Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to analyze the real range of motion (RoM) measured in patients operated on for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and compare it to the virtual RoM provided by the preoperative planning software. Hypothesis: There was a difference between virtual and real RoM, which can be explained by different factors, specifically the scapula-thoracic (ST) joint. Methods: Twenty patients with RSA were assessed at a minimum follow-up of 18 months. Passive RoM in forward elevation abduction, without and with manually locking the ST joint, and in external rotation with arm at side were recorded. The humerus, scapula, and implants were manually segmented on post-operative CTs. Post-operative bony structures were registered to preoperative bony elements. From this registration, a post-operative plan corresponding to the real post-operative implant positioning was generated and the corresponding virtual RoM analysis was recorded. On the post-operative anteroposterior X-rays and 2D-CT coronal planning view, the glenoid horizontal line angle (GH), the metaphyseal horizontal line angle (MH), and the gleno-metaphyseal angle (GMA) were measured to assess the extrinsic glenoid inclination, as well as the relative position of the humeral and glenoid components. Results: There were some significant differences between virtual and post-operative passive abduction and forward elevation, with (55° and 50°, p < 0.0001) or without ST joint participation (15° and 27°, p < 0.002). For external rotation with arm at side, there was no significant difference between planning (24° ± 26°) and post-operative clinical observation (19° ± 12°) (p = 0.38). For the angle measurements, the GMA was significantly higher (42.8° ± 15.2° vs. 29.1°± 18.2°, p < 0.0001), and the GH angle, significantly lower on the virtual planning (85.2° ± 8.8° vs. 99.5° ± 12.5°, p < 0.0001), while the MH was not different (p = 0.33). Conclusions: The virtual RoM given by the planning software used in this study differs from the real post-operative passive RoM, except for external rotation. This can be explained by the lack of ST joint and soft tissues simulation. However, in focusing on the virtual GH participation, the simulation looks informative. Some modifications between the glenoid and humerus starting positions before running the motion analysis could be provided for making it more realistic and predictive of the RSA functional results. Level of evidence: III.

Background. The indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been widely expanded, but only a few studies report the long-term survival of these implants. Our objective was to report the long-term survivorship of a large series of RSAs implanted for different etiologies. Methods. A retrospective multicenter study including all the RSAs was performed in six shoulder-specialized centers with at least 2 years of follow up. We reviewed 1611 RSAs, operated between 1993 and 2010, including 497 cuff-tear arthropathies (CTA), 239 revision RSAs, 188 massive cuff tears (MCT), 185 fracture sequelae (FS), 183 failed previous cuff repairs (FCR), and 142 primary osteoarthritis (POA). The mean follow-up was 5.6 ± 3.9 years (range 2–20). Results. Overall, 266 RSAs (16.5%) had at least one complication leading to 64 reoperations (4.0%) and 110 revision surgeries (6.8%). The most frequent complications were infection (3.8%), instability (2.8%), and humerus-related complications (2.8%). At 10 years, the survival without revision surgery was 91.0% in primary RSAs and 80.9% in revision RSAs for failed arthroplasty (p < 0.001). In the primary RSA group, MCT and FCR led to 10-year survivals for over 95% but fracture sequelae and tumors had the lowest 10-year survivals (83.9% and 53.1%). Younger patients had a lower 10-year survival. In revision RSAs, male patients had a significantly lower survival than females (72.3% vs. 84.5% at 10 years, p = 0.020). Discussion. Primary RSA for cuff-deficient shoulders or POA leads to a high 10-year survival, but revision RSA or primary RSA for FS and tumors are at high-risk for revision. Surgeons should be aware of high rates of complications and lower survival rates of RSA in younger patients, in males, and in RSAs for revision surgery.