Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical management of the biconcave (B2) glenoid

  • Shoulder Arthroplasty (G Athwal, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis produces a wide spectrum of glenoid pathology. The B2 glenoid is defined by asymmetric posterior bone loss with the development of a biconcavity and posterior translation of the humeral head. Progressive bone loss results in increasing glenoid retroversion, which must be corrected during anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. The goals of arthroplasty should also include centering the humeral head and restoring the normal glenoid joint line. When there is minimal bone loss, this may be accomplished with a standard glenoid component and asymmetric reaming. More significant bone loss requires bone grafting or the use of an augmented glenoid component. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is also an option for older patients or patients with severe bone loss.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Iannotti JP. The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis. J Should Elb Surg. 2008;17:487–91. Imaging study of 14 patients with unilateral glenohumeral arthritis and bilateral shoulder CT scans. Validated the vault model for estimating version in pathologic and non-pathologic glenoids.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Codsi MJ, Bennetts C, Gordiev K, Baeck DM, Kwon Y, Brems J, et al. Normal glenoid vault anatomy and validation of a novel glenoid implant shape. J Should Elb Surg. 2008;17:471–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ganapathi A, McCarron JA, Chen X, Iannotti JP. Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: a comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models. J Should Elb Surg. 2011;20:234–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ricchetti ET, Hendel MD, Collins DN, Iannotti JP. Is premorbid glenoid anatomy altered in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2932–39.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sabesan VJ, Callanan M, Youderian A, Iannotti JP. CT assessment of the relationship of humeral head alignment and glenoid retroversion in glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:e64(1–7).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Iannotti JP, Greeson C, Downing D, Sabesan V, Bryan JA. Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Should Elb Surg. 2012;21:48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Iannotti JP, Norris TR. Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:251–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ho JC, Sabesan VJ, Iannotti JP. Glenoid component retroversion is associated with osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e82(1–8).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gerber C, Costouros JG, Sukthankar A, Fucentese SF. Static posterior humeral head subluxation and total shoulder arthroplasty. J Should Elb Surg. 2009;18:505–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Farron A, Terrier A, Buchler P. Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Should Elb Surg. 2006;15:521–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Strauss EJ, Roche C, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD. The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Should Elb Surg. 2009;18:819–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Terrier A, Buchler P, Farron A. Influence of glenohumeral conformity on glenoid stresses after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Should Elb Surg. 2006;15:515–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mizuno N, Denard R, Raiss P, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1297–304. A retrospective review reporting excellent clinical results following reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 27 patients with a biconcave glenoid. Average age was 74.1 years at the time of surgery and mean follow up was 54 months.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bokor DJ, O’Sullivan MD, Hazan GJ. Variability of measurement of glenoid version on computed tomography scan. J Should Elb Surg. 1999;8(6):595–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bryce CD, Davison AC, Lewis GS, Wang L, Flemming DJ, Armstrong AD. Two- dimensional glenoid version measurements vary with coronal and sagittal scapular rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:692–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Green A, Norris TR. Imaging techniques for glenohumeral arthritis and glenohumeral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;307:7–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:1032–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nyffeler RW, Jost B, Pfirrmann CW, Gerber C. Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Should Elb Surg. 2003;12:493–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ogawa K, Yoshida A, Ikegami H. Osteoarthritis in shoulders with traumatic anterior instability: preoperative survey using radiography and computed tomography. J Should Elb Surg. 2006;15:23–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Welsch G, Mamisch TC, Kikinis R, Schmidt R, Lang P, Forst R, et al. CT-based preoperative analysis of scapula morphology and glenohumeral joint geometry. Comput Aided Surg. 2003;8:264–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Couteau B, Mansat P, Mansat M, Darmana R, Egan J. In vivo characterization of glenoid with use of computed tomography. J Should Elb Surg. 2001;10:116–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2438–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E, Patterson TE, Jun BJ, Ricchetti ET. Three dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:651–8. A randomized clinical trial reporting improvement in glenoid component placement with three dimensional imaging and templating vs. two dimensional imaging. This effect was independent of patient specific instrumentation.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Iannotti J, Baker J, Rodriguez E, Brems J, Ricchetti E, Mesiha M, et al. Three-dimensional preoperative planning software and a novel information transfer technology improve glenoid component positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:e71(1–8).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Scalise JJ, Bryan J, Polster J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Should Elb Surg. 2008;17(2):328–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Youderian AR, Iannotti JP. Preoperative planning using advanced 3-dimensional virtual imaging software for glenoid component in anatomic total shoulder replacement. Tech Should Elb Surg. 2012;13(4):145–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hendel MD, Bryan JA, Barsoum WK, Rodriguez EJ, Brems JJ, Evans PJ, et al. Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:2167–75. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing patient specific instrumentation and three dimensional CT planning to standard instrumentation and two dimensional CT planning. Patient specific instrumentation with three dimensional planning was shown to significantly influence surgeon implant selection when deciding between standard or augmented glenoid components. The greatest benefit of patient specific instrumentation was seen in patients with retroversion in excess of 16°.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Levine WN, Djurasovic M, Glasson JM, Pollock RG, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. Hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results correlated to degree of glenoid wear. J Should Elb Surg. 1997;6(5):449–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hsu JE, Ricchetti ET, Huffman GR, Iannotti JP, Glaser DL. Addressing glenoid bone deficiency and asymmetric posterior erosion in shoulder arthroplasty. J Should Elb Surg. 2013;22:1298–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Matsen 3rd FA, Warme WJ, Jackins SE. Can the ream and run procedure improve glenohumeral relationships and function for shoulders with the arthritic triad? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):2088–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Matsen 3rd FA, Lippitt SB. Current technique for the ream-and-run arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. JBJS Essent Surg Technol. 2012;2:e20(21–15).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Youderian AR, Napolitano Jr LA, Davidson IU, Iannotti JP. Management of glenoid bone loss with the use of a new augmented all-polyethylene glenoid component. Tech Should Elb Surg. 2012;13(4):163–9. Technique article discussing preoperative planning and surgical technique for managing glenoid bone loss with an augmented stepped component (StepTech APG, DePuy; Warsaw, IN).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nowak DD, Bahu MJ, Gardner TR, et al. Simulation of surgical glenoid resurfacing using three-dimensional computed tomography of the arthritic glenohumeral joint: the amount of glenoid retroversion that can be corrected. J Should Elb Surg. 2009;18:680–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gillespie R, Lyons R, Lazarus M. Eccentric reaming in total shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2009;32:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Walch G, Young AA, Boileau P, Loew M, Gazielly D, Mole D. Patterns of loosening of polyethylene keeled glenoid components after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: results of a multi-center study with more than 5 years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:145–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sabesan V, Callanan M, Sharma V, Iannotti JP. Correction of acquired glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis with a standard vs. an augmented glenoid component. J Should Elb Surg. 2014;23(7):964–73. A three dimensional computer simulation study comparing the use of standard and augmented glenoid components in 29 patients with glenohumeral arthritis and acquired posterior glenoid bone loss. Illustrates the amount of joint line medialization required to correct glenoid version with each type of component.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Neer II CS, Morrison DS. Glenoid bone-grafting in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70A:1154–62.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder replacement. J Should Elb Surg. 2000;9:361–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Sabesan V, Callanan M, Ho J, Iannotti JP. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty with bone graft for osteoarthritis with severe glenoid bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:1290–6. Retrospective review reporting good clinical and radiographic results with the use of bone graft and a standard glenoid component in 12 shoulders (9 biconcave glenoids) with glenohumeral arthritis at average 53 month follow-up.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Klika BJ, Wooten CW, Sperling JW, Steinmann SP, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Structural bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in primary total shoulder arthroplasty. J Should Elb Surg. 2014;23:1066–72. Retrospective review reporting favorable clinical outcome despite unfavorable radiographic results with the use of bone graft and a standard glenoid component in 25 shoulders with glenohumeral arthritis at average 8.7 years follow-up.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tammachote N, Sperling JW, Vathana T, Cofield RH, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD. Long term results of cemented metal-backed components in osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;9:160–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cil A, Sperling J, Cofield R. Nonstandard glenoid components for bone deficiencies in shoulder arthroplasty. J Should Elb Surg. 2014;23:e149–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Iannotti JP, Lappin KE, Klotz CL, Reber EW, Swope SW. Liftoff resistance of augmented glenoid components during cyclic fatigue loading in the posterior-superior direction. J Should Elb Surg. 2013;22:1530–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Walch G, Moraga C, Young A, Castellanos-Rosas J. Results of anatomic non-constrained prosthesis in primary osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid. J Should Elb Surg. 2012;21:1526–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave., A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Kenneth W. Donohue, Eric T. Ricchetti & Joseph P. Iannotti

Authors
  1. Kenneth W. Donohue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric T. Ricchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph P. Iannotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenneth W. Donohue.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Kenneth W. Donohue declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Eric T. Ricchetti has been a paid presenter or speaker for, and has received research support from, DePuy, a Johnson & Johnson company.

Joseph P. Iannotti reports stock or stock options from Custom Orthopaedic Solutions. He has received IP royalties and consultant fees from, and been a paid presenter or speaker for, DePuy, Synthes. He has also been a paid presenter or speaker for DJ Orthopaedics. He has received IP royalties from Integra, Tornier, and Zimmer, as well as publishing royalties, financial or material support from Wolters Kluwer Health–Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. He has served on the editorial or governing board of the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Shoulder Arthroplasty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Donohue, K.W., Ricchetti, E.T. & Iannotti, J.P. Surgical management of the biconcave (B2) glenoid. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9, 30–39 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9315-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9315-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation