoid component enabled easier revision options. For the humeral component, the initial design was an inlay type of long stem with cemented fixation. However, loss of bone stock from the cemented stem hindered revision surgery. Therefore, a cementless design was introduced with a firm metaphyseal fixation. Furthermore, to prevent complications such as scapular notching, the concept of lateralization emerged. Lateralization helped to maintain normal shoulder contour and better rotator cuff function for improved external/internal rotation power, but excessive lateralization yielded problems such as subacromial notching. Therefore, for patients with pseudoparalysis or with risk of subacromial notching, a medial eccentric tray option can be used for distalization and reduced lateralization of the center of rotation. In summary, it is important that surgeons understand the characteristics of each implant in the various options for RTSA. Furthermore, through preoperative evaluation of patients, surgeons can choose the implant option that will lead to the best outcomes after RTSA.

Citing Articles

Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Combined With Secondary Pectoralis Major Transfer for Tray-Taper Breakage and Internal Rotational Dysfunction: A Case Report.

Baek C, Kim B, Kim J J Orthop Case Rep. 2025; 15(2):32-36.

PMID: 39957943 PMC: 11823865. DOI: 10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i02.5218.


Use of pre-operative 3D planning software for revision shoulder arthroplasty: clinical experience data from a survey in a real-world setting.

Regling M, Patterson B JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2024; 4(4):783-789.

PMID: 39474189 PMC: 11514103. DOI: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2024.05.010.


Stress shielding in stemmed reverse shoulder arthroplasty: an updated review.

Vasiliadis A, Giovanoulis V, Lepidas N, Bampis I, Servien E, Lustig S SICOT J. 2024; 10:37.

PMID: 39303143 PMC: 11415035. DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2024029.


Towards optimal reverse total shoulder arthroplasty design: reconsidering the role of lateralized implants.

Park S, Seok H Clin Shoulder Elb. 2024; 27(1):1-2.

PMID: 38469595 PMC: 10938010. DOI: 10.5397/cise.2024.00045.

References
1.
Kozak T, Bauer S, Walch G, Al-Karawi S, Blakeney W . An update on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: current indications, new designs, same old problems. EFORT Open Rev. 2021; 6(3):189-201. PMC: 8025709. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200085. View

2.
Muller A, Born M, Jung C, Flury M, Kolling C, Schwyzer H . Glenosphere size in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: is larger better for external rotation and abduction strength?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 27(1):44-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.06.002. View

3.
Chou J, Malak S, Anderson I, Astley T, Poon P . Biomechanical evaluation of different designs of glenospheres in the SMR reverse total shoulder prosthesis: range of motion and risk of scapular notching. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(3):354-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.01.015. View

4.
Patel M, Martin J, Campbell D, Fernandes R, Amini M . Inferior tilt of the glenoid leads to medialization and increases impingement on the scapular neck in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020; 30(6):1273-1281. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.09.023. View

5.
Cho S, Lee H, Aldhafian O, Kim Y . Comparison of Lateralized Versus Medialized Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2022; 10(1):23259671211063922. PMC: 8733373. DOI: 10.1177/23259671211063922. View