Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of glenosphere size on functional outcome for reverse shoulder arthroplasty

  • Original Article
  • Published:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an effective surgery for a variety of patients with difficult shoulder pathology. Since postsurgical outcomes are often variable, there has been great effort made to optimize the design and use of these implants. Previous studies demonstrated an association between increased glenosphere size and improved range of motion. The purpose of this study is to assess the relationship between glenosphere size, range of motion, and functional outcome scores.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of 140 patients (148 shoulders) undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively for range of motion, Constant score, ASES score, and Subjective Shoulder Value. Improvements in these variables were compared for patients treated with three different glenosphere sizes (36, 40, 42 mm).

Results

All groups had a mean improvement in range of motion and functional outcome scores, but there were no statistically significant differences between groups when controlling for preoperative differences.

Conclusions

Our findings do not support a strong role for glenosphere size as a singular factor affecting range of motion or patient-reported outcome following RSA. These problems are most likely due to the multifactorial nature of shoulder dynamics. For this reason, assessing the effect a single surgical or biomechanical parameter on function has been challenging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boilea P et al (2005) Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):147s–161s

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boulahia A et al (2002) Early results of a reverse design prosthesis in the treatment of arthritis of the shoulder in elderly patients with a large rotator cuff tear. Orthopedics 25(2):129–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frankle M et al (2005) The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(8):1697–1705

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Werner CM et al (2005) Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(7):1476–1486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wall B et al (2007) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(7):1476–1485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gutierrez S et al (2008) 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 90(12):2606–2615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nyffeler RW, Werner CM, Gerber C (2005) Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(5):524–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roche C et al (2009) An evaluation of the relationships between reverse shoulder design parameters and range of motion, impingement, and stability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(5):734–741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Randelli P et al (2014) Optimal glenoid component inclination in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. How to improve implant stability. Musculoskelet Surg 98(1):15–18

  10. Namdari S et al (2012) Defining functional shoulder range of motion for activities of daily living. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(9):1177–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Russo R et al (2015) Reverse shoulder prosthesis to treat complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly patients: results after 10-year experience. Musculoskelet Surg 99(Suppl 1):17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Simovitch RW et al (2007) Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the delta III reverse total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(3):588–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grammont PM (1993) Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture. Orthopedics (Thorofare, N.J.) 16(1):65–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tashjian RZ (2012) Epidemiology, natural history, and indications for treatment of rotator cuff tears. Clin Sports Med 31(4):589–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Castricini R et al (2013) Health-related quality of life and functionality after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(12):1639–1649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cuff D et al (2008) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(6):1244–1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Valenti P et al (2011) Do less medialized reverse shoulder prostheses increase motion and reduce notching? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(9):2550–2557

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. De Biase CF et al (2013) The use of an eccentric glenosphere compared with a concentric glenosphere in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: two-year minimum follow-up results. Int Orthop 37(10):1949–1955

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Mizuno N et al (2012) The clinical and radiographical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with eccentric glenosphere. Int Orthop 36(8):1647–1653

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ladermann A et al (2012) Influence of arm lengthening in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(3):336–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ladermann A et al (2009) Objective evaluation of lengthening in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(4):588–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Henninger HB et al (2012) Effect of deltoid tension and humeral version in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(4):483–490

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Clark JC et al (2012) Complication rates, dislocation, pain, and postoperative range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with and without repair of the subscapularis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(1):36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berhouet J, Garaud P, Favard L (2013) Influence of glenoid component design and humeral component retroversion on internal and external rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaver study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(8):887–894

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Langohr GD et al (2014) The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(6):972–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gutierrez S et al (2008) Hierarchy of stability factors in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(3):670–676

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Maier MW et al (2014) How does reverse shoulder replacement change the range of motion in activities of daily living in patients with cuff tear arthropathy? A prospective optical 3D motion analysis study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(8):1065–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schwartz DG et al (2014) Factors that predict postoperative motion in patients treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(9):1289–1295

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Atalar AC et al (2014) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: radiological and clinical short-term results. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 48(1):25–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wiater JM et al (2014) Clinical and radiographic results of cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative study with 2 to 5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(8):1208–1214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gallinet D et al (2013) Improvement in shoulder rotation in complex shoulder fractures treated by reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(1):38–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sershon RA et al (2014) Clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged younger than 60 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(3):395–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Muh SJ et al (2013) Early follow-up of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(20):1877–1883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ajmal M, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS (2008) A new cemented femoral stem: a prospective study of the Stryker accolade C with 2- to 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 23(1):118–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hasan SS et al (2014) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty using an implant with a lateral center of rotation: outcomes, complications, and the influence of experience. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 43(9):E194–E199

    Google Scholar 

  36. Harreld K et al (2013) Correlation of subjective and objective measures before and after shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics 36(6):808–814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Fred Upton M.A. and Jana Ranson M.A. from Wayne State University Research Design and Analysis Consulting Unit for their assistance in the design and implementation of our statistical analysis. We would also like to thank Vinay Shrama BS for his contributions to the concept and development of this research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 18100 Oakwood Blvd. Suite 305, Dearborn, MI, 48124, USA

    V. J. Sabesan, D. J. Lombardo, R. Shahriar & G. R. Petersen-Fitts

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak, MI, USA

    J. M. Wiater

Authors
  1. V. J. Sabesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. J. Lombardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Shahriar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. R. Petersen-Fitts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. M. Wiater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. J. Sabesan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JM Wiater is a paid consultant for Zimmer-Biomet and Depuy-Synthes, outside the submitted work. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sabesan, V.J., Lombardo, D.J., Shahriar, R. et al. The effect of glenosphere size on functional outcome for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg 100, 115–120 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-015-0396-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-015-0396-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation