Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 475, Issue 10, pp 2564–2571 | Cite as

Does Humeral Component Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Affect Rotator Cuff Torque? Evaluation in a Cadaver Model

  • Kevin Chan
  • G. Daniel G. Langohr
  • Matthew Mahaffy
  • James A. Johnson
  • George S. Athwal
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Humeral component lateralization in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) may improve the biomechanical advantage of the rotator cuff, which could improve the torque generated by the rotator cuff and increase internal and external rotation of the shoulder.

Purpose

The purpose of this in vitro biomechanical study was to evaluate the effect of humeral component lateralization (or lateral offset) on the torque of the anterior and posterior rotator cuff.

Methods

Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders from eight separate donors (74 ± 8 years; six males, two females) were tested using an in vitro simulator. All shoulders were prescreened for soft tissue deficit and/or deformity before testing. A custom RTSA prosthesis was implanted that allowed five levels of humeral component lateralization (15, 20, 25, 30, 35 mm), which avoided restrictions imposed by commercially available designs. The torques exerted by the anterior and posterior rotator cuff were measured three times and then averaged for varying humeral lateralization, abduction angle (0°, 45°, 90°), and internal and external rotation (−60°, −30°, 0°, 30°, 60°). A three-way repeated measures ANOVA (abduction angle, humeral lateralization, internal rotation and external rotation angles) with a significance level of α = 0.05 was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Humeral lateralization only affected posterior rotator cuff torque at 0° abduction, where increasing humeral lateralization from 15 to 35 mm at 60° internal rotation decreased external rotation torque by 1.6 ± 0.4 Nm (95% CI, −0.07 −1.56 Nm; p = 0.06) from 4.0 ± 0.3 Nm to 2.4 ± 0.6 Nm, respectively, but at 60° external rotation increased external rotation torque by 2.2 ± 0.5 Nm (95% CI, −4.2 to −0.2 Nm; p = 0.029) from 6.2 ± 0.5 Nm to 8.3 ± 0.5 Nm, respectively. Anterior cuff torque was affected by humeral lateralization in more arm positions than the posterior cuff, where increasing humeral lateralization from 15 to 35 mm when at 60° internal rotation increased internal rotation torque at 0°, 45°, and 90° abduction by 3.2 ± 0.5 Nm (95% CI, 1.1–5.2 Nm; p = 0.004) from 6.6 ± 0.6 Nm to 9.7 ± 0.6 Nm, 4.0 ± 0.3 Nm (95% CI, 2.8-5.0 Nm; p < 0.001) from 1.7 ± 1.0 Nm to 5.6 ± 0.9 Nm, and 2.2 ± 0.2 Nm (95% CI, 1.4–2.9 Nm; p < 0.001) from 0.6 ± 0.6 Nm to 2.8 ± 0.6 Nm, respectively. In neutral internal and external rotation, increasing humeral lateral offset from 15 to 35 mm increased the internal rotation torque at 45˚ and 90˚ abduction by 1.5 ± 0.3 Nm (95% CI, 0.2–2.7 Nm; p = 0.02) and 1.3 ± 0.2 Nm (95% CI, 0.4–2.3 Nm; p < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusions

Humeral component lateralization improves rotator cuff torque.

Clinical Relevance

The results of this preliminary in vitro cadaveric study suggest that the lateral offset of the RTSA humeral component plays an important role in the torque generated by the anterior and posterior rotator cuff. However, further studies are needed before clinical application of these results. Increasing humeral offset may have adverse effects, such as the increased risk of implant modularity, increasing tension of the cuff and soft tissues, increased costs often associated with design modifications, and other possible as yet unforeseen negative consequences.

References

  1. 1.
    Affonso J, Nicholson GP, Frankle MA, Walch G, Gerber C, Garzon-Muvdi J, McFarland EG. Complications of the reverse prosthesis: prevention and treatment. Instr Course Lect. 2012;61:157–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alta TD, Veeger DH, de Toledo JM, Janssen TW, Willems WJ. Isokinetic strength differences between patients with primary reverse and total shoulder prostheses: muscle strength quantified with a dynamometer. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014;29:965–970.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alta TD, Veeger HE, Janssen TW, Willems WJ. Are shoulders with a reverse shoulder prosthesis strong enough? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2185–2192.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergmann JH, de Leeuw M, Janssen TW, Veeger DH, Willems WJ. Contribution of the reverse endoprosthesis to glenohumeral kinematics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:594–598.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berhouet J, Garaud P, Favard L. 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. 2013;99:887–894.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berliner JL, Regalado-Magdos A, Ma CB, Feeley BT. Biomechanics of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:150–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. Neer Award 2005: The Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:527–540.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 suppl S):147S–161S.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costantini O, Choi DS, Kontaxis A, Gulotta LV. The effects of progressive lateralization of the joint center of rotation of reverse total shoulder implants. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1120–1128.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denard PJ, Lederman E, Parsons BO, Romeo AA. Finite element analysis of glenoid-sided lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2016 Aug 17. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frankle M, Siegal S, Pupello D, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M. 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. 2005;87:1697–1705.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giles JW, Ferreira LM, Athwal GS, Johnson JA. Development and performance evaluation of a multi-PID muscle loading driven in vitro active-motion shoulder simulator and application to assessing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Biomech Eng. 2014;136:121007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giles JW, Langohr GD, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. Implant design variations in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty influence the required deltoid force and resultant joint load. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3615–3626.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamilton MA, Roche CP, Diep P, Flurin PH, Routman HD. Effect of prosthesis design on muscle length and moment arms in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2013;71(suppl 2):S31–S35.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harman M, Frankle M, Vasey M, Banks S. Initial glenoid component fixation in “reverse” total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 suppl S):162S–167S.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henninger HB, Barg A, Anderson AE, Bachus KN, Burks RT, Tashjian RZ. Effect of lateral offset center of rotation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21:1128–1135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hettrich CM, Permeswaran VN, Goetz JE, Anderson DD. Mechanical tradeoffs associated with glenosphere lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1774–1781.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoenecke HR Jr, Flores-Hernandez C, D’Lima DD. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty component center of rotation affects muscle function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:1128–1135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jarrett CD, Brown BT, Schmidt CC. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44:389–408, x.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeon BK, Panchal KA, Ji JH, Xin YZ, Park SR, Kim JH, Yang SJ. Combined effect of change in humeral neck-shaft angle and retroversion on shoulder range of motion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a simulation study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2016;31:12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Langohr GD, Giles JW, Athwal GS, Johnson JA. The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:972–979.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Latif V, Denard PJ, Young AA, Liotard JP, Walch G. Bilateral anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2012;35:e479–485.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laver L, Garrigues GE. Avoiding superior tilt in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review of the literature and technical recommendations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:1582–1590.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, Garaud P, Mole D, Sirveaux F, Walch G. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:925–935.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levigne C, Garret J, Boileau P, Alami G, Favard L, Walch G. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: is it important to avoid it and how? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2512–2520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Omid R, Heckmann N, Wang L, McGarry MH, Vangsness CT Jr, Lee TQ. Biomechanical comparison between the trapezius transfer and latissimus transfer for irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1635–1643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Mole D. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:388–395.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stephenson DR, Oh JH, McGarry MH, Rick Hatch GF 3rd, Lee TQ. Effect of humeral component version on impingement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:652–658.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tashjian RZ. CORR Insights®: implant design variations in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty influence the required deltoid force and resultant joint load. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3940–3942.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tashjian RZ, Burks RT, Zhang Y, Henninger HB. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical evaluation of humeral and glenosphere hardware configuration. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:e68–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Teeter MG, Carroll MJ, Walch G, Athwal GS. Tribocorrosion in shoulder arthroplasty humeral component retrievals. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25:311–315.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Chan
    • 1
  • G. Daniel G. Langohr
    • 1
  • Matthew Mahaffy
    • 1
  • James A. Johnson
    • 1
  • George S. Athwal
    • 1
  1. 1.Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Roth|McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Center, St Joseph’s Health CareWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations