Journal Home
Search for

Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 874-885 (November 2009)


View previous. 10 of 34 View next.

Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Classification and surgical implications

Mark A. Frankle, MDaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Atsushi Teramoto, MDb, Zong-Ping Luo, PhDb, Jonathan C. Levy, MDc, Derek Pupello, MBAb

published online 01 June 2009.

Background

A great challenge in reverse shoulder arthroplasty is the wide variation in glenoid morphology that adds uncertainties in glenoid component placement. The purpose of this study was to classify glenoid morphology and examining its effect on possible glenoid component fixation.

Materials and methods

The morphology of 216 glenoids was classified into normal and abnormal with subgroups defined by erosion sites. Six anatomic and 2 surgical parameters were compared among the classified groups. Plain radiographs or 2-dimensional (2D) computed tomography (CT) scans showed 62.5% of glenoids were normal and 37.5% were abnormal, with further subclassification of abnormal in posterior (17.6%), superior (9.3%), global (6.5%), and anterior (4.2%) erosions using 3D CT models.

Results

The standard centerline became significantly shorter in abnormal (19.6 ± 9.1 mm) than in normal (28.6 ± 4.1 mm, P < .0001) glenoids. Alternatively, the spine centerline provided longer bony distance in abnormal glenoids (34.9 ± 17.0 mm). Abnormal glenoid morphology also reduced peripheral screw placement area by 42% and limited it to the anterior and inferior quadrants.

Discussion

Glenoid morphology of the rotator cuff deficient shoulder can be reliably classified using this classification system consisting of normal and abnormal, which included 4 subgroups of posterior, superior, global, and anterior erosions.

Conclusions

Abnormal glenoid morphology was shown to have a significant effect on anatomical and surgical factors which can necessitate adjustments in surgical technique for reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Level of evidence

Basic Science Study.

a Florida Orthopaedic Institute, Tampa, FL

b The Phillip Spiegel Orthopaedic Research Laboratory at the Foundation for Orthopaedic Research and Education, Tampa, FL

c Orthopaedic Institute at Holy Cross Hospital Fort Lauderdale, FL

Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Mark A. Frankle, MD, Florida Orthopaedic Institute, 13020 N Telecom Pkwy, Tampa, FL 33637.

PII: S1058-2746(09)00128-1

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.013


View previous. 10 of 34 View next.