• Title/Summary/Keyword: Inlay glenoid

Search Result 2, Processing Time 0.013 seconds

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a nonspherical humeral head and inlay glenoid: 90-day complication profile in the inpatient versus outpatient setting

  • Andrew D. Posner;Michael C. Kuna;Jeremy D. Carroll;Eric M. Perloff;Matthew J. Anderson;Ian D. Hutchinson;Joseph P. Zimmerman
    • Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
    • /
    • v.26 no.4
    • /
    • pp.380-389
    • /
    • 2023
  • Background: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a nonspherical humeral head component and inlay glenoid is a successful bone-preserving treatment for glenohumeral arthritis. This study aimed to describe the 90-day complication profile of TSA with this prosthesis and compare major and minor complication and readmission rates between inpatient- and outpatient-procedure patients. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive cohort of patients undergoing TSA with a nonspherical humeral head and inlay glenoid in the inpatient and outpatient settings by a single surgeon between 2017 and 2022. Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and 90-day complication and readmission rates were compared between inpatient and outpatient groups. Results: One hundred eighteen TSAs in 111 patients were identified. Mean age was 64.9 years (range, 39-90) and 65% of patients were male. Ninety-four (80%) and 24 (20%) patients underwent outpatient and inpatient procedures, respectively. Four complications (3.4%) were recorded: axillary nerve stretch injury, isolated ipsilateral arm deep venous thrombosis (DVT), ipsilateral arm DVT with pulmonary embolism requiring readmission, and gastrointestinal bleed requiring readmission. There were no reoperations or other complications. Outpatients were younger with lower ASA and CCI scores than inpatients; however, there was no difference in complications (1/24 vs. 3/94, P=1.00) or readmissions (1/24 vs. 1/94, P=0.37) between these two groups. Conclusions: TSA with a nonspherical humeral head and inlay glenoid can be performed safely in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Rates of early complications and readmissions were low with no difference according to surgical setting. Level of evidence: IV.

Implant selection for successful reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

  • Joo Han Oh;Hyeon Jang Jeong;Yoo-Sun Won
    • Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
    • /
    • v.26 no.1
    • /
    • pp.93-106
    • /
    • 2023
  • Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) emerged as a new concept of arthroplasty that does not restore normal anatomy but does restore function. It enables the function of the torn rotator cuff to be performed by the deltoid and shows encouraging clinical outcomes. Since its introduction, various modifications have been designed to improve the outcome of the RTSA. From the original cemented baseplate with peg or keel, a cementless baseplate was designed that could be fixed with central and peripheral screws. In addition, a modular-type glenoid component enabled easier revision options. For the humeral component, the initial design was an inlay type of long stem with cemented fixation. However, loss of bone stock from the cemented stem hindered revision surgery. Therefore, a cementless design was introduced with a firm metaphyseal fixation. Furthermore, to prevent complications such as scapular notching, the concept of lateralization emerged. Lateralization helped to maintain normal shoulder contour and better rotator cuff function for improved external/internal rotation power, but excessive lateralization yielded problems such as subacromial notching. Therefore, for patients with pseudoparalysis or with risk of subacromial notching, a medial eccentric tray option can be used for distalization and reduced lateralization of the center of rotation. In summary, it is important that surgeons understand the characteristics of each implant in the various options for RTSA. Furthermore, through preoperative evaluation of patients, surgeons can choose the implant option that will lead to the best outcomes after RTSA.