Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow

Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society (대한견·주관절의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Use of custom glenoid components for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

  • Punyawat Apiwatanakul (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University) ;
  • Prashant Meshram (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University) ;
  • Andrew B. Harris (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University) ;
  • Joel Bervell (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University) ;
  • Piotr Lukasiewicz (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University) ;
  • Ridge Maxson (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University) ;
  • Matthew J. Best (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University) ;
  • Edward G. McFarland (Division of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Johns Hopkins University)
  • Received : 2023.06.28
  • Accepted : 2023.09.02
  • Published : 2023.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Our purpose was to evaluate a custom reverse total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency, emphasizing the challenges with this approach, including short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications. Methods: This was a single-institution, retrospective series of 29 patients between January 2017 and December 2022 for whom a custom glenoid component was created for extensive glenoid bone loss. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at intervals for up to 5 years. All received preoperative physical examinations, plain radiographs, and computed tomography (CT). Intra- and postoperative complications are reported. Results: Of 29 patients, delays resulted in only undergoing surgery, and in three of those, the implant did not match the glenoid. For those three, the time from CT scan to implantation averaged 7.6 months (range, 6.1-10.7 months), compared with 5.5 months (range, 2-8.6 months) for those whose implants fit. In patients with at least 2-year follow-up (n=9), no failures occurred. Significant improvements were observed in all patient-reported outcome measures in those nine patients (American Shoulder and Elbow Score, P<0.01; Simple Shoulder Test, P=0.02; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, P<0.01; Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index, P<0.01). Range of motion improved for forward flexion and abduction (P=0.03 for both) and internal rotation up the back (P=0.02). Pain and satisfaction also improved (P<0.01 for both). Conclusions: Prolonged time (>6 months) from CT scan to device implantation resulted in bone loss that rendered the implants unusable. Satisfactory short-term radiographic and clinical follow-up can be achieved with a well-fitting device. Level of evidence: III.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

For editorial assistance, we thank Denise Di Salvo, MS, and Rachel Walden, MS, in the Editorial Services group of the Johns Hopkins Department of Orthopedic Surgery. We also thank the senior author's physician assistant, Marcy Beard, PA-C, Johns Hopkins Medicine, for her involvement in patient examinations.

References

  1. Chalmers PN, Boileau P, Romeo AA, Tashjian RZ. Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019;27:426-36. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00535
  2. Malhas A, Rashid A, Copas D, Bale S, Trail I. Glenoid bone loss in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow 2016;8:229-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573216648601
  3. Garrigues GE, Zmistowski B, Cooper AM, Green A; ICM Shoulder Group. Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: the definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019;28(6S):S8-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.034
  4. Malahias MA, Chytas D, Kostretzis L, et al. Bone grafting in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of glenoid bone loss: a systematic review. J Orthop 2019;20:78-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2019.12.005
  5. Bodendorfer BM, Loughran GJ, Looney AM, et al. Short-term outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a custom baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021;30:1060-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.002
  6. Debeer P, Berghs B, Pouliart N, Van den Bogaert G, Verhaegen F, Nijs S. Treatment of severe glenoid deficiencies in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: the Glenius Glenoid Reconstruction System experience. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019;28:1601-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.061
  7. Dines DM, Gulotta L, Craig EV, Dines JS. Novel solution for massive glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty: a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 2017;46:104-8.
  8. Rangarajan R, Blout CK, Patel VV, Bastian SA, Lee BK, Itamura JM. Early results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a patient-matched glenoid implant for severe glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020;29(7S):S139-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.04.024
  9. Porcellini G, Micheloni GM, Tarallo L, Paladini P, Merolla G, Catani F. Custom-made reverse shoulder arthroplasty for severe glenoid bone loss: review of the literature and our preliminary results. J Orthop Traumatol 2021;22:2.
  10. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:1601-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.010
  11. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 1999;14:756-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(99)90232-2
  12. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001;10:217-24. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2001.113961
  13. Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, Kobayashi Y. Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears: a long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;(254):92-6.
  14. 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 Br 2004;86:388-95. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86B3.14024
  15. Frankle MA, Teramoto A, Luo ZP, Levy JC, Pupello D. Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: classification and surgical implications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:874-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.02.013
  16. Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994;3:347-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80019-0
  17. Lippitt S, Harryman D, Matsen FA. A practical tool for evaluating function: the simple shoulder test. In: Matsen FA, Fu FH, Hawkins R, eds. The shoulder: a balance of mobility and stability. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 1993. p. 501-18.
  18. Gowd AK, Charles MD, Liu JN, et al. Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) is a reliable metric to measure clinically significant improvements following shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019;28:2238-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.041
  19. Lo IK, Griffin S, Kirkley A. The development of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2001;9:771-8. https://doi.org/10.1053/joca.2001.0474
  20. Simovitch R, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD, Roche CP. Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018;27:298-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.013
  21. Boon AJ, Smith J. Manual scapular stabilization: its effect on shoulder rotational range of motion. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000;81:978-83. https://doi.org/10.1053/apmr.2000.5617
  22. Hertel R, Ballmer FT, Lombert SM, Gerber C. Lag signs in the diagnosis of rotator cuff rupture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1996;5:307-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(96)80058-9
  23. Codman EA. The shoulder: rupture of the supraspinatus tendon and other lesions in or about the subacromial bursa. Thomas Todd; 1934.
  24. Park HB, Yokota A, Gill HS, El Rassi G, McFarland EG. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the different degrees of subacromial impingement syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1446-55. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200507000-00005
  25. Gerber C, Krushell RJ. Isolated rupture of the tendon of the subscapularis muscle: clinical features in 16 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1991;73:389-94. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.73B3.1670434
  26. Sanders TG, Jersey SL. Conventional radiography of the shoulder. Semin Roentgenol 2005;40:207-22. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ro.2005.01.012
  27. Zimmer Biomet. Comprehensive vault reconstruction system: surgical technique. Zimmer Biomet; 2021 [cited 2023 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.zimmerbiomet.com/content/dam/zb-corporate/en/education-resources/surgical-techniques/specialties/shoulder/comprehensive-valult/0469.4-GLBL-en%20Comprehensive%20Vault%20Reconstruction%20System%20SurgTech-Digital1.pdf
  28. Wixted CM, Goltz DE, Wickman JR, et al. Intraoperative fractures in shoulder arthroplasty: risk factors and outcomes. JSES Int 2021;5:1021-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.013
  29. Dolci A, Melis B, Verona M, Capone A, Marongiu G. Complications and intraoperative fractures in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil 2021;12:21514593211059865.