Three-dimensional computed tomography analysis of pathologic correction in total shoulder arthroplasty based on severity of preoperative pathology.

The purpose of this study was to quantify correction of glenoid deformity and humeral head alignment in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty as a function of preoperative pathology (modified Walch classification) and glenoid implant type in a clinical cohort using 3-dimensional computed tomography (CT) analysis. Patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a standard glenoid (SG) (n = 110) or posteriorly stepped augmented glenoid (AG) (n = 62) component were evaluated with a preoperative CT scan and a postoperative CT scan within 3 months of surgery. Glenoid version, inclination, and medial-lateral (ML) joint line position, as well as humeral head alignment, were assessed on both CT scans, with preoperative-to-postoperative changes analyzed relative to pathology and premorbid anatomy based on the modified Walch classification and glenoid implant type. On average, correction to the premorbid ML joint line position was significantly less in type A2 glenoids than in type A1 glenoids (–2.3 ± 2.1 mm vs. 1.1 ± 0.9 mm, P <.001). Correction to premorbid version was not different between type B2 glenoids with AG components and type A1 glenoids with SG components (–1.7° ± 6.6° vs. –1.0° ± 4.0°, P =.57), and the premorbid ML joint line position was restored on average in both groups (0.3 ± 1.6 mm vs. 1.1 ± 0.9 mm, P =.006). Correction to premorbid version was not different between type B3 glenoids with AG components and type A1 glenoids with SG components (–0.6° ± 5.1° vs. –1.0° ± 4.0°, P =.72), but correction relative to the premorbid ML joint line position was significantly less in type B3 glenoids with AG components than in type A1 glenoids with SG components (–2.2 ± 2.1 mm vs. 1.1 ± 0.9 mm, P <.001). Postoperative humeral glenoid alignment was not different in any group comparisons. In cases with posterior glenoid bone loss and retroversion (type B2 or B3 glenoids), an AG component can better correct retroversion and the glenoid ML joint line position compared with an SG component, with correction to premorbid version comparable to a type A1 glenoid with an SG component. However, restoration of the premorbid ML joint line position may not always be possible with SG or AG components in cases with more advanced central glenoid bone loss (type A2 or B3 glenoids). Further follow-up is needed to determine the clinical consequences of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]