Advertisement

MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY

, Volume 102, Supplement 1, pp 57–65 | Cite as

Grammont versus lateralizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture: functional and radiographic outcomes

  • M. A. Verdano
  • D. AlianiEmail author
  • C. Galavotti
  • C. Maroun
  • E. Vaienti
  • F. Ceccarelli
Original Article
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to retrospectively compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients treated with non-lateralizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and with humeral lateralizing RSA after proximal humerus fracture (PHF).

Methods

In total, 32 patients (8 men and 24 women), with a mean age of 77.4 (67–92), have been reevaluated (follow-up of 14.3 months) and divided into Grammont group (G-group—16 patients, 2 men and 14 women, mean age 82.3) and lateralizing group (L-group—16 patients, 4 men and 12 women, mean age 72.5). The dominant side was affected in 21 patients. Pain, Constant–Murley score (CMS), range of motion accurately measured with inertial sensors (SHoWlder, NCSLab®) and complications. Anatomic tuberosity healing, signs of loosening or mobilization of the implants and scapular notching (according to Sirveaux classification) have been measured on standard X-ray series (antero-posterior view in neutral, external and internal rotation; axillary view; outlet view).

Results

Similar CMS was recorded between the two groups (G-group: 61/100; L-group: 64/100). G-group had higher forward flexion (128° vs. 112°) and abduction (126° vs. 114°), L-group had higher external rotation in abduction (35° vs. 41°); similar internal rotation (sacrum) and rotation with elbow in adduction were measured (12° vs. 19°). No statistically significant differences emerged. Anatomic healing of the tuberosity was higher in G-group (87.5% vs. 50%); low-grade scapular notching was higher in L-group (18.25% grade 1–2 vs. 0). Anatomic healed tuberosity guaranteed highly statistically significant improved functional outcomes. No revisions of the implant were performed.

Conclusions

RSA can be considered a valid solution for the treatment of PHF in elderly low-demanding population. Cuff conditions should be investigated before surgery for the indication of the adequate model.

Keywords

Proximal humerus Shoulder Fracture Reverse Arthroplasty Lateralizing 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

According to Italian law, the ethical approval for this study was not required because it involved only a clinical routine follow-up and a radiographic examination.

Informed consent

We obtained a written informed consent directly from the patient. With this approval, the patient authorizes the surgical treatment and also the collection and publication of clinical data about his case for scientific and educational purposes even outside the institution.

References

  1. 1.
    Baron JA, Barrett JA (1996) The epidemiology of peripheral fractures. Bone 18(3 Suppl):209S–213SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim SH, Szabo RM, Marder RA (2008) Epidemiology of humerus fractures in the United States: nationwide emergency department sample. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 64(3):407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Court-Brown CM, Garg A, McQueen MM (2001) The epidemiology of proximal humeral fractures. Acta Orthop Scand 72(4):365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neer CS 2nd (1970) Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 52(6):1077–1089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koval KJ, Gallagher MA, Marsicano JG, Cuomo F, McShinawy A, Zuckerman JD (1997) Functional outcome after minimally displaced fractures of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(2):203–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhu Y, Lu Y, Shen J, Zhang J, Jiang C (2011) Locking intramedullary nails and locking plates in the treatment of two-part proximal humeral surgical neck fractures: a prospective randomized trial with a minimum of three years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(2):159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cazeneuve JF, Cristorfari DJ (2010) The reverse shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(4):535–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cazeneuve JF, Cristorfari DJ (2011) Long term functional outcome following reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the elderly. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 97(6):583–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F (2005) Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):147S–161SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mélis B, DeFranco M, Lädermann A, Mole D, Favard L, Nerot C, Maynou C, Walch G (2011) An evaluation of the radiological changes around the Grammont reverse geometry shoulder arthroplasty after eight to 12 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:240–1246Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lädermann A, Edwards TB, Walch G (2014) Arm lengthening after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review. Int Orthop 38:991–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Boileau P, Farron A, Deransart P, Terrier A, Ston J, Walch G (2015) Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 39(11):2205–2213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutierrez S, Levy JC, Frankle MA, Cuff D, Keller TS, Pupello DR, Lee WE 3rd (2008) Evaluation of abduction range of motion and avoidance of inferior scapular impingement in a reverse shoulder model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:608–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trouilloud P, Gonzalvez M, Martz P, Charles H, Handelberg F, Nyffeler RW, Baulot E, Duocentric G (2014) Duocentric(R) reversed shoulder prosthesis and Personal Fit(R) templates: innovative strategies to optimize prosthesis positioning and prevent scapular notching. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24:483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cuff D, Pupello D, Virani N, Levy J, Frankle M (2008) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(6):1244–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boileau P, Moineau G, Roussane Y, O’Shea K (2011) Bony increased-offset reversed shoulder arthroplasty: minimizing scapular impingement while maximizing glenoid fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(9):2558–2567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hamilton MA, Roche CP, Diep P, Flurin PH, Routman HD (2013) Effect of prosthesis design on muscle length and moment arms in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 71(Suppl 2):S31–S35Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roche CP, Diep P, Hamilton M, Crosby LA, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Routman HD (2013) Impact of inferior glenoid tilting, humeral retroversion, bone grafting, and design parameters on muscle length and deltoid wrapping in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 71(4):284–293Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li X, Knutson Z, Choi D, Lobatto D, Lipman J, Craig EV (2013) Effects of glenosphere positioning on impingement-free internal and external rotation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(6):807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gutiérrez S, Walker M, Willis M, Pupello DR, Frankle MA (2011) Effects of tilt glenosphere eccentricity on baseplate/bone interface forces in a computational model, validated by a mechanical model, of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20(5):732–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oh JH, Shin SJ, McGarry MH, Scott JH, Heckmann N, Lee TQ (2014) Biomechanical effects of humeral neck-shaft angle and subscapularis integrity in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(8):1091–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Valenti P, Katz D, Kilinc A, Elkholti K, Gasiunas V (2012) Mid-term outcome of reverse shoulder prostheses in complex proximal humerus fractures. Acta Orthop Belg 78(4):442–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lazarus MD, Jensen KL, Southworth C, Matsen FA 3rd (2002) The radiographic evaluation of keeled and pegged glenoid component insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(7):1174–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Molé D (2004) 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 86(3):388–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murachovsky J, Ikemoto RY, Nascimento LG, Fujiki EN, Warner JJ (2006) Pectoralis major tendon reference (PMT): a new method for accurate restoration of humeral length with hemiarthroplasty for fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(6):675–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krishnan SG, Bennion PW, Reineck JR, Burkhead WZ (2008) Hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture: restoration of the Gothic arch. Orthop Clin North Am 39(4):441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greiner S, Schmidt C, Herrmann S, Pauly S, Perka C (2015) Clinical performance of lateralized versus non-lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(9):1397–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berton A, Gulotta LV, Petrillo S, Florio P, Longo UG, Denaro V, Kontaxis A (2015) The effect of humeral version on teres minor muscle moment arm, length, and impingement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty during activities of daily living. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(4):578–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lenarz C, Shishami Y, McCrum C, Nowinski RJ, Edwards TB, Gozebie R (2011) Is reverse shoulder arthroplasty appropriate for the treatment of fractures in the older patient? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(12):3324–3331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gallinet D, Clappaz P, Garbuio P, Tropet Y, Obert L (2009) Three or four parts complex proximal humerus fractures: hemiarthroplasty versus reverse prosthesis: a comparative study of 40 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95(1):48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boyle MG, Youn SM, Frampton CM, Ball CM (2013) Functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(1):32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sebastiá-Forcada E, Cebrián-Gómez R, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gil-Guillen V (2014) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. A blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(10):1419–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Longo UG, Petrillo S, Berton A, Denaro V (2016) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the management of fractures of the proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review. Musculoskeletal Surg 100(2):83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wolfensperger F, Grüninger P, Dietrich M, Völlink M, Benninger E, Schläppi M, Meier C (2017) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for complex fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients: impact on the level of independency, early function, and pain medication. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26(8):1462–1468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dezfuli B, King JJ, Farmer KW, Struk AM, Wright TW (2016) Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty as primary versus revision procedure for proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(7):1133–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klein M, Juschka M, Hinkenmann B, Scherger B, Ostermann PA (2008) Treatment of comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients with the Delta III reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Trauma 22(10):698–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bufquin T, Hersan A, Hubert L, Massin P (2007) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly: a prospective review of 43 cases with a short-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(4):516–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Villodre-Jiménez J, Estrems-Diaz V, Diranzo-García J, Bru-Promer A (2017) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 3 and 4 part proximal humeral fractures in patients aged more than 65 years: Results and complications. Rev Esp Cir Orthop Traumatol 61(1):43–50Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Russo R, Della Rotonda G, Cautiero F, Ciccarelli M (2015) Reverse shoulder prosthesis to treat complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly patients: results after 10-year experience. Musculoskeletal Surg 99(Suppl 1):S17–S23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boileau P, Trojani C, Walch G, Krishnan SG, Romeo A, Sinnerton R (2001) Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of the sequelae of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10(4):299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Naranja RJ Jr, Iannotti JP (2000) Displaced three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 8(6):373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gallinet D, Adam A, Gasse N, Rochet S, Obert L (2013) Improvement in shoulder rotation in complex shoulder fractures treated by reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(1):38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Janssen D, Srinivasan P, Scheerlinck T, Verdonschot N (2012) Effect of cementing technique and cement type on thermal necrosis in hip resurfacing arthroplasty—a numerical study. J Orthop Res 30(3):364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Li C, Kotha S, Huang CH, Mason J, Yakimicki D, Hawkins M (2003) Finite element thermal analysis of bone cement for joint replacements. J Biomech Eng 125(3):315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Martinez AA, Calvo A, Bejarano C, Carbonel I, Herrera A (2012) The use of the Lima reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of fracture sequelae of the proximal humerus. J Orthop Sci 17(2):141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Langhor GD, Willing R, Medley JB, Athwal GS, Johnson JA (2016) Contact mechanics of reverse shoulder arthroplasty during abduction: the effect of neck. Shaft angle, humeral cup depth, and glenosphere diameter. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(4):589–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Verdano
    • 1
  • D. Aliani
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Galavotti
    • 2
  • C. Maroun
    • 3
  • E. Vaienti
    • 1
  • F. Ceccarelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinica OrtopedicaAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di ParmaParmaItaly
  2. 2.Clinica OrtopedicaUniversità degli Studi di ParmaParmaItaly
  3. 3.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations