Top

Published in:

01-06-2021 | Computed Tomography | Original Paper

Effects of implant rotational malposition on contact surface area after implantation of the augmented glenoid baseplate in the setting of glenoid bone loss

Authors: Aimee Bobko, Gary Edwards, Jose Rodriguez, Taylor Southworth, Adam Miller, Dmitriy Peresada, Leonard Onsen, Benjamin Goldberg

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Aim of the study

Augmented glenoid baseplates are utilized in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss. These implants permit lateralization of the joint line and correction of bony version abnormalities. To allow bone preservation in the setting of abnormal bony version or deficiency, the backside of the augmented glenoid baseplate is not perpendicular to the axis of the central post/screw. Thus, if the baseplate is implanted with any rotational malposition, this could affect the backside contact area available for ingrowth. The purpose of this study was to assess if rotational malpositioning of a full-wedge augmented baseplate alongside the axis of the central screw significantly affects the glenoid implant backside contact area.

Methods

Seven synthetic scapulas (Sawbones, Vashon, WA) were used to implant a 15° full-wedge glenoid baseplate (Wright Medical, Memphis, TN) according to the manufacturer’s technique. The contact pressure between the baseplate and the glenoid surface at rotational positions 5°, 10°, and 15° clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW) from the central axis was measured with Extreme Low Fujifilm Prescale (Tekscan, Boston, MA). The data was analyzed digitally to obtain a percentage of contact surface area. To evaluate gross contact, a computed tomography (CT) scan was performed and manual measurements of contact between the glenoid and the baseplate were conducted using a standardized axial CT slice.

Results

The average contact area at zero degrees of malrotation was 37.26 ± 3.27%. Average contact areas for the simulated malposition cases were 13.99 ± 9.39% at 15° CCW, 24.89 ± 5.11% at 10° CW, and 19.32 ± 3.13% at 15° CW. Each of these results was significant (p < 0.003). On computed tomography, at 15° CCW, the contact area decreased by 39%; at 15° CW, the contact area decreased by 38%.

Discussion

The use of augmented glenoid baseplates presents a technical challenge. It is difficult to avoid implant malrotation along the axis of the central peg/screw, because the final rotation of the baseplate must be chosen while the implant is several centimeters away from the bone. This study found that 10° and 15° malrotation about the glenoid baseplate’s central axis leads to significant decreases in the implant-bone contact area.

Conclusions

When implanting an augmented baseplate for total shoulder arthroplasty, it is important to minimize baseplate malrotation to decrease the risk of baseplate loosening.

Williams PN, Craig E V. (2015) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. In: Massive rotator cuff tears: diagnosis and management. pp 129–142

Virk M, Yip M, Liuzza L et al (2019) Clinical and radiographic outcomes with a posteriorly augmented glenoid for Walch B2, B3, and C glenoids in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.09.031CrossRef

Jones RB, Wright TW, Roche CP (2015) Bone grafting the glenoid versus use of augmented glenoid baseplates with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 73(Suppl 1):S129–S135

Laver L, Garrigues GE (2014) Avoiding superior tilt in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review of the literature and technical recommendations. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23:1582–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.029CrossRef

Keener JD, Patterson BM, Orvets N et al (2018) Optimizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty component position in the setting of advanced arthritis with posterior glenoid erosion: a computer-enhanced range of motion analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg 27:339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.09.011CrossRef

Rojas J, Choi K, Joseph J et al (2019) Aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBJS Rev 7:e7. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.18.00132CrossRefPubMed

Michael RJ, Schoch BS, King JJ, Wright TW (2018) Managing glenoid bone deficiency-the augment experience in anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 47. https://doi.org/10.12788/ajo.2018.0014

Valenti P, Sekri J, Kany J et al (2019) Benefits of a metallic lateralized baseplate prolonged by a long metallic post in reverse shoulder arthroplasty to address glenoid bone loss. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4249-4CrossRefPubMed

Werthel JD, Walch G, Vegehan E, et al (2019) Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice. Int Orthop

10.

Ernstbrunner L, Werthel J-D, Wagner E et al (2017) Glenoid bone grafting in primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 26:1441–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.011CrossRef

11.

Klika BJ, Wooten CW, Sperling JW et al (2014) Structural bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in primary total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23:1066–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.017CrossRef

12.

Allred JJ, Flores-Hernandez C, Hoenecke HR, D’Lima DD (2016) Posterior augmented glenoid implants require less bone removal and generate lower stresses: a finite element analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg 25:823–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.10.003CrossRef

13.

Nowak DD, Bahu MJ, Gardner TR et al (2009) Simulation of surgical glenoid resurfacing using three-dimensional computed tomography of the arthritic glenohumeral joint: the amount of glenoid retroversion that can be corrected. J Shoulder Elb Surg 18:680–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.019CrossRef

14.

Kersten AD, Flores-Hernandez C, Hoenecke HR, D’Lima DD (2015) Posterior augmented glenoid designs preserve more bone in biconcave glenoids. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24:1135–1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.007CrossRef

15.

Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A (1999) Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 14:756–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(99)90232-2CrossRefPubMed

16.

Shapiro TA, McGarry MH, Gupta R et al (2007) Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 16:S90–S95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.07.010CrossRef

17.

Bachus KN, DeMarco AL, Judd KT et al (2006) Measuring contact area, force, and pressure for bioengineering applications: using Fuji Film and TekScan systems. Med Eng Phys 28:483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2005.07.022CrossRefPubMed

18.

Brems J (1993) The glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80138-9CrossRef

19.

Fenlin JM, Vaccaro A, Andreychik D, Lin S (1990) Modular total shoulder: early experience and impressions. Semin Arthroplasty

20.

Hill JM, Norris TR (2001) Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200106000-00009CrossRef

21.

Neer CS, Morrison DS (1988) Glenoid bone-grafting in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198870080-00006CrossRef

22.

Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C (1986) Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198607000-00023CrossRefPubMed

23.

Zhang M, Junaid S, Gregory T et al (2019) Effect of baseplate positioning on fixation of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.12.021CrossRef

24.

Formaini NT, Everding NG, Levy JC et al (2015) The effect of glenoid bone loss on reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate fixation. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24:e312–e319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.045CrossRef

25.

Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Boileau P et al (2015) Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2984-3CrossRefPubMed

26.

Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Boileau P et al (2018) What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty? Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3850-xCrossRefPubMed

27.

Zilber S, Camana E, Lapner P et al (2018) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using helical blade to optimize glenoid fixation and bone preservation: preliminary results in thirty five patients with minimum two year follow-up. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3891-1CrossRefPubMed

28.

Knowles NK, Ferreira LM, Athwal GS (2015) Augmented glenoid component designs for type B2 erosions: a computational comparison by volume of bone removal and quality of remaining bone. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24:1218–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.018CrossRef

29.

Marcoin A, Nerot C, Lestra T et al (2020) The precision of patient-specific instrumentation guides for the positioning of the glenoid component in total reverse shoulder arthroplasty: an in vivo scanographic study. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04524-xCrossRefPubMed

30.

Patel PSD, Shepherd DET, Hukins DWL (2008) Compressive properties of commercially available polyurethane foams as mechanical models for osteoporotic human cancellous bone. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:137. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Hsu J-T, Huang H-L, Chang C-H et al (2013) Relationship of three-dimensional bone-to-implant contact to primary implant stability and peri-implant bone strain in immediate loading: microcomputed tomographic and in vitro analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 28:367–374. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2407CrossRefPubMed

32.

Calvert KL, Trumble KP, Webster TJ, Kirkpatrick LA (2010) Characterization of commercial rigid polyurethane foams used as bone analogs for implant testing. J Mater Sci Mater Med 21:1453–1461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-010-4024-6CrossRefPubMed

Title: Effects of implant rotational malposition on contact surface area after implantation of the augmented glenoid baseplate in the setting of glenoid bone loss
Authors: Aimee Bobko
Gary Edwards
Jose Rodriguez
Taylor Southworth
Adam Miller
Dmitriy Peresada
Leonard Onsen
Benjamin Goldberg
Publication date: 01-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Computed Tomography
Computed Tomography
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05047-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Effects of implant rotational malposition on contact surface area after implantation of the augmented glenoid baseplate in the setting of glenoid bone loss

Abstract

Aim of the study

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aim of the study

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Letter to the editor on “Does anxiety influence the prognosis of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation? A preliminary propensity score matching analysis”

Long-term impact of scapular notching after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Long-term results of arthroscopic Bankart repairs for anterior instability of the shoulder in patients aged thirty years or older

Comment on an article by Guido Garavaglia et al.: Short stem total hip arthroplasty with the direct anterior approach demonstrates suboptimal fixation

Effect of the defect localization and size on the success of third-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee joint

Necrotizing fasciitis, causative agents and management: a five-year retrospective study in two tertiary care hospitals in Central Malaysia