Search

Glenoid component loosening remains a common complication following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA); however, plain radiographs are unable to accurately detect early implant migration. The purpose of this study was to validate the accuracy of a method of postoperative, three‐dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) imaging with metal artifact reduction (MAR) to detect glenoid component migration following anatomic TSA. Tantalum bead markers were inserted into polyethylene glenoid components for implant detection on 3D CT. In‐vitro validation was performed using a glenoid component placed into a scapula sawbone and incrementally translated and rotated, with MAR 3D CT acquired at each test position. Accuracy was evaluated by root mean square error (RMSE). In‐vivo validation was performed on six patients who underwent anatomic TSA, with two postoperative CT scans acquired in each patient and marker‐based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) performed on the same days. Glenoid component migration was calculated relative to a scapular coordinate system for both MAR 3D CT and RSA. Accuracy was evaluated by RMSE and paired Student's t‐tests. The largest RMSE on in‐vitro testing was 0.24 mm in translation and 0.11° in rotation, and on in‐vivo testing was 0.47 mm in translation and 1.04° in rotation. There were no significant differences between MAR 3D CT and RSA measurement methods. MAR 3D CT imaging is capable of quantifying glenoid component migration with a high level of accuracy. MAR 3D CT imaging is advantageous over RSA because it is readily available clinically and can also be used to evaluate the implant‐bone interface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Posterior glenoid bone loss is commonly associated with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Surgical management of bone loss in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) remains controversial. We studied the use of a stepped augmented glenoid component for management of Walch B2 and B3 glenoids and compared the radiographic and clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up with those achieved with a non-augmented component of the same design in Walch A1 glenoids.Methods: Ninety-two patients (42 A1, 29 B2, and 21 B3 glenoids) were prospectively followed after aTSA. Sequential 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) imaging was performed preoperatively, within 3 months postoperatively with metal artifact reduction (MAR) to define implant position, and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively with MAR. Scapular 3D registration with implant registration allowed 3D measurement of glenoid implant position, implant shift, and central peg osteolysis (CPO).Results: CPO with or without implant shift occurred in a higher percentage of B3 glenoids treated with the augmented glenoid component (29%) than A1 glenoids treated with a standard component (5%) (p = 0.028). There was no significant difference in the frequency of CPO between B2 glenoids with the augmented component (10%) and A1 glenoids with the standard component. There was no difference in postoperative glenoid component version and inclination between groups. B3 glenoids were associated with more component medialization relative to the premorbid joint line compared with A1 and B2 glenoids (p < 0.001).Conclusions: A stepped augmented glenoid component can restore premorbid glenoid anatomy in patients with asymmetric biconcave glenoid bone loss (Walch B2), with short-term clinical and radiographic results equivalent to those for patients without glenoid bone loss (Walch A1) treated with a non-augmented component. There is a greater risk of CPO in patients with moderate-to-severe B3 glenoid pathology with this stepped augmented glenoid component. Longer follow-up will help define the clinical implications of CPO over time.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate glenoid component position and radiolucency following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) using sequential 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) analysis.Methods: In a series of 152 patients (42 Walch A1, 16 A2, 7 B1, 49 B2, 29 B3, 3 C1, 3 C2, and 3 D glenoids) undergoing anatomic TSA with a polyethylene glenoid component, sequential 3D CT analysis was performed preoperatively (CT1), early postoperatively (CT2), and at a minimum 2-year follow-up (CT3). Glenoid component shift was defined as a change in component version or inclination of ≥3° from CT2 to CT3. Glenoid component central anchor peg osteolysis (CPO) was assessed at CT3. Factors associated with glenoid component shift and CPO were evaluated.Results: Glenoid component shift occurred from CT2 to CT3 in 78 (51%) of the 152 patients. CPO was seen at CT3 in 19 (13%) of the 152 patients, including 15 (19%) of the 78 with component shift. Walch B2 glenoids with a standard component and glenoids with higher preoperative retroversion were associated with a higher rate of shift, but not of CPO. B3 glenoids with an augmented component and glenoids with greater preoperative joint-line medialization were associated with CPO, but not with shift. More glenoid component joint-line medialization from CT2 to CT3 was associated with higher rates of shift and CPO. A greater absolute change in glenoid component inclination from CT2 to CT3 and a combined absolute glenoid component version and inclination change from CT2 to CT3 were associated with CPO. Neither glenoid component shift nor CPO was associated with worse clinical outcomes.Conclusions: Postoperative 3D CT analysis demonstrated that glenoid component shift commonly occurs following anatomic TSA, with increased inclination the most common direction. Most (81%) of the patients with glenoid component shift did not develop CPO. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the relationships of glenoid component shift and CPO with loosening over time.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) preoperative planning and patient-specific instrumentation has been demonstrated to improve the accuracy of glenoid implant placement in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of glenoid implant placement in primary TSA among different types of instrumentation used with the 3D CT preoperative planning.Methods: One hundred and seventy-three patients with end-stage glenohumeral arthritis were enrolled in 3 prospective studies evaluating patient-specific instrumentation and 3D preoperative planning. All patients underwent preoperative 3D CT planning to determine optimal glenoid component and guide pin position based on surgeon preference. Patients were placed into 1 of 5 instrument groups used for intraoperative guide pin placement: (1) standard instrumentation, (2) standard instrumentation combined with use of a 3D glenoid bone model containing the guide pin, (3) use of the 3D glenoid bone model combined with single-use patient-specific instrumentation, (4) use of the 3D glenoid bone model combined with reusable patient-specific instrumentation, and (5) use of reusable patient-specific instrumentation with an adjustable, reusable base. Postoperatively, all patients underwent 3D CT to compare actual versus planned glenoid component position. Deviation from the plan (in terms of orientation and location) was compared across groups on the basis of absolute differences and outlier analysis. Univariable and multivariable comparisons were performed. As the initial analyses showed no significant differences in preoperative factors or in deviation from the plan between Groups 1 and 2 or between Groups 4 and 5 across studies, the final analysis was across 3 major treatment groups: standard instrumentation (Groups 1 and 2), single-use patient-specific instrumentation (Group 3), and reusable patient-specific instrumentation (Groups 4 and 5).Results: In nearly all comparisons, there were no significant differences in the deviation from the plan (absolute differences or outlier frequency) for glenoid implant orientation or location across the 3 major treatment groups.Conclusions: This study did not demonstrate that any type of patient-specific instrumentation resulted in consistent differences in accuracy of glenoid implant placement in primary TSA with 3D CT preoperative planning. Surgeons have multiple patient-specific instrumentation options available for improving accuracy of glenoid implant placement when compared with 2D imaging without patient-specific instrumentation.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint has typical patterns of deformity as described by Walch et al. However, more severe glenoid pathology may be difficult to classify. The purpose of this study was to use 3-dimensional computed tomography (3-D CT) imaging analysis to define common pathologic subtypes that can be differentiated from the current Walch classification.Methods: We performed quantitative measurements of premorbid and pathologic anatomy using preoperative 3-D CT scans from 155 cases of advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis that underwent anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. We defined premorbid glenohumeral anatomy on the basis of previously validated methods using 3-D glenoid vault and humeral best-fit circle models including the premorbid glenoid version, joint-line medialization, and humeral-glenoid alignment (HGA). We determined the anatomic features that differentiate new glenoid morphologic subtypes from the existing Walch classification both qualitatively and quantitatively.Results: We defined 2 new glenoid subtypes (B3 and C2) for which the glenoid pathology and humeral alignment were not defined in the original Walch classification. The B3 glenoid has high pathologic retroversion, normal premorbid version, and acquired central and posterior bone loss that, on average, is greater than that of the B2 glenoid. The C2 glenoid is dysplastic with high pathologic retroversion, high premorbid version, and acquired posterior bone loss, giving it the appearance of a biconcave glenoid with posterior translation of the humeral head. This C2 glenoid can be confused with the B2 glenoid.Conclusions: The B3 and C2 patterns have qualitative and quantitative differences that may result in different clinical outcomes than classic B2 or C types; therefore, our findings suggest that these new subtypes should be included in a new or modified classification system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]