Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is there any influence of humeral component retroversion on range of motion and clinical outcome in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A clinical study

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

Abstract

Purpose

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty becomes more widely used as treatment for patients with complex cuff arthropathy. Theoretically, a higher retroversion of the humeral component leads to an increase in external rotation ROM and a decrease in internal rotation ROM. There is no consensus in optimal retroversion orientation. We retrospectively describe the effect of retroversion of the humeral component. We hypothesize that 20° humeral retroversion improves postoperative ROM, strength or clinical outcome scores compared to neutral retroversion.

Methods

A retrospective clinical study is performed. An Aequalis reverse shoulder prosthesis was placed in 65 shoulders from 58 patients with a mean age of 73.8 years (95% CI 72.0–75.6). Between October 2006 and May 2012, the humeral component was placed in neutral retroversion in 36 shoulders (55%). From June 2012 to June 2014, it was placed in 20° retroversion in 29 shoulders (45%). After a mean follow-up of 36 months with a minimum of 12 months, patients were invited for a study visit. ROM, strength, Constant-Murley and Oxford Scores were measured.

Results

ROM, strength and Constant-Murley and Oxford Scores did not differ significantly between both groups.

Conclusions

With the Aequalis prosthesis, no significant effect of 0° or 20° retroversion on external and internal rotation ROM, strength or functional outcome scores was found.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oppermann J, Celik E, Bredow J et al (2016) Shoulder arthroplasty in Germany: 2005–2012. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:723–729. doi:10.1007/s00402-016-2417-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F (2005) Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14(S1):S147–S161. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Grammont PM, Baulot E (1993) Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture. Orthopedics 16:65–68

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stephenson DR, Oh JH, Rick Hatch GF, Lee TQ (2011) Effect of humeral component version on impingement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 20:652–658. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gulotta LV, Choi D, Marinello P, Knutson Z, Lipman J, Wright T, Cordasco FA, Craig EV, Warren RF (2012) Humeral component retroversion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elb Surg 21:1121–1127. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Karelse AT, Bhatia DN, De Wilde LF (2008) Prosthetic component relationship of the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis in the transverse plane of the body. J Shoulder Elb Surg 17:602–607. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nalbone L, Adelfio R, D’arienzo M et al (2014) Optimal positioning of the humeral component in the reverse shoulder prosthesis. Musculoskelet Surg 98:135–142. doi:10.1007/s12306-013-0274-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 99:887–894. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.08.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rhee YG, Cho NS, Moon SC (2015) Effects of humeral component retroversion on functional outcomes in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24:1574–1581. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ji JH, Jeong JY, Song HS et al (2013) Early clinical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Korean population. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22:1102–1107. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214:160–164. doi:10.1097/00003086-198701000-00023

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:593–600

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, Joukainen A, Aärimaa V (2013) Investigating minimal clinically important difference for constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elb Surg 22:1650–1655. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Favre P, Sussmann PS, Gerber C (2010) The effect of component positioning on intrinsic stability of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 19:550–556. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.11.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Berliner JL, Regalado-Magdos A, Ma CB, Feeley BT (2015) Biomechanics of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 24:150–160. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Katolik LI, Romeo AA, Cole BJ, Verma NN, Hayden JK, Bach BR (2005) Normalization of the constant score. J Shoulder Elb Surg 14:279–285. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Berhouet J, Garaud P, Favard L (2014) Evaluation of the role of glenosphere design and humeral component retroversion in avoiding scapular notching during reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23:151–158. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, HagaZiekenhuis, Sportlaan 600, 2566 MJ, The Hague, The Netherlands

    F. A. de Boer, P. M. van Kampen & P. E. Huijsmans

Authors
  1. F. A. de Boer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. M. van Kampen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. E. Huijsmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. A. de Boer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Boer, F.A., van Kampen, P.M. & Huijsmans, P.E. Is there any influence of humeral component retroversion on range of motion and clinical outcome in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A clinical study. Musculoskelet Surg 101, 85–89 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-016-0443-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-016-0443-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation