Advertisement
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

Clinical and radiologic outcomes of eccentric glenosphere versus concentric glenosphere in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Published:December 01, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.10.032

      Background

      The use of an eccentric glenosphere (EG) has been proposed as a way to prevent scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the use of an EG decreases scapular notching compared with matched standard concentric glenosphere (CG) controls.

      Methods

      A retrospective analysis was performed. This study included 49 RSAs with an EG and 49 paired RSAs with a CG with a minimum 60 months of both clinical and radiographic follow-up. Clinical and radiologic outcomes of the EG and CG groups were compared at inclusion and at the last follow-up using the paired Student t test for quantitative data and the χ2 test for qualitative data. Scapular notching was graded according to the Sirveaux classification. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

      Results

      Notching was observed 2.7 times (95% confidence interval, 1.0-6.8 times) more often in the CG group (P = .037). The difference in notching severity between the groups was not statistically relevant; however, there was a trend toward more severe notching in the CG group (P = .059). Compared with a CG, an EG did not increase the percentage of radiolucent lines around the screws (3% vs. 1.5%, P = .62), around the post (3% vs. 1.5%, P = .62), or below the baseplate (15% vs. 7.5%, P = .18).

      Conclusion

      EGs are associated with less notching than CGs. This finding confirms that RSA with an EG is an effective procedure without specific complications at a minimum follow-up of 5 years.

      Level of evidence

      Keywords

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

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • 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: 2558-2567https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1775-4
        • Choi C.H.
        • Kim S.G.
        • Lee J.J.
        • Kwack B.H.
        Comparison of clinical and radiological results according to glenosphere position in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a short-term follow-up study.
        Clin Orthop Surg. 2017; 9: 83-90https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2017.9.1.83
        • Constant C.R.
        • Murley A.H.
        A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987; : 160-164
        • De Biase C.F.
        • Ziveri G.
        • Delcogliano M.
        • de Caro F.
        • Gumina S.
        • Borroni M.
        • et al.
        The use of an eccentric glenosphere compared with a concentric glenosphere in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: two-year minimum follow-up results.
        Int Orthop. 2013; 37: 1949-1955https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1947-9
        • de Wilde L.F.
        • Poncet D.
        • Middernacht B.
        • Ekelund A.
        Prosthetic overhang is the most effective way to prevent scapular conflict in a reverse total shoulder prosthesis.
        Acta Orthop. 2010; 81: 719-726https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2010.538354
        • Gilbart M.K.
        • Gerber C.
        Comparison of the Subjective Shoulder Value and the Constant score.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16: 717-721https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123
        • Grammont P.
        • Trouilloud P.
        • Laffay J.
        • Deries X.
        Etude et réalisation d’une nouvelle prothèse d’épaule.
        Rhumatologie. 1987; 39 ([in French]): 407-418
        • Gutiérrez S.
        • Walker M.
        • Willis M.
        • Pupello D.R.
        • Frankle M.A.
        Effects of tilt and glenosphere eccentricity on baseplate/bone interface forces in a computational model, validated by a mechanical model, of reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 20: 732-739https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.035
        • Kelly J.D.
        • Humphrey C.S.
        • Norris T.R.
        Optimizing glenosphere position and fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, part one: the twelve-mm rule.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 589-594https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.08.013
        • Lädermann A.
        • Gueorguiev B.
        • Charbonnier C.
        • Stimec B.V.
        • Fasel J.H.D.
        • Zderic I.
        • et al.
        Scapular notching on kinematic simulated range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty is not the result of impingement in adduction.
        Medicine (Baltimore). 2015; 94: e1615https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000001615
        • Langohr G.D.G.
        • Willing R.
        • Medley J.B.
        • Athwal G.S.
        • Johnson J.A.
        Contact mechanics of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty during abduction: the effect of neck-shaft angle, humeral cup depth, and glenosphere diameter.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25: 589-597https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.024
        • Lévigne C.
        • Boileau P.
        • Favard L.
        • Garaud P.
        • Molé D.
        • Sirveaux F.
        • et al.
        Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17: 925-935https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010
        • Mizuno N.
        • Denard P.J.
        • Raiss P.
        • Walch G.
        The clinical and radiographical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with eccentric glenosphere.
        Int Orthop. 2012; 36: 1647-1653https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1539-0
        • Nicholson G.P.
        • Strauss E.J.
        • Sherman S.L.
        Scapular notching: recognition and strategies to minimize clinical impact.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469: 2521-2530https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1720-y
        • Nyffeler R.W.
        • Werner C.M.L.
        • Simmen B.R.
        • Gerber C.
        Analysis of a retrieved Delta III total shoulder prosthesis.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86: 1187-1191https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.86b8.15228
        • Patterson D.C.
        • Chi D.
        • Parsons B.O.
        • Cagle P.J.
        Acromial spine fracture after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.
        J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28: 792-801https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.033
        • Poon P.C.
        • Chou J.
        • Young D.
        • Malak S.F.
        • Anderson I.A.
        Biomechanical evaluation of different designs of glenospheres in the SMR reverse shoulder prosthesis: micromotion of the baseplate and risk of loosening.
        Shoulder Elbow. 2010; 2: 94-99https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.01.015
        • Poon P.C.
        • Chou J.
        • Young S.W.
        • Astley T.
        A comparison of concentric and eccentric glenospheres in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96: e138https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00941