The use of a large diameter glenosphere in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients undergoing tuberosity removal
Keywords:
large diameter glenosphere, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, proximal humeral fractures, geriatric surgery, tuberosity resectionAbstract
Background and aim: Prosthetic replacement with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is commonly indicated for complex proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in elderly patients. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of RSA performed for comminuted PHFs, without periprosthetic reconstruction of the tuberosities. Our hypothesis was that a large diameter glenosphere could ensure satisfactory RSA mobility and stability, regardless of tuberosity removal.
Methods: We selected 32 patients (4 men, 28 women) with comminuted PHFs who underwent RSA with tuberosity excision and implantation of a 44-mm glenosphere between 2009 and 2015. Active range of motion (ROM), stability, Constant-Murley Score (CMS) (1) and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) (2) were assessed one year and four years after surgery.
Results: Clinical and radiological information were collected for 23 patients (72%). At one-year follow-up, active anterior elevation (AE) was 96±28 degrees, external rotation with adducted arm (ER1) 9±7 degrees, external rotation with abducted arm (ER2) 14±10 degrees, internal rotation (IR) to L4; CMS was 56±10 and SSV 65±22.
Clinical assessment at 4-year follow up showed a decrease in active ROM (AE was 88±20 degrees, ER1 8±2 degrees, ER2 12±10 degrees, IR to L4), CMS (52±9) and SSV (62±8).
No RSA dislocation occurred during the study. In 4 patients, grade I glenoid notching without any sign of component loosening was observed 4 years after surgery.
Conclusions: A large diameter glenosphere does not ensure results comparable to those achieved after RSA with tuberosity reconstruction. However, the 44-mm glenosphere was effective in preventing RSA instability
References
Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 160–4.
Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2007; 16, 717–721. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123
Schoch BS, King JJ, Zuckerman J, Wright TW, Roche C, Flurin P-H. Anatomic versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A mid-term follow-up comparison. Shoulder Elbow 2020; 13(5), 518–526. doi: 10.1177/1758573220921150
Sabesan VJ, Lima DJL, Yang Y, Stankard MC, Drummond M, Liou WW. The role of greater tuberosity healing in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a finite element analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29, 347–354. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.022
Schmalzl J, Jessen M, Sadler N, Lehmann LJ, Gerhardt C. High tuberosity healing rate associated with better functional outcome following primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures with a 135° prosthesis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21:35. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-3060-8
Gallinet D, Clappaz P, Garbuio P, Tropet Y, Obert L. Three or four parts complex proximal humerus fractures: Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse prosthesis: A comparative study of 40 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009; 95, 48–55. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2008.09.002
Ackland DC, Richardson M, Pandy MG. Axial Rotation Moment Arms of the Shoulder Musculature After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 1886-95. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01861.
Ohl X, Bonnevialle N, Gallinet D et al. How the greater tuberosity affects clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. . J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27, 2139–2144. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.05.030
Garofalo R, Brody F, Castagna A, Ceccarelli E, Krishnan SG. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid bone grafting for anterior glenoid rim fracture associated with glenohumeral dislocation and proximal humerus fracture. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102, 989–994. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.09.009
Terwee CB, de Winter AF, Scholten RJ et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the visual estimation of range of motion of the shoulder. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86, 1356–1361. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.12.031
Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Mole D. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff: results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg 2004; 86, 388–95. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.86b3.14024
Wolfensperger F, Grüninger P, Dietrich M et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for complex fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients: impact on the level of independency, early function, and pain medication. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26, 1462–1468. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.021
Lenarz C, Shishani Y, McCrum C, Nowinski RJ, Edwards BT, Gobezie R. Is reverse shoulder arthroplasty appropriate for the treatment of fractures in the older patient?: Early Observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469, 3324–3331. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2055-z
Lee BK, Itamura JM. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures. Ann Joint 2021; 6:24. doi: 10.21037/aoj-20-15
Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: Design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005; 14, 147–161. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006
Kontaxis A, Johnson GR. The biomechanics of reverse anatomy shoulder replacement - A modelling study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2009; 24, 254–260. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.12.004
Kancherla VK, Singh A, Anakwenze OA. Management of Acute Proximal Humeral Fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2017; 25, 42–52. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00240
Boileau P, Alta TD, Decroocq L et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute fractures in the elderly: is it worth reattaching the tuberosities? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28, 437–444. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.025
Klein M, Juschka M, Hinkenjann B, Scherger B, Ostermann PAW. Treatment of Comminuted Fractures of the Proximal Humerus in Elderly Patients With the Delta III Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis. J Orthop Trauma 2008; 22, 698-704. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31818afe40
Grassi FA, Zorzolo I. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty without subscapularis repair for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. Musculoskelet Surg 2014; 98, 5-13. doi: 10.1007/s12306-014-0321-4
Chun YM, Kim DS, Lee DH, Shin SJ. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for four-part proximal humerus fracture in elderly patients: can a healed tuberosity improve the functional outcomes? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26, 1216–1221. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.11.034
Torrens C, Alentorn-Geli E, Mingo F, Gamba C, Santana F. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of acute complex proximal humeral fractures: Influence of greater tuberosity healing on the functional outcomes. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2018; 26. doi: 10.1177/2309499018760132
Gallinet D, Adam A, Gasse N, Rochet S, Obert L. Improvement in shoulder rotation in complex shoulder fractures treated by reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22, 38–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.03.011
Sebastiá-Forcada E, Cebrián-Gómez R, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gil-Guillén V. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. A blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23, 1419–1426. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.035
Henninger HB, Barg A, Anderson AE, Bachus KN, Burks RT, Tashjian RZ. Effect of lateral offset center of rotation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21, 1128–1135. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.034
Roche C, Diep P, Hamilton M et al. Biomechanical analysis of 3 commercially available reverse shoulder designs in a normal and medially eroded scapula. Presented at the 59th Annual Orthopaedic Research Society Meeting. San Antonio, Texas, January 26-29, 2013.
Simovitch RW, Zumstein MA, Lohri E, Helmy N, Gerber C. Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the Delta III reverse total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89, 588-600. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00226
Nam D, Kepler CK, Neviaser AS et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: current concepts, results, and component wear analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 ; 92, 23-35. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00769
Chou J, Malak SF, Anderson IA, Astley T, Poon PC. 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, 354–359. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.01.015
Gutiérrez S, Comiskey IVCA, Luo ZP, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90, 2606–2615. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00012
Virani NA, Cabezas A, Gutiérrez S, Santoni BG, Otto R, Frankle M. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty components and surgical techniques that restore glenohumeral motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22, 179–187. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.02.004
Berhouet J, Garaud P, Favard L. Evaluation of the role of glenosphere design and humeral component retroversion in avoiding scapular notching during reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23, 151–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.009
Bloch HR, Budassi P, Bischof A et al. Influence of glenosphere design and material on clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow 2014; 6, 156–164. doi: 10.1177/1758573214535574
Mollon B, Mahure SA, Roche CP, Zuckerman JD. Impact of glenosphere size on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: An analysis of 297 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25, 763–771. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.10.027
Müller AM, Born M, Jung C et al. Glenosphere size in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: is larger better for external rotation and abduction strength? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27, 44–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.06.002
Cazeneuve JF, Cristofari DJ. The reverse shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92, 535-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B4.22450
Herrmann S. Shoulder Biomechanics. In: Frankle M, Marberry S, Pupello D, editors. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty, New York: Springer 2016; 21–30
Roche C, Flurin P-H, Wright T et al. An evaluation of the relationships between reverse shoulder design parameters and range of motion, impingement, and stability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18, 734–741. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.008
Langohr GDG, Giles JW, Athwal GS, Johnson JA. The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24, 972–979. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.018
Giles JW, Langohr GDG, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. The rotator cuff muscles are antagonists after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25, 1592–1600. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.028
Lädermann A, Edwards TB, Walch G. Arm lengthening after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A review. Int Orthop 2014; 38, 991–1000. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2175-z
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Giacomo Roveda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
How to Cite
