Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty


      Malposition of the glenoid component can result in premature component loosening or instability. This study was designed to test the ability of an experienced shoulder surgeon to position the glenoid component using standard preoperative planning and surgical bone preparation.

      Materials and methods

      Thirteen patients having primary total shoulder arthroplasty were evaluated using 3-dimensional surgical simulator. Ideal version was considered to have version as close to perpendicular to the plane of the scapula, with complete contact of the back side of the component on glenoid bone and maintenance of the center peg of the component within bone.


      The average retroversion angle was 13° (mean, standard deviation [SD] 12°), with a range of 1-42°. In 7 of these 13 cases, preoperative glenoid retroversion was greater or equal to 10°. In 3 cases, the component was malpositioned with greater than 10° of ideal version. In cases with less than 10° of preoperative retroversion, the glenoid component was placed within 10° of ideal version in all cases.


      Traditional methods to correct moderate to severe glenoid deformity and place the glenoid component within 5° of the ideal position are not consistent. Optimal glenoid component placement can be achieved when there is minimal bone deformity. Retroversion greater or equal to 20° makes it difficult to place a pegged glenoid component perpendicular to the plane of the scapula by asymmetric reaming without center peg perforation.

      Level of evidence


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment


        • Churchill R.S.
        • Brems J.J.
        • Kotschi H.
        Glenoid size, inclination, and version: An anatomic study.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001; 10: 327-332
        • Codsi M.J.
        • Bennetts C.
        • Gordiev K.
        • Boeck D.M.
        • Kwon Y.W.
        • Brems J.J.
        • et al.
        Normal glenoid vault anatomy and validation of a novel glenoid implant shape.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 471-478
        • Edwards T.B.
        • Gartsman G.M.
        • O'Connor D.P.
        • Sarin V.K.
        Safety and utility of computer-aided shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 503-508
        • Farron A.
        • Terrier A.
        • Buchler P.
        Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15: 521-526
        • Friedman R.J.
        • Hawthorne K.B.
        • Genez B.M.
        The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992; 74: 1032-1037
        • Ganapathi A.M.
        • McCarron J.A.
        • Chen X.
        • Iannotti J.P.
        Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: A comparison of four methods in 2D and 3D models.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 20: 234-244
        • Hasan S.S.
        • Leith J.M.
        • Campbell B.
        • Kapil R.
        • Smith K.L.
        • Matsen F.A.
        Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11: 431-441
        • Hennigan S.P.
        • Iannotti J.P.
        Instability after prosthetic arthroplasty of the shoulder.
        Orthop Clin North Am. 2001; 32: 649-659
        • Hoenecke H.R.
        • Hermida J.C.
        • Dembitsky N.
        • Patil S.P.
        • D'Lima D.D.
        Optimizing glenoid component position using three dimension computer tomography reconstruction.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 637-641
        • Iannotti J.P.
        • Spencer E.E.
        • Winter U.
        • Deffenbaugh D.
        • Williams G.R.
        Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 111S-121S
        • Kwon Y.W.
        • Powell K.A.
        • Yum J.K.
        • Brems J.J.
        • Iannotti J.P.
        Use of three-dimensional computed-tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14: 85-90
        • Matsen F.A.
        • Lippitt S.B.
        • Sidles J.A.
        • Harryman D.T.
        Practical evaluation and management of the shoulder.
        WB Saunders, Philadelphia, PA1994 (p. 192, 210. ISBN-13: 9780721648194)
        • Matsen F.A.
        • Rockwood C.A.
        The shoulder.
        2nd ed. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, PA1998 (p. 850. ISBN: 0721681344)
        • Nguyen D.
        • Ferreira L.M.
        • Brownhill J.P.
        • King G.J.W.
        • Drosdowech D.S.
        • Faber K.J.
        • et al.
        Improved accuracy of computer assisted glenoid implantation in total shoulder arthroplasty: An in vitro randomized controlled trial.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18: 907-914
        • Nowak D.D.
        • Baha M.J.
        • Gardner T.R.
        • Dyrszka M.D.
        • Levine W.N.
        • Bigliani L.U.
        • et al.
        Simulation of surgical glenoid resurfacing using three-dimensional computed tomography of the arthritic glenohumeral joint: the amount of glenoid retroversion that can be corrected.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18: 680-688
        • Nyffeler R.W.
        • Sheikh R.
        • Atkinson T.S.
        • Jacob H.A.C.
        • Favre P.
        • Gerber C.
        Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: An experimental study.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15: 625-629
        • Spencer E.E.
        • Kambic H.
        • Valdevit A.
        • Iannotti J.P.
        The effect of humeral component anteversion on shoulder stability with glenoid component retroversion.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87A: 808-814