Search

Aims: The objective of this study was to compare simulated range of motion (ROM) for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation in a global reference system. We hypothesized that values for simulated ROM in preoperative planning software with and without adjustment for scapulothoracic orientation would be significantly different., Methods: A statistical shape model of the entire humerus and scapula was fitted into ten shoulder CT scans randomly selected from 162 patients who underwent rTSA. Six shoulder surgeons independently planned a rTSA in each model using prototype development software with the ability to adjust for scapulothoracic orientation, the starting position of the humerus, as well as kinematic planes in a global reference system simulating previously described posture types A, B, and C. ROM with and without posture adjustment was calculated and compared in all movement planes., Results: All movement planes showed significant differences when comparing protocols with and without adjustment for posture. The largest mean difference was seen in external rotation, being 62° (SD 16°) without adjustment compared to 25° (SD 9°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), with the highest mean difference being 49° (SD 15°) in type C. Mean extension was 57° (SD 18°) without adjustment versus 24° (SD 11°) with adjustment (p < 0.001) and the highest mean difference of 47° (SD 18°) in type C. Mean abducted internal rotation was 69° (SD 11°) without adjustment versus 31° (SD 6°) with posture adjustment (p < 0.001), showing the highest mean difference of 51° (SD 11°) in type C., Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that accounting for scapulothoracic orientation has a significant impact on simulated ROM for rTSA in all motion planes, specifically rendering vastly lower values for external rotation, extension, and high internal rotation. The substantial differences observed in this study warrant a critical re-evaluation of all previously published studies that examined component choice and placement for optimized ROM in rTSA using conventional preoperative planning software., Competing Interests: S. Poltaretskyi is an employee of Arthrex. P. Raiss is a paid consultant for Arthrex, and also receives speaker payments or honoraria and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Arthrex, and stock or stock options from Zurimed, all of which are unrelated to this study. P. Siegert reports software support from Arthrex for this study. B. C. Werner reports funding from Arthrex for this study, as well as consulting fees from Arthrex and Lifenet, and speaker payments or honoraria from Arthrex which are unrelated to this study. P. Moroder reports software support and article processing charges funding from Arthrex for this study, as well as consulting fees from and a patent submission with Arthrex, which are related to this study. P. Denard reports grant funding from Arthrex for this study, as well as royalties or licenses, consulting fees, and speaker payments or honoraria from Arthrex which are unrelated to this study. P. Denard also reports speaker payments or honoraria from Pacira and stock or stock options from PT Genie, unrelated to this study. B. J. Erickson reports consulting fees from Arthrex, unrelated to this study. J. Griffin reports royalties or licenses, consulting fees, speaker payments or honoraria, support for attending meetings and/or travel, and patents from Arthrex, all of which are unrelated to this study., (© 2024 Moroder et al.)

Background: Computer simulation has indicated a significant effect of scapulothoracic orientation and posture on range of motion (ROM) after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). We analyzed this putative effect on the clinical and radiologic outcome post-RTSA., Methods: We retrospectively assessed 2-year follow-up data of RTSA patients treated at our clinic between 2008 and 2019. Patients were categorized into posture types A, B, and C based on an established method using scapular internal rotation on preoperative cross-sectional imaging. We compared differences in clinical ROM, pain, Subjective Shoulder Value, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level utility index), and radiologic outcomes between posture types using linear regression analyses., Results: Of 681 included patients, 225 had type A posture, 326 type B, and 130 type C. Baseline group characteristics were comparable, although the type C group had a higher proportion of females (60% [A], 64% [B], 80% [C]) with lower abduction strength (0.7 kg [A], 0.6 kg [B], 0.3 kg [C]) and a slightly higher proportion with a Grammont design RTSA (41% [A], 48% [B], 54% [C]). There were significant adjusted differences in mean (±standard deviation) active flexion (A: 137° ± 21°; B: 136° ± 20°; C: 131° ± 19°) and passive flexion (A: 140° ± 19°; B: 138° ± 19°; C: 134° ± 18°), active (A: 127° ± 26°; B: 125° ± 26°; C: 117° ± 27°) and passive abduction (A: 129° ± 24°; B: 128° ± 25°; C: 121° ± 25°), SPADI (A: 81 ± 18; B: 79 ± 20; C: 73 ± 23), and pain (A: 1.2 ± 1.7; B: 1.6 ± 2.2; C: 1.8 ± 2.4) between posture types at 2 years (P ≤ .035). A higher distalization shoulder angle was associated with better abduction in type C patients (P = .016). Type C patients showed a trend toward a higher complication rate (3.9% vs. 1.1% [A], 3.2% [B]) (P = .067)., Conclusions: Type C posture influences the 2-year clinical outcome of RTSA patients in terms of worse flexion, abduction, SPADI, and pain. Scapulothoracic orientation and posture should be considered during the patient selection process, preoperative planning, and implantation of an RTSA., (Copyright © 2024 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Component selection and placement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is still being debated. Recently, scapulothoracic orientation and posture have emerged as relevant factors when planning an RTSA. However, the degree to which those parameters may influence ROM and whether modifiable elements of implant configuration may be helpful in improving ROM among patients with different postures have not been thoroughly studied, and modeling them may be instructive., Questions/purposes: Using a dedicated expansion of a conventional preoperative planning software, we asked: (1) How is patient posture likely to influence simulated ROM after virtual RTSA implantation? (2) Do changes in implant configuration, such as humeral component inclination and retrotorsion, or glenoid component size and centricity improve the simulated ROM after virtual RTSA implantation in patients with different posture types?, Methods: In a computer laboratory study, available whole-torso CT scans of 30 patients (20 males and 10 females with a mean age of 65 ± 17 years) were analyzed to determine the posture type (Type A, upright posture, retracted scapulae; Type B, intermediate; Type C, kyphotic posture with protracted scapulae) based on the measured scapula internal rotation as previously described. The measurement of scapular internal rotation, which defines these posture types, was found to have a high intraclass correlation coefficient (0.87) in a previous study, suggesting reliability of the employed classification. Three shoulder surgeons each independently virtually implanted a short, curved, metaphyseal impaction stem RTSA in each patient using three-dimensional (3D) preoperative surgical planning software. Modifications based on the original component positioning were automatically generated, including different humeral component retrotorsion (0°, 20°, and 40° of anatomic and scapular internal rotation) and neck-shaft angle (135°, 145°, and 155°) as well as glenoid component configuration (36-mm concentric, 36-mm eccentric, and 42-mm concentric), resulting in 3720 different RTSA configurations. For each configuration, the maximum potential ROM in different planes was determined by the software, and the effect of different posture types was analyzed by comparing subgroups., Results: Irrespective of the RTSA implant configuration, the posture types had a strong effect on the calculated ROM in all planes of motion, except for flexion. In particular, simulated ROM in patients with Type C compared with Type A posture demonstrated inferior adduction (median 5° [interquartile range -7° to 20°] versus 15° [IQR 7° to 22°]; p < 0.01), abduction (63° [IQR 48° to 78°] versus 72° [IQR 63° to 82°]; p < 0.01), extension (4° [IQR -8° to 12°] versus 19° [IQR 8° to 27°]; p < 0.01), and external rotation (7° [IQR -5° to 22°] versus 28° [IQR 13° to 39°]; p < 0.01). Lower retrotorsion and a higher neck-shaft angle of the humeral component as well as a small concentric glenosphere resulted in worse overall ROM in patients with Type C posture, with severe restriction of motion in adduction, extension, and external rotation to below 0°., Conclusion: Different posture types affect the ROM after simulated RTSA implantation, regardless of implant configuration. An individualized choice of component configuration based on scapulothoracic orientation seems to attenuate the negative effects of posture Type B and C. Future studies on ROM after RTSA should consider patient posture and scapulothoracic orientation., Clinical Relevance: In patients with Type C posture, higher retrotorsion, a lower neck-shaft angle, and a larger or inferior eccentric glenosphere seem to be advantageous., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: The literature suggests implantation of the humeral component in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in 0°-40° of retrotorsion without further specification. We hypothesized that optimal humeral component retrotorsion to avoid notching and gain balanced rotational capacity would depend on scapular position and posture., Methods: We investigated 200 shoulders in 100 patients with available whole-body computed tomography scans and created 3-dimensional models. Implantation of a humeral component in 20° of retrotorsion was simulated, and a correction angle (CA) to yield perfect opposition to the glenosphere was calculated. Patient-specific variables such as age, sex, posture, and scapular orientation parameters were correlated with this CA., Results: Scapular orientation showed large interindividual differences. A highly significant correlation was seen between the CA and scapular internal rotation (R = 0.71, P < .001) and protraction (R = 0.39, P < .001). When the CA was adjusted for glenoid retroversion, the correlation coefficient of scapular internal rotation increased even further (R = 0.91, P < .001). Scapular internal rotation itself showed a correlation with thoracic kyphosis (R = 0.27, P < .001), protraction (R = 0.57, P < .001), tilt (R = 0.29, P < .001), and scapular translation (R = -0.23, P < .001)., Conclusion: Scapular orientation and posture should be integrated into the determination process of humeral component retrotorsion in RTSA. In theory, implantation of the humeral component with increased retrotorsion leads to improved neutral opposition of the RTSA components in patients with extensive internal rotation of the scapula. On the basis of varying scapular internal rotation, we propose the distinction of 3 different posture types (A-C) for enhanced appraisal of scapulothoracic orientation., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Scapulothoracic orientation, especially scapular internal rotation (SIR) may influence range of motion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and is subjected to body posture. Clinical measurements of SIR rely on apical bony landmarks, which depend on changes in scapulothoracic orientation, while radiographic measurements are often limited by the restricted field of view (FOV) in CT scans. Therefore, the goal of this study was (1) to determine whether the use of CT scans with a limited FOV to measure SIR is reliable and (2) if a clinical measurement could be a valuable alternative. Methods: This anatomical study analyzed the whole-body CT scans of 100 shoulders in 50 patients (32 male and 18 female) with a mean age of 61.2 ± 20.1 years (range 18; 91). (1) CT scans were rendered into 3D models and SIR was determined as previously described. Results were compared to measurements taken in 2D CT scans with a limited FOV. (2) Three apical bony landmarks were defined: (the angulus acromii (AA), the midpoint between the AA and the coracoid process tip (C) and the acromioclavicular (AC) joint. The scapular axis was determined connecting the trigonum scapulae with these landmarks and referenced to the glenoid center. The measurements were repeated with 0°, 10°, 20°, 30° and 40° anterior scapular tilt. Results: Mean SIR was 44.8° ± 5.9° and 45.6° ± 6.6° in the 3D and 2D model, respectively (p < 0.371). Mean difference between the measurements was 0.8° ± 2.5° with a maximum of 10.5°. Midpoint AA/C showed no significant difference to the scapular axis at 0° (p = 0.203) as did the AC-joint at 10° anterior scapular tilt (p = 0.949). All other points showed a significant difference from the scapular axis at all degrees of tilt. Conclusion: 2D CT scans are reliable to determine SIR, even if the spine is not depicted. Clinical measurements using apical superficial scapula landmarks are a possible alternative; however, anterior tilt influenced by posture alters measured SIR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]