Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Stem size prediction in shoulder arthroplasty with preoperative 3D planning

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Three-dimensional surgical planning software provides virtual reconstructions of the shoulder with automated joint indices for a preoperative case assessment. The aim of this single center study was to evaluate the concordance between the preoperatively selected humeral components and the final implants used in shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

129 cases who had undergone anatomic (n = 16) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n = 117) using the same type of uncemented short stem implant and were included for review in this study. The type of arthroplasty, stem size, stem inclination, tray-offset and liner-thickness were noted preoperatively and compared to the final implant specifications used in surgery.

Results

The type of arthroplasty matched the surgical plan in 99.2% of cases, as one case was converted from RSA to TSA. The concordance of planned to implanted stem size was 44.2% and the planned size was in range of one adjacent size in 87.6% of cases. Stem inclination in TSA matched the surgical plan in 50% of cases. Tray offset in RSA was predicted correctly in 65% and liner-thickness matched the surgical plan in 98.3% of cases.

Conclusion

Despite a low degree of concordance of planned to implanted stem sizes of 44.2%, the choice of stem size was found to be in range of one adjacent size in 87.6% of cases. Further investigations of other contributing factors are necessary to increase the accuracy of the preoperative selection of humeral implants.

Level of evidence: level IV, retrospective case study.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Austin DC, Torchia MT, Cozzolino NH et al (2019) Decreased Reoperations and improved outcomes with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in comparison to hemiarthroplasty for geriatric proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Trauma 33:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000001321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Petrillo S, Longo UG, Papalia R et al (2017) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears and cuff tear arthropathy: a systematic review. Musculoskelet Surg 101:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-017-0474-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walch G, Young AA, Boileau P et al (2012) Patterns of loosening of polyethylene keeled glenoid components after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:145–150. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohsali KI, Bois AJ, Wirth MA (2017) Complications of Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:256–269. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schnetzke M, Rick S, Raiss P et al (2018) Mid-term results of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis using a short-stemmed cementless humeral component. Bone Joint J 100-B:603–609. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B5.BJJ-2017-1102.R2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Raiss P, Schnetzke M, Wittmann T et al (2019) Postoperative radiographic findings of an uncemented convertible short stem for anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 28:715–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Denard PJ, Raiss P, Gobezie R et al (2018) Stress shielding of the humerus in press-fit anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: review and recommendations for evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27:1139–1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Denard PJ, Noyes MP, Walker JB et al (2018) Proximal stress shielding is decreased with a short stem compared with a traditional-length stem in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27:53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.06.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Abdic S, Athwal GS, Wittmann T et al (2021) Short stem humeral components in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: stem alignment influences the neck-shaft angle. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141:183–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03424-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Min KS, Fox HM, Bedi A et al (2020) Patient-specific planning in shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 102-B:365–370. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-1153.R1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wylie JD, Tashjian RZ (2016) Planning software and patient-specific instruments in shoulder arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9312-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E et al (2015) Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:651–658. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boileau P, Cheval D, Gauci M-O et al (2018) Automated three-dimensional measurement of glenoid version and inclination in arthritic shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100:57–65. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.01122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wright-Medical Technology Inc. TORNIER BLUEPRINT: 3D Planning + PSI. https://www.wrightemedia.com/ProductFiles/Files/PDFs/AP-013380_EN_LR_LE.pdf. Accessed 19 Oct 2021

  15. Bishi H, Smith JBV, Asopa V et al (2022) Comparison of the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating methods for planning primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EFORT Open Rev 7:70–83. https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-21-0060

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Buzzell JE, Lutton DM, Shyr Y et al (2009) Reliability and accuracy of templating the proximal humeral component for shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18:728–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee CS, Davis SM, Lane CJ et al (2015) Reliability and accuracy of digital templating for the humeral component of total shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elbow 7:29–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573214550838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Raiss P, Walch G, Wittmann T et al (2020) Is preoperative planning effective for intraoperative glenoid implant size and type selection during anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29:2123–2127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bercik MJ, Kruse K, Yalizis M et al (2016) A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:1601–1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Walch G, BadetBoulahia RA et al (1999) Morphologic study of the Glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 14:756–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(99)90232-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D et al (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 86:388–395. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.86b3.14024

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schnetzke M, Coda S, Raiss P et al (2016) Radiologic bone adaptations on a cementless short-stem shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:650–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.08.044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Farron A, Terrier A, Büchler P (2006) Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:521–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2005.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lévigne C, Boileau P, Favard L et al (2008) Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17:925–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gutiérrez S, Comiskey CA, Luo Z-P 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 90:2606–2615. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 39:2205–2213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2984-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tross A-K, Lädermann A, Wittmann T et al (2020) Subsidence of uncemented short stems in reverse shoulder arthroplasty—a multicenter study. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103362

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cho S-H, Jeong J (2020) Radiologic Results of three-dimensional templating for total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 12:232–237. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios19100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Barth J, Garret J, Geais L et al (2019) Influence of uncemented humeral stem proximal geometry on stress distributions and torsional stability following total shoulder arthroplasty. J Exp Orthop 6:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-019-0178-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lucas RM, Hsu JE, Gee AO et al (2016) Impaction autografting: bone-preserving, secure fixation of a standard humeral component. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:1787–1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.03.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. OCM (Orthopädische Chirurgie München) Clinic, Steinerstrasse 6, 81369, Munich, Germany

    Thomas Wittmann, Nima Befrui, Tim Rieger & Patric Raiss

Authors
  1. Thomas Wittmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nima Befrui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Rieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patric Raiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Wittmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Patric Raiss is a payed consultant for Arthrex Inc. Thomas Wittmann, Nima Befrui and Tim Rieger declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wittmann, T., Befrui, N., Rieger, T. et al. Stem size prediction in shoulder arthroplasty with preoperative 3D planning. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 3735–3741 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04571-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04571-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation