Zobrazit v EDS

What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Název: What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?
Autoři: Lädermann, A., Denard, P.J., Boileau, P., Farron, A., Deransart, P., Walch, G.
Rok vydání: 2025
Sbírka: Université de Lausanne (UNIL): Serval - Serveur académique lausannois
Témata: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder/adverse effects, Shoulder/methods, Biomechanical Phenomena, Computer Simulation, Glenoid Cavity/anatomy & histology, Glenoid Cavity/surgery, Humans, Humerus/surgery, Prosthesis Design/adverse effects, Prosthesis Design/methods, Range of Motion, Articular/physiology, Rotator Cuff/physiopathology, Shoulder Joint/physiopathology, Shoulder Joint/surgery, Shoulder Prosthesis/adverse effects, Arm position, Complications, Glenoid offset, Muscle tension, Onlay design, Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
Popis: The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of different glenoid configurations on arm position and range of motion (ROM) following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The hypothesis was that different glenoid configurations would lead to changes in humeral offset, acromio-humeral distance (AHD), ROM, and rotator cuff muscle length. Using a three-dimensional (3D) computer model, implantation of an RSA was simulated with a 145° onlay humeral stem combined with five different glenoid configurations which varied in diameter and centre of rotation. Glenoid offset, the AHD, ROM, and muscle length were evaluated for each configuration. Changing glenoid design led to up to a 10 mm change in offset and a 3 mm change in the AHD. There was 7° of improvement in abduction and flexion between the different glenoid designs. Two of the configurations, the 36 mm centered and the BIO-RSA, had an adduction deficit. In extension and external rotation arm with the arm at side, the eccentric 36 mm glenosphere was the best configuration while the centered 36 mm glenosphere was the worst configuration. The 42 mm glenosphere limited external rotation at 90° of abduction. Varying the glenosphere configurations leads to ROM and muscle length changes following RSA. With a 145° onlay humeral stem, a 36 eccentric glenosphere theoretically optimizes ROM while limiting scapular notching.
Druh dokumentu: article in journal/newspaper
Jazyk: English
ISSN: 1432-5195
Relation: International Orthopaedics; https://iris.unil.ch/handle/iris/104500; serval:BIB_2F9737F0A8B4; 000432412100019
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-018-3850-x
Dostupnost: https://iris.unil.ch/handle/iris/104500
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3850-x
Přístupové číslo: edsbas.8A8FB3EC
Databáze: BASE
Popis
Abstrakt:The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of different glenoid configurations on arm position and range of motion (ROM) following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The hypothesis was that different glenoid configurations would lead to changes in humeral offset, acromio-humeral distance (AHD), ROM, and rotator cuff muscle length. Using a three-dimensional (3D) computer model, implantation of an RSA was simulated with a 145° onlay humeral stem combined with five different glenoid configurations which varied in diameter and centre of rotation. Glenoid offset, the AHD, ROM, and muscle length were evaluated for each configuration. Changing glenoid design led to up to a 10 mm change in offset and a 3 mm change in the AHD. There was 7° of improvement in abduction and flexion between the different glenoid designs. Two of the configurations, the 36 mm centered and the BIO-RSA, had an adduction deficit. In extension and external rotation arm with the arm at side, the eccentric 36 mm glenosphere was the best configuration while the centered 36 mm glenosphere was the worst configuration. The 42 mm glenosphere limited external rotation at 90° of abduction. Varying the glenosphere configurations leads to ROM and muscle length changes following RSA. With a 145° onlay humeral stem, a 36 eccentric glenosphere theoretically optimizes ROM while limiting scapular notching.
ISSN:14325195
DOI:10.1007/s00264-018-3850-x