Stephanie Muh, MD
Read complete study: Clinical Outcomes after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with and without subscapularis repair: The Importance of considering glenosphere lateralization
There continues to be significant debate on whether subscapularis repair is necessary during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Historically subscapularis repair was felt to be necessary to provide anterior soft tissue stability and help prevent post-operative dislocation. There have been multiple articles written on both the advantages and disadvantages of subscapularis repair. It should be noted that most previous articles that strongly advocated subscapularis repair included the traditional Grammont-style prosthesis with a medialized glenosphere and valgus medialized humeral stem (155 degrees).
This article retrospectively reviews patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). They first stratified the subscapularis repair group versus no repair. The authors then looked at the effects of glenosphere lateralization (0mm lateralization vs +3 or +6mm) in both groups to determine if this played a significant role. The humeral stem used in the study has a neck shaft angle of 147 degrees but a humeral stem with no lateralization. ASES score from baseline was the primary outcome measured with a minimum of two-year follow-up.
The study demonstrated patients with no subscapularis repair and lateralization had the most overall improvement in ASES scores. This supports the design rationale of the Equinoxe® reverse shoulder system.
Overall, the authors found no difference in ASES scores when comparing subscapularis repair versus no repair. The authors also reported that subscapularis management and lateralized glenosphere individually did not have significant effect on ASES scores. However, analysis did find that patients with subscapularis repair with a lateralized glenosphere did worse compared to subscapularis repair with medialized glenosphere and no repair with lateralized glenosphere.
This article demonstrates the impact of the combined effect of subscapularis management with glenosphere lateralization on clinical outcomes. The study demonstrated patients with no subscapularis repair and lateralization had the most overall improvement in ASES scores. This supports the design rationale of the Equinoxe® reverse shoulder system. Continue reading
Ian Byram, MD
Read complete study: Outcomes of Trabecular Metal-backed glenoid components in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.
The authors of this study present a series of 47 total shoulder arthroplasties performed with trabecular metal-backed glenoid components, reporting radiographic and clinical outcomes at an average follow-up of 41 months. The operative technique described involved placement of a trabecular metal peg-keel construct, with the vast majority placed in an uncemented, press-fit fashion. The authors noted that this method of implantation is not approved by the FDA, but this technique is “acceptable practice.” Patients were placed into a sling for four weeks and external rotation was limited for six weeks.
Five of the 47 patients (11%) underwent revision to reverse TSA for rotator cuff failure at an average of 12 months postoperative and were not included in the radiographic analysis. Despite excluding these patients, the authors still report an alarming rate of metal debris and osteolysis (25%) with one catastrophic failure at a minimum of two years follow-up. Notably, the majority of patients with radiographic changes were asymptomatic. For all revisions in this series, the authors note the “substantial central bone loss” in the glenoid vault, requiring bone grafting for reverse baseplate implantation. As a result of the high rate of metallic debris and osteolysis, the authors have discontinued the use of the trabecular metal glenoid.
“The authors still report an alarming rate of metal debris and osteolysis (25%) with one catastrophic failure at a minimum of two years follow-up.
For a short period of time in my practice, I utilized this same trabecular metal backed glenoid. Preparation for this implant requires perpendicular glenoid exposure and removal of bone from the central glenoid vault in a cross shape with a series of drill holes and punches. In my experience revising this implant, I also have noted severe central bone loss requiring bone grafting and occasional staged reconstruction.
Similar to the authors of this study, I had one catastrophic failure in a 50 year old male with normal bone density and no comorbidities. Continue reading