Background

 

Rotator Cuff Arthropathy for Reverse TSRReverse TSR Xray

 

Indications

 

Rotator cuff arthropathy

Four part proximal humerus fracture

? Shoulder osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff in older patients

Revision shoulder arthroplasty

 

Revision rate

 

Australian Joint Registry 2024 

 

Indication 1 year 5 year 10 year 14 years
Rotator cuff arthropathy (n=20,500) 2.3 4.2 5.4 6.1
Osteoarthritis (n=24,000) 1.9 3.5 5.0 6.7
Fracture (n=8,000) 3.1 4.8 5.9 5.9

 

Design

 

rTSAReverse TSR Xray

 

Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty in cuff deficient shoulders

 

High failure rate

- superior migration / edge loading

- rocking horse phenomenon

 

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty

 

Reverse

- socket in proximal humerus

- ball in glenoid

- center of rotation shifted medially and distally

- allows deltoid to apply compressive force and stabilize joint in absence of rotator cuff

 

Paul Grammont in 1985

- humeral component concave

- glenoid component / glenospere convex

- glenoid component uncemented with peripheral screws and central plug

- center of rotation shifted medially to glenosphere with humerus distal

 

Center of rotation

 

Glenoid center of rotation Humeral component Four options

Medialized or lateralized

Based upon glenosphere thickness

Medialized or lateralized

Distance between the intramedullary canal axis / center of rotation of the humeral liner

Influenced by humeral design / angle and liner thickness

Medialized glenosphere / medialized humerus (MGMH)

Medialized glenosphere / lateralized humerus (MGMH)

Lateralized glenosphere / medialized humerus (MGMH)

Lateralized glenosphere / lateralized humerus (MGMH)

     

 

Berton et al J Clin Med 2021

- systematic review of rTSA

- medialized versus lateralized center of rotation

- better external rotation (20 v 8 degrees) and lower notching (7% v 48%) with lateralized COR

 

Bearing surfaces

 

rTSAPoly glenosphereLima SMR

Metal versus poly glenosphere.  Lima SMR options

 

Australian Joint Registry 2024 

Bearing surfaces 1 year 5 year 10 year 14 year
Metal / XLPE (n=4,000) 2.1 3.3 4.3

 

Non XLPE / Metal (n=14,500) 1.9 3.7 5.4 7.3
XLPE / Metal (n=4,800) 1.6 2.9 4.3 5.8

 

Glenoid component

 

Metaglene / baseplate

 

baseplatebaseplate

Depuy Synthes Delta Xtend

 

Design

- uncemented

- coated  central peg

- secured by compression non locking screws + locking screw

- +/- variable angle to allow inferior screws along scapular spine / superior screw into coracoid

 

Inlay versus onlay

 

Glenoid augmentation

 

Indication

- usually for superior wear in rotator cuff arthropathy

- may be needed for posterior glenoid wear with rTSA for glenoid osteoarthritis

Glenoid augmentsAugments

Zimmer Biomet Signature One Glenoid Augments

 

Wilcox et al Bone Joint J 2022

- systematic review of bone graft v glenoid augments for glenoid deficiency in rTSA

- higher complication rate with bone graft (9% v 3.5%)

- higher revision rate with bone graft (2% vs 0.6%)

 

Lanham et al JSES 2023

- systematic review of bone graft v glenoid augments for glenoid deficiency in rTSA

- equal complication rates 11%

- similar revision rates (bone graft 4.5% vs augment 3.7%)

 

Glenosphere

 

glenosphereReverse TSR AP BiometGlenosphere

Depuy Synthes Delta Xtend

 

Design

 

Press fit / morse taper onto baseplate

 

Size

 

Australian Joint Registry 2024 

Glenosphere size 14 year
< 38 mm 6.5
38 - 40 mm 7.0
> 40 mm 6.4

 

Humeral component

 

Fixation

 

FixationFixation

Depuy Synthes Delta Xtend

 

Australian Joint Registry 2024

Fixation 1 year 5 year 10 year 14 year
Uncemented (n=21,000) 1.9 3.5 5.1 6.9
Hybrid (humerus cemented) (n=2,600) 1.9 3.1 4.5 4.9

 

Stem length

 

rTSAReverse TSR Xray

 

Australian Joint Registry 2024 

Stem length 1 year 5 year 10 year 14 year
Short <100mm (n=10,000) 2.0 3.3 4.3 5.7
Conventional > 100mm (n=13,500) 1.8 3.6 5.4 7.3

 

Stemless

 

Kostretzis et al Musculoskeletal Surgery 2021

- systematic review of 13 studies and 500 patients

- 3.3% humeral associated complications

- 1.4% humeral component revision

 

Outcomes

 

Clinical outcome

 

Doyle et al JSES Rev 2023

- systematic review of  1600 rTSA with minimum 5 year follow up

- 88% good or excellent patient reported outcomes

 

Range of motion

 

Galvin et al JSES 2022

- systematic review of rTSA

- mean improvement of 56° in active flexion

- 50° in active abduction

- 14° in active external rotation

 

Doyle et al JSES Rev 2023

- systematic review of  1600 rTSA with minimum 5 year follow up

- active forward flexion 126° ± 13°

- active abduction 106° ± 11°

- active internal rotation 6° ± 2°

 

Rotator cuff arthropathy versus fracture

 

Paras et al J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022

- systematic review of rTSA for RC arthropathy v 3 or 4 part fracture

- worse outcome scores and ROM for rTSA in fracture

 

Patients > 70 with GHJ OA and intact rotator cuff

 

Dragonas et al J Should Elbow Arthroplasty 2023

- systematic review of aTSA v rTSA in older patients with intact rotator cuff

- 1472 aTSA and 1259 rTSA with minimum follow up of 2 years

- better outcomes with aTSA

- increased revision rate with aTSA

 

Kim et al J Orthop Traumatol 2022

- meta-analysis of 6 studies comparing aTSA and rTSA with intact cuff

- no difference functional scores

- better external rotation with aTSA

- increased glenoid loosening with aTSA

- increased notching with rTSA

 

Survival

 

Australian Joint Registry 2024

 

Indication 1 year 5 year 10 year 14 years
Rotator cuff arthropathy (n=20,500) 2.3 4.2 5.4 6.1
Osteoarthritis (n=24,000) 1.9 3.5 5.0 6.7
Fracture (n=8,000) 3.1 4.8 5.9 5.9

 

Age 1 year 5 year 10 year 14 years
< 55 (n=363) 3.2 5.5    
55 - 64 (n=2,500) 3.5 6.0 9.3  
65 - 74 (n=9,500) 1.8 3.6 5.4 7.2
> 75 (n=11,500) 1.6 2.7 3.8 4.3

 

Gender 1 year 5 year 10 year 14 years
Male 3.0 5.1 6.7 9.5
Female 1.2 2.4 4.0 5.0