• Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.59-71
• /
• 2024

Background: Restoration of external (ER) and internal rotation (IR) after Grammont-style reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is often unreliable. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of RSA medio-lateral offset and subscapularis repair on axial rotation after RSA. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating axial rotation (ER, IR, or both) after RSA with a defined implant design. Medio-lateral implant classification was adopted from Werthel et al. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Results: Thirty-two studies reporting 2,233 RSAs were included (mean patient age, 72.5 years; follow-up, 43 months; 64% female). The subscapularis was repaired in 91% (n=2,032) of shoulders and did not differ based on global implant lateralization (91% for both, P=0.602). On meta-analysis, globally lateralized implants achieved greater postoperative ER (40° [36°-44°] vs. 27° [22°-32°], P<0.001) and postoperative improvement in ER (20° [15°-26°] vs. 10° [5°-15°], P<0.001). Lateralized implants with subscapularis repair or medialized implants without subscapularis repair had significantly greater postoperative ER and postoperative improvement in ER compared to globally medialized implants with subscapularis repair (P<0.001 for both). Mean postoperative IR was reported in 56% (n=18) of studies and achieved the minimum necessary IR in 51% of lateralized (n=325, 5 cohorts) versus 36% (n=177, 5 cohorts) of medialized implants. Conclusions: Lateralized RSA produces superior axial rotation compared to medialized RSA. Lateralized RSA with subscapularis repair and medialized RSA without subscapularis repair provide greater axial rotation compared to medialized RSA with subscapularis repair. Level of evidence: 2A.

• 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.