Literature Decoded

Living reprintoriginally published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2024CC BY 4.0Read the version of record Opt out

Literature DecodedLiving reprint
Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy – the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility

Study first published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (2024), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Florian Freislederer1*, Philipp Moroder1, Laurent Audigé2, Tim Schneller3, Yacine Ameziane1, Raphael Trefzer1, Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk4, Markus Scheibel5

1grid.415372.60000 0004 0514 8127Schulthess Clinic, Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Zurich, Switzerland2grid.415372.60000 0004 0514 8127Department of Research and Development, Upper Extremities, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland; https://ror.org/02s6k3f65grid.6612.30000 0004 1937 0642Surgical Outcome Research Center, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland3grid.415372.60000 0004 0514 8127Department of Research and Development, Upper Extremities, Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland4grid.6363.00000 0001 2218 4662Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin, Berlin, Germany5grid.415372.60000 0004 0514 8127Schulthess Clinic, Department of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Zurich, Switzerland; grid.6363.00000 0001 2218 4662Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité-Universitaetsmedizin, Berlin, Germany*Corresponding author

Reprinted 2026-10-01 23 min read Living reprint · journal article Version of record: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2024Licence: CC BY 4.0

Reading mode
In plain languageStudy first published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (2024), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Study first published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (2024), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

Bottom line

What the evidence supports

How to read it

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Limitations

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Disclaimer

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The paper

Full manuscript

Abstract

Background

The two major reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs are the Grammont design and the lateralized design. Even if the lateralized design is biomechanically favored, the classic Grammont prosthesis continues to be used. Functional and subjective patient scores as well as implant survival described in the literature so far are comparable to the lateralized design. A pure comparison of how the RSA design influences outcome in patients has not yet been determined. The aim of this study was a comparison focused on patients with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).

Methods

We analyzed registry data from 696 CTA patients prospectively collected between 2012 and 2020 in two specialized orthopedic centers up to 2 years post-RSA with the same follow-up time points (6,12 24 months). Complete teres minor tears were excluded. Three groups were defined: group 1 (inlay, 155° humeral inclination, 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (n = 50)), group 2 (inlay, 135° humeral inclination, 36 + 4 mm lateralized glenosphere (n = 141)) and group 3 (onlay, 145° humeral inclination, + 3 mm lateralized base plate, 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (n = 35)) We compared group differences in clinical outcomes (e.g., active and passive range of motion (ROM), abduction strength, Constant-Murley score (CS)), radiographic evaluations of prosthetic position, scapular anatomy and complications using mixed models adjusted for age and sex.

Results

The final analysis included 226 patients. The overall adjusted p-value of the CS for all time-points showed no significant difference (p = 0.466). Flexion of group 3 (mean, 155° (SD 13)) was higher than flexion of group 1 (mean, 142° (SD 18) and 2 (mean, 132° (SD 18) (p < 0.001). Values for abduction of group 3 (mean, 145° (SD 23)) were bigger than those of group 1 (mean, 130° (SD 22)) and group 2 (mean, 118° (SD 25)) (p < 0.001). Mean external rotation for group 3 (mean, 41° (SD 23)) and group 2 (mean, 38° (SD 17)) was larger than external rotation of group 1 (mean, 24° (SD 16)) (p < 0.001); a greater proportion of group 2 (78%) and 3 (69%) patients reached L3 level on internal rotation compared to group 1 (44%) (p = 0.003). Prosthesis position measurements were similar, but group 3 had significantly less scapular notching (14%) versus 24% (group 2) and 50% (group 1) (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

Outcome scores of different RSA designs for CTA revealed comparable results. However, CTA patients with a lateralized and distalized RSA configuration were associated with achieving better flexion and abduction with less scapular notching. A better rotation was associated with either of the lateralized RSA designs in comparison with the classic Grammont prosthesis.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic study, Level III.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-024-07312-5.

Keywords: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Reverse; Lateralization; Grammont; Design; Shoulder arthroplasty

Introduction

The physiological function of the shoulder joint is dependent on an intact rotator cuff. Cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) is defined by advanced damage of the rotator cuff that leads to successive arthritic degeneration with radiologically classified signs of structural osseous modifications1. Besides cranialization of the humerus with reduced acromiohumeral distance, erosion of the humeral head and superior glenoid surface leaves distinct joint alterations with a medialized joint line and poor function2.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a widespread treatment option for irreparable rotator cuff deficiency and associated osteoarthritic joint degeneration. The first RSA concept which became widely used for patients with CTA was presented by Paul Grammont. He used a medialized and distalized design to create a stable fulcrum around which the humerus could rotate and provided enough delta tension to enable very good elevation and abduction movements3. With the rising recognition of associated complications of this concept such as inferior scapular notching and unsatisfying outcomes in axial rotation, modified reversed arthroplasty designs were developed2, 4–7. Reduction of the humeral neck-shaft angle (NSA) and lateralization of the center of rotation aim to reduce conflict at the scapula neck. A reduced NSA improves impingement-free range of motion (ROM) and axial motion by creating a more anatomical vector and more tension of the remaining anterior and posterior rotator cuff muscles8–11. Mark Frankle popularized a bipolar lateralization with a lateralized glenosphere and reduced NSA of 135° (compared to the 155° of the Grammont design)10.

Generally, it has be to be said that in all RSA designs the center of rotation remains medialized in comparison to a native glenoid joint. The terminus “lateralized” refers to more lateralized compared to the original Grammont (“more medialized”) design.

The advantages of a glenoidal lateralization were kept in further design evolutions12. On the humeral side, onlay systems for humeral lateralization were introduced13. Furthermore, the NSA shifted towards a way in between the Grammont and Frankle concept aiming to gather the advantages of a distalized and a lateralized concept14. Therefore, various humeral designs with an NSA of 145° were introduced15.

The influence of various lateralized designs on clinical outcome has been widely reviewed and several advantages over medialized RSAs have been outlined such as decreased inferior scapular notching, better stability, and rotational mobility8, 11, 16–18. Nonetheless, the more recent reviews were unable to highlight any significant differences in shoulder function and outcome scores11, 16. There is a lack of evidence on how different RSA designs (the Grammont design, the Frankle design or a distalized and lateralized design) perform in comparable patient populations; this knowledge would improve the surgeon’s choice of prosthesis design based on specific indications. Our purpose was to compare these three concepts, with regards to clinical and radiographic outcome in a homogeneous cohort of patients with CTA. We hypothesized that by lateralizing and distalizing, better outcome scores and superior ROM as well as reduced notching would be achieved. The analyzed outcomes were ROM, a radiological core set evaluation16 and outcome scores (CS, SPADI).

Materials and methods

Patient selection

This is a retrospective cohort study on patients with CTA who were treated with one of three different RSA prostheses at one of two specialized orthopedic centers. Since June 2012 all patients receiving a shoulder arthroplasty at one center (KWS) were prospectively documented in a local register. At the second center (BER), all patients were prospectively documented since June 2016. Trained specialized shoulder surgeons performed the operation at both centers. From both databases, patients with CTA were selected for this analysis when they had complete preoperative and 2-year clinical and radiographic examinations and were treated with one of the following implants: 1. Aequalis Reversed II prosthesis with 155° neck-shaft inclination and 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (Wright Medical Group N.V., Memphis, TN) (Group 1, medialized and distalized concept). 2. Univers Revers II prosthesis with 135° neck-shaft inclination and 36 + 4 mm lateralized glenosphere (Arthrex, Naples, FL) (Group 2, lateralized concept) or 3. Aequalis Ascend Flex prosthesis with 145° neck-shaft inclination, + 3 mm lateralized baseplate and 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (Wright Medical Group N.V., Memphis, TN) (Group 3, lateralized and distalized concept)). Based on the three prosthesis types, the theoretical global lateralized offset (tGLO) is 15.6 mm, 24.7 mm and 27.5 mm for groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively12. In addition, only data from the first operated side per patient were analyzed. Patients diagnosed with a complete teres minor tear were excluded. This analysis used prospectively documented clinical data that was approved by the local ethics committee for research purposes.

Surgical technique and postoperative protocol

All reverse prostheses were implanted according to manufacturer instructions by mainly 4 and in total 7 experienced shoulder surgeons. A deltopectoral approach was used and tenotomy of the subscapularis (SSC) tendon was performed followed by circular capsulotomy. The tendon of the long head of the biceps, if still intact, was tenotomized. The humeral head was resected by all surgeons consistenly with 20° retroversion. After preparation of the humeral shaft the glenoid was exposed and remaining cartilage and labrum were removed. The central drill wire was inserted, and the central peg channel was drilled. The baseplate was placed centrally (group 2) or more flush to the inferior border of the glenoid (group 2 and 3) and fixed with two head locking and compression screws each for group 1 and a central bicortical screw followed by four peripheral screws for the group 3. The baseplate of group 2 patients was inserted and fixed with a central and two peripheral screws followed by peripheral over-reaming of the circumferential bone; the eccentric glenosphere was positioned and secured with a locking screw connection to the baseplate. In Onlay type prosthesis the humeral cut might have been slightly deeper sometimes, depending on the tension (that is higher in onlay type of designs), but for all patients the initial cut was at the anatomical neck and a recut was done depending on the intraoperative individual surgeon's decision.

After testing the RSA reduction and stability with trial implants, the definitive implant was inserted and tested again for impingement-free mobility. The SSC was reattached with FiberWire® sutures (Arthrex, Naples, FL) using the Mason-Allen technique.

Patients were required to keep their arm immobilized in a sling for 4 weeks after surgery while following a standardized physical therapy program starting from Day 1. Passive mobilization the first 4 weeks post-surgery followed by active-assisted mobilization. By the sixth postoperative week, patients were allowed to apply progressive active motion. Internal rotation against resistance was avoided for the first 6 weeks.

Clinical evaluations

Patients underwent clinical examination preoperatively (baseline) and at 6-, 12- and 24 months after surgery, at 6 months mostly by the surgeons, at 12 and 24 months by independent observers. Clinical parameters of shoulder ROM (included elevation, abduction, internal and external rotation at 90° abduction, external rotation at 0° abduction, capacity of internal rotation (using the Apley scratch test) at 0° abduction and shoulder strength in 90° abduction were assessed. Functional outcome was based on the Constant-Murley score (CS)19, 20, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)20 and the patient-reported Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI)21.

Radiological baseline and 2-year follow-up parameters

Baseline (preoperative) and 2-year postoperative radiographs included standard anteroposterior (Fig. 1) and axial views. From anteroposterior images, a range of parameters were assessed at both time points to provide details on scapular anatomy and prosthetic position (Fig. 2). Scapular anatomy was defined by scapular neck length (SNL) and angle (SNA), where SNL is the distance (mm) between the inferior glenoid tubercle and medial end point of the scapular neck and SNA is the angle (º) between the glenoid and scapular neck length (SNL). Prosthetic position was described by the following parameters of lateral humeral offset (LHO), distalization shoulder angle (DSA), lateralization shoulder angle (LSA), inferior glenosphere overhang (IGO) and glenosphere inclination angle (GSIA): LHO is the distance (mm) between two lines (red) parallel to the humeral shaft axis with one starting at the superior glenoid tubercle and the other starting at the most lateral border of the greater tuberosity; DSA lies between a line (green) connecting the most lateral border of the acromion and the superior glenoid tubercle and a line (green) connecting the superior glenoid tubercle and the most superior border of the greater tuberosity; IGO indicates the distance (mm) between the inferior point of the glenohumeral line and most inferior point of the glenosphere; and GSIA lies between the sclerotic line (blue) representing the bottom of the supraspinatus fossa and the line (blue) from the superior to inferior point of the glenosphere. The degree of baseline glenoid erosion was assessed using the established Favard classification system2.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Prosthetic designs (ap x-rays pre- and 2yrs postoperative): a Group 1; NSA:155°, Inlay, GS: 36 + 2 mm ecc, b Group 2; NSA:135°, Inlay, GS: 36 + 4 mm lat c Group 3; NSA:145°, Onlay, BP: + 3 mm lat, GS: 36 + 2 mm ecc
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. a Preoperative anteroposterior radiograph highlighting scapular neck length as indicated by the blue line (long) and neck angle lying between the two blue lines (∡);b colored lines featured on the postoperative image indicate various radiological measurements of prosthetic position, i.e., lateral humeral offset (red), distalization shoulder angle (green), inferior glenoid overhang (purple) and glenosphere inclination angle (blue)

Throughout the 2-year postoperative period, various adverse events of inferior scapular notching based on the Sirveaux classification2, signs of osteolysis around the implant components, ossification, component migration or breakage, and periprosthetic fractures were documented based on an international consensus core set22.

Data management and statistical analysis

Register data were managed using the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) system23 and exported for statistical analysis using Intercooled Stata version 17 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX). Baseline patient demographic, radiological and functional parameters were tabulated separately per group using standard descriptive statistics and compared using standardized differences (where values closest to 0.10 indicate stronger group similarity)24 and clinical judgment. Comparative analyses at the 2-year postoperative follow-up were conducted using standard linear regression analyses, and we used generalized linear mixed models to account for repeated measurements when outcome data were available at each clinical follow-up examination, as applicable. For all models, we included the demographic parameters of age and sex as well as respective baseline preoperative values. All eligible patients from the two databases were included, so there was no predetermined sample size based on comparative analyses; all analyses were explorative with a significance level set at 0.05.

Results

Between June 2012 and June 2020, there were 67, 172 and 40 RSA in the groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At the 2-year postoperative follow-up, 50, 141 and 35 patients respectively, met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this analysis (Fig. 3). Most patients were women and the average age at the time of surgery was 76 years (range 52–93). The three defined groups shared similar baseline characteristics (except for a higher proportion of female patients in group 2, a higher proportion of low-grade Hamada 1 CTA (Table 1)), and preoperative shoulder function (Table 2).

Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Flowchart for patient selection
Table 1. Baseline patient and shoulder characteristics according to the defined prosthesis groups
Group 1Group 2Group 3StdDiff
n(%a)mean (SD)n(%a)mean (SD)n(%a)mean (SD)1vs.3/ 1vs.2 / 2vs.3
Age at surgery74.4 (7.7)75.5 (5.7)75.7 (6.2)0.189 / 0.165 / 0.033
Sex0.847 / 0.055 / 0.789
Female33(66)136(96)24(69)
Male17(34)5(4)11(31)
Diagnosis0.563 / 0.117 / 0.148
RC tear without arthrosis9(18)27(19)11(31)
RC tear with arthrosis41(82)114(81)24(69)
Radiological examination0.281 / 0.630 / 0.452
None3(9)8(8)
Magnetic resonance imaging20(63)86(83)23(100)
Ultrasound9(28)9(9)
RC tear type according to Lädermannb0.205 / 0.396 / 0.446
A3(10)17(18)4(17)
B1(3)3(3)2(9)
C18(60)50(53)14(61)
D8(27)23(24)3(13)
E1(1)
Supraspinatus0.099 / 0.820 / 1.064
Intact tendon1(3)
Partial tear1(3)16(17)
Complete tear27(93)80(83)23(100)
Infraspinatus0.108 / 0.306 / 0.311
Intact tendon7(24)23(24)2(8)
Partial tear10(34)32(33)9(39)
Complete tear12(41)41(43)12(52)
Subscapularis0.211 / 0.432 / 0.379
Intact tendon9(31)28(29)8(34)
Partial tear16(55)54(56)11(48)
Complete tear4(14)14(15)4(17)
Teres minor0.179 / 0.219 / 0.151
Intact28(97)88(92)19(83)
Partial tear6(6)3(12)
n.d1(3)2(2)2(8)
Glenoid wear according to Favardc0.688 / 0.205 / 0.151
E021(44)29(22)15(42)
E14(8)29(22)7(19)
E27(16)13(10)1(4)
E34(8)6(4)10(30)
n.d11(24)56(42)2(7)
RC tear arthropathy according to Hamadad0.544 / 0.861 / 1.054
Grade 113(28)72(54)7(19)
Grade 29(19)17(13)7(19)
Grade 36(13)7(5)5(15)
Grade 4A4(9)11(8)2(6)
Grade 4B9(19)18(14)5(15)
Grade 54(3)7(20)
n.d4(3)2 (6)

SD standard deviation, StdDiff standardized difference calculated to three decimal places and equal to the absolute difference between group means divided by the common standard deviation, where values closest to 0.10 or below indicate stronger group similarity. The three values show the standardized difference between groups 155 and 135, groups 155 and 145, and groups 145 and 135, respectively; RC = rotator cuff; n.d. = indeterminable

aThe percentage refers to the number of patients missing excluded

bLädermann A, Denard PJ, Collin P. Massive rotator cuff tears: definition and treatment. Int. Orthop. 2015;39(12):2404–2414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2796-5: A = supraspinatus and superior subscapularis tears, B = supraspinatus and entire subscapularis tears, C = infraspinatus, supraspinatus and superior subscapularis tears, D = supraspinatus and infraspinatus tears, E = supraspinatus, infraspinatus and teres minor tears

cFavard L, Lautmann S, Sirveaux F, Oudet D, Kerjean Y, Huguet D. Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse arthroplasty in the treatment of osteoarthritis with massive rotator cuff tear. In: Walch G, Boileau P, Molé D, editors. 2000 Shoulder Prostheses. Two to ten years follow-up. Sauramps Medical: Paris, France; 2001. p 261–268: E0 = superior humeral head migration without erosion of the glenoid, E1 = concentric erosion of the glenoid, E2 = if erosion was limited to the superior part of the glenoid, E3 = if erosion extended to the inferior part of the glenoid

dHamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, Kobayashi Y. Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 May(254):92–96: 1 = acromiohumeral interval > 6 mm; normal glenohumeral joint, 2 = acromiohumeral interval < 5 mm; normal glenohumeral joint, 3 = acromiohumeral interval < 5 mm, with acetabulization of acromion; normal glenohumeral joint, 4A = glenohumeral osteoarthritis without acetabulization, acromiohumeral interval < 7 mm, 4B = glenohumeral osteoarthritis with acetabulization, acromiohumeral interval < 7 mm, 5 = humeral head subchondral collapse characteristic of cuff tear arthropathy

Table 2. Baseline and postoperative shoulder range of motion (ROM) parameters, strength and functional scores
Group 1Group 2Group 3AdjustedModel
nmean (SD)nmean (SD)nmean (SD)p -valuep -value*
Active motion parameters
Flexion (°)< 0.001
Baseline5071 (33)14178 (39)3569 (36)
6 months47135 (20)130125 (25)14136 (21)0.108
12 months43141 (18)123130 (23)22146 (20)0.002
24 months40142 (18)107132 (18)33155 (13)< 0.001
Abduction (°)< 0.001
Baseline5065 (25)14170 (34)3562 (31)
6 months47123 (23)129118 (28)14120 (31)0.949
12 months43128 (22)123124 (26)22138 (25)0.061
24 months40130 (22)107118 (25)33147 (23)< 0.001
External rotation in 0° abd. (°)< 0.001
Baseline4830 (18)14131 (22)3522 (23)
6 months4722 (11)13133 (14)1441 (25)< 0.001
12 months4323 (11)12335 (15)2238 (21)< 0.001
24 months4024 (16)10738 (17)3341 (23)< 0.001
Passive motion parameters
Flexion passive (°)
Baseline5088 (39)14197 (39)3594 (45)< 0.001
6 months47142 (19)130128 (22)14146 (18)0.001
12 months43149 (18)123133 (20)22157 (15)< 0.001
24 months40147 (18)107135 (17)33163 (11)< 0.001
Abduction passive (°)
Baseline5077 (34)14185 (38)3590 (44)< 0.001
6 months47131 (21)129121 (25)14130 (32)0.237
12 months43135 (21)123125 (24)22151 (20)< 0.001
24 months40136 (21)107121 (24)33156 (21)< 0.001
External rotation in 0° abd. passive (°)
Baseline4635 (18)13938 (23)3531 (24)< 0.001
6 months4730 (9)13134 (13)1450 (22)< 0.001
12 months4331 (12)12236 (14)2246 (18)< 0.001
24 months4035 (14)10743 (14)3350 (23)< 0.001
Passive motion parameters
Flexion passive (°)
Pre-op7790 (35)19096 (36)6089 (40)< 0.001
6 months71140 (20)176131 (22)23147 (20)< 0.001
12 months67148 (18)164135 (19)38156 (22)< 0.001
24 months65145 (18)141137 (17)57162 (16)< 0.001
Abduction passive (°)
Pre-op7778 (30)19083 (34)6081 (39)< 0.001
6 months71129 (21)175123 (25)23134 (30)0.118
12 months67133 (20)164129 (24)38151 (27)< 0.001
24 months65134 (21)141125 (24)57156 (23)< 0.001
External rotation in 0° abd. passive (°)
Pre-op7032 (17)18735 (22)5926 (22)< 0.001
6 months7130 (11)17634 (13)2349 (19)< 0.001
12 months6732 (12)16136 (14)3842 (18)< 0.001
24 months6536 (14)14143 (14)5748 (21)< 0.001
Strength, pain level and functional scores
Strength in abduction (kg)0.768
Baseline500.4 (0.9)1410.4 (1.1)190.3 (1.2)
6 months454.2 (2.3)1303.3 (1.8)143.8 (2.3)0.669
12 months424.7 (2.3)1203.9 (2.0)94.4 (2.3)0.950
24 months395.3 (2.4)1063.9 (2.0)174.8 (2.2)0.627
Pain NRS (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain)0.008
Baseline466.1 (3.0)1296.4 (2.5)336.2 (2.7)
6 months491.4 (1.7)1291.6 (1.9)150.7 (0.9)0.348
12 months441.4 (1.7)1291.3 (1.9)270.6 (1.2)0.055
24 months471.7 (2.1)1281.5 (2.1)340.6 (1.2)0.032
CS Constant Murley Score (0–100 = best)0.466
Baseline4227 (11)12231 (15)2030 (14)
6 months4065 (12)11462 (13)1164 (10)0.576
12 months3869 (10)10567 (13)2170 (10)0.533
24 months3368 (11)8368 (10)3176 (9)0.088
SPADI (0 = worst, 100 = best)0.252
Baseline4633 (22)12834 (20)1840 (19)
6 months5073 (20)13178 (18)1584 (14)0.199
12 months4476 (19)13082 (18)1483 (14)0.598
24 months4774 (21)12980 (20)1783 (15)0.534
Subjective Shoulder Value (0 = worst, 100 = best)0.325
Baseline3841 (20)11839 (20)3434 (20)
6 months4174 (18)11278 (16)1278 (13)0.856
12 months4175 (18)11783 (13)2678 (14)0.110
24 months4077 (18)11483 (14)3485 (13)0.323

SD standard deviation

*Mixed model p-value for group effect adjusted for age, gender and baseline pre-operative values

Clinical examination and patient-reported outcomes

Two-years post-RSA, flexion of group 3 (mean, 155° (SD 13)) was higher than flexion of group 1 (mean, 142° (SD18) and group 2 (mean, 132° (SD18) (p < 0.001). Abduction of group 3 (mean, 145° (SD 23)) was also higher than abduction of group 1(mean, 130° (SD22)) and group 2 (mean, 118° (SD25)) (p < 0.001). Mean external rotation for group 3 (mean, 41° (SD 23)) and group 2 (mean, 38° (SD17)) was larger than external rotation of group 1 (mean, 24° (SD 16)) (p < 0.001); a greater proportion of group 2 (78%) and 3 (69%) patients reached L3 level for internal rotation compared to group 1 (44%) (p = 0.003).

Group 3 patients had significantly better ROM compared to patients in groups 1 and 2 (Table 3): group 3 patients achieved an average anterior flexion of 155°, which was 15° (95% confidence interval [CI] 7° to 23°) and 23° (CI 16° to 30°) better than groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 4). Mean abduction for group 3 was 147°, 19° (CI 8° to 30°) higher compared to group 1 and 28° (CI 17° to 38°) better than group 2 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 4). The low mean external rotation achieved by group 3 (41°) was 18° (CI 11° to 26°) higher than group 1 and 7° (CI 1° to 14°) higher than group 2 (p < 0.001) (Fig. 4); this difference was due to a better active external rotation (Fig. 4). Greater proportions of group 2 (78%) and 3 (69%) patients were able to reach the lumbar vertebrae 3 (L3) compared to group 1 (43%) (p = 0.003) (Fig. 5).

Table 3. Comparison of baseline scapula anatomy and 2-year postoperative prosthesis position measurements between defined study groups
Group 1Group 2Group 3StdDiff
nmean (SD)nmean (SD)nmean (SD)1vs.3 / 1vs.2 / 2vs.3
Scapular anatomy
Scapular neck length (mm)4914.8 (11.7)13513.1 (6.4)3313.6 (4.6)0.02 / 0.03 / 0.01
Scapular neck angle (º)4982.4 (13.5)13583.2 (11.8)3385.1 (12.3)0.04 / 0.01 / 0.04
P-value
Prosthesis position
Lateral humeral offset (mm)4933.1 (8.1)13540.9 (4.8)3344.0 (4.5)< 0.001
Distalization shoulder angle (º)4952.2 (10.8)13545.5 (10.5)3352.0 (8.2)< 0.001
Inferior glenosphere overhang (mm)495.9 (12.5)1352.8 (2.2)335.8 (1.9)0.002
Glenosphere inclination angle (º)4998.2 (9.0)135102.3 (7.9)33101.4 (7.6)0.013
Lateralization Shoulder Angle (°)4978.4 (10.4)13587.4 (9.6)3383.9 (7.4)< 0.001

SD standard deviation, StdDiff standardized difference calculated to two decimal places and equal to the absolute difference between group means divided by the common standard deviation, where values closest to 0.10 or below indicate stronger group similarity. The three values show the standardized difference between groups 155 and 135, groups 155 and 145, and groups 145 and 135, respectively

Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Graphics of active and passive ROM at various time points
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Graphics of Outcome scores (CS, SPADI) pain, internal rotation (Apley Scratch test) and abduction strength at various time points

Outcome scores, adjusted for baseline values, showed no significant differences at follow-up (Table 3; e.g. CS: p = 0.466). At 2 years the baseline- and gender-adjusted Constant score was on average 3 points higher (CI -3 to 9) for group 3 (76 points; range 56–96) in comparison with group 2 (68 points; range 26–85) and 7 points (CI 1 to 13) compared to group 1 (68 points; range 40–85 points), an observation however that showed only a statistical trend but no significance (p = 0.088) (Fig. 5). Mean outcomes of SSV and SPADI were also not significantly different between groups (p = 0.325 and p = 0.225) (Fig. 5).

Radiological outcomes

All groups shared similar baseline measurements of SNL and SNA (Table 3). At the 2-year follow-up, there was a statistically significant difference in GSIA (p = 0.013), but mean LHO was significantly lower in group 1 (33 mm) and group 2 showed a lower mean IGO (3 mm) (p < 0.001) (Table 3).

There was significantly less scapular notching (14%) reported for group 3 compared to groups 2 (24%) and 1 (50%) (p = 0.001). Grade 1 notching was reported in 50% group 1 patients, in 14% group 3 patients and in 20% group 2 patients; Grade 2 notching was only found in 4% of group 2 patients. Overall, we did not report any signs of osteolysis, radiolucency, bone resorption, ossification, implant migration/breakage/loosening for any of the study patients. There were 2 acromial fractures (Levy type 2) in group 2 and one (Levy type 2) in group 1, all of which did not need surgical treatment.

Discussion

Our retrospective study shows that the baseline/gender-adjusted CS difference for all groups comprising all-time points was not significant. A lateralized and distalized design (group 3) achieved superior results for flexion and abduction compared to the Grammont design and the lateralized design in a cohort of 226 patients with CTA. Lateralized implants (either with additional distalization or not) showed better rotational movement compared to the medialized and distalized Grammont design. To precise, the baseline/gender-adjusted CS showed a slight difference of 7 points (p = 0.03) between group 3 and group 1 at final 2-years follow-up. The clinical meaning of this fact is questionable as the cut-off number of the MCID (minimal clinically important difference) after RSA treatment for CTA in the literature is 8 points25.

Pre- and postoperative radiographic measurements showed no relevant design-independent differences between the groups regarding scapular neck anatomy and implant positioning (GSIA was statistically significant but small angular differences of 4.1° (group 1 vs. 2) and 3.2° (group 1 vs 3) do not have clinical meaning).

In a similar study focused on Hamada Grade 1 to 3 cuff-deficient shoulders better external rotation and a trend towards better internal rotation with less scapular notching for lateralized (135° NSA and 4 mm lateralized glenosphere) over non-lateralized RSAs (155° NSA and 2 mm eccentric glenosphere) was reported26. The use of curved stem 145° NSA onlay designs introduced another type of RSA configuration; a computational ROM study for different humeral and glenosphere design concepts showed adequate restoration of glenohumeral ROM only for a lateralized NSA (145°) in combination with eccentric, large or lateralized spheres14.

The LHO of group 3 (mean, 44.0 mm) was slightly higher than that of group 2 (mean, 40.9 mm). Based on the NSA (10° less distalization) and bigger glenoidal lateralization (additional 1 mm) in group 135°, this difference is arguably due to the onlay and curved stem design of group 145°. This is supported by the findings of Werthel et al. who found that twice the amount of lateralization can be achieved on the humeral side due to changes in design (i.e., onlay or curved stems)12.

Glenoid lateralization is an accepted approach to decrease scapular notching27–30 and increases impingement-free motion31, 32. In our group 2 the inferior glenosphere overhang was significantly lower than in 3, where an inferiorly eccentric glenodphere was used. This explains a higher value of scapular notching of group 2 in comparison to group 3. However, although eccentricity of the glenosphere was also used in group 1, values of mild scapular notching (grade 1) were significantly higher than in group 2 and 3, where bipolar (glenoidal and humeral) lateralization was performed. Comparing short-term results of a Grammont-style RSA versus the same 145° curved stem used in our study (a subgroup of those additionally treated with a BIO-RSA) showed less scapular notching with humeral lateralization33.

With the center of rotation shifting more laterally with glenoidal lateralization shearing forces in elevation and abduction increase34. Consequently, acromial stress35, 36 and shearing forces onto the glenoid also increase, which could potentially lead to spine stress fractures37 or glenoid loosening in the long term38. We did observe 2 acromial fractures (Levy Typ 2) in group 2 and no acromial or scapular spine stress fractures in group 3. Overall, there was a low incidence of acromial fractures, with similar values reported in the literature39 and there was no difference between the groups.

The position of the greater and lesser tuberosity becomes lateralized with a humeral lateralization design, which improves tensioning of the remaining cuff40 that in turn, improves stability41 as well as the lever arm34, 42, 43 and deltoid wrapping44. Regarding glenoidal lateralization Collin et al. found that patients with a bony increased-offset RSA (BIO-RSA) achieved better functional results without any difference in ROM compared to those with a non-lateralized Grammont arthroplasty45. On the other hand, similar studies with small patient cohorts did not report any significant differences in functional outcomes of ROM, abduction strength, pain, or any other patient-reported scores in short-term follow-up (up to 2 years)30, 46. When humeral lateralization was introduced, higher functional outcome with glenoid lateralization and a BIO-RSA (CS: 70–71 points)40, 47 or metallic baseplate offset (CS: 79 points)48 was achieved.

The same 135° design as that used in our study showed better external rotation and greater abduction strength compared to a 155° design with a tGLO of 18.5 mm at the 1-year follow-up examination49.

A comparative investigation of two matched cohorts with 135° NSA stems and an inlay (tGLO 23.5 mm) versus lateralized onlay (tGLO 29.3 mm) revealed no differences in scapular notching or acromial fractures, but better external rotation and forward flexion for the onlay design after 2 years50. Moreover, a 145° onlay design displayed better external rotation over a 155° inlay implant51.

A short-term retrospective comparison of the extreme lateralizing Arrow prosthesis (tGLO 34.5 mm) versus the Grammont-style Delta III (tGLO 13.1 mm) showed less scapular notching and a trend towards better external rotation for the lateralized implant, yet without an overall superior clinical outcome52.

These studies support our findings that the sum of bipolar lateralization (more rotational movement (humeral lateralization49) and less notching (glenoidal lateralization)30, 52) and distalization ( more flexion50) with inferior glenosphere overhang ( less notching53) provides best ROM despite no clinically significant difference in outcome scores could be found30, 46, 52, 54.

All patients in our study had intact teres minor and there was equal distribution of complete infraspinatus ruptures between the groups. Considering the comparable percentage of subscapularis tears, the medialized design of group 1 limits internal rotation, whereas group 2 representing the most “anatomical” design showed similar results for internal rotation as group 3. In this context it is important to mention that all passive movement parameter assessed (flexion, abduction, external rotation) showed significantly higher values for group 3. A part of presumably better muscle tension, a higher passive impingement-free range of motion is likely to cause a better active movement too. The working groups of Streit and Lädermann reported better flexion for a design with greater distalization14, 55. We too found best values of flexion in group 3 with a significantly higher DSA compared to our other study groups. The combination of humeral lateralization and distalization of group 3 resulted in favorable abduction, whereas group 2 showed worst abduction values. This might be due to cases of subacromial impingement. Moreover, lateralization increases the force required for abduction due to delta wrapping around the lateralized implant. Additionally, less delta muscle is recruited for abduction in a mainly glenoid-side lateralized implant as the one used in group 2.

Every surgeon had his preferred implant design and there was no choice of implant based on patient’s characteristics, pathology or anatomy. Therefor the choice of implant was preset and there was no selection bias a far as the surgeon’s choice of implant is concerned.

The strengths of this study are the homogeneous distribution of the three patient cohorts each with the same implant configuration and diagnosis as well as the strict monitoring and continuous follow-up examination protocol. Moreover, a small number of experienced shoulder surgeons performed the RSAs in specialized shoulder arthroplasty centers. Nonetheless, we need to highlight limitations including the retrospective bicentric, observational study design and short follow-up. The heterogeneity of glenoid configurations and deformities as well as scapular setting and motion must also be considered. We didn’t adjust for patient comorbidities. Radiological measurements were all performed by one experienced investigator and thus, we cannot provide any estimations of inter-rater reliability. Finally, clinical evaluation of range of motion at follow-up postoperatively was assessed by different observers and differences on the clinical judgement of range of motion between observers cannot be excluded.

Conclusion

There was no difference in outcome scores between a medialized and distalized, a lateralized and a lateralized and distalized RSA. The lateralized and distalized RSA implant was associated with better flexion and abduction. Furthermore, glenoid lateralization combined with an NSA lower than that of the original Grammont design was associated with a reduction of scapular notching. There was an association of further reduction of scapular notching with glenosphere eccentricity because of higher inferior glenosphere overhang. A better rotation was associated with both lateralized implant designs. The outlined design advantages should be favored over the Grammont design.

Section 6

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material — available with the version of record.

Supplementary material — available with the version of record.

Supplementary material — available with the version of record.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank M. Wilhelmi PhD, medical writer at the Schulthess Klinik, for the copy-editing of this manuscript.

Declarations

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Authors’ contributions

FF—writing original draft, conceptualization, data acquisition, methodology. PM—reviewing original draft, methodology. LA—analysis, statistics, writing original draft, reviewing original draft. TS—analysis, data curation. YA—data acquisition, methodology. RT—writing original draft. J-PI—writing original draft. MS—supervision, conceptualization, reviewing original draft, methodology.

Funding

No specific financial source of funding.

Support was provided by the Schulthess Clinic.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

The study was performed in accordance with the standards of the Ethics Committee of Zurich (Kantonale Ethikkommission [KEK], Stampfenbachstrasse 121, CH-8090 Zurich, Switzerland; KEK-ZH-Nr. 2014–0483), Institutional Board Committee at Charité Universitaetsmedizin Berlin (Ethikausschuss am Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charitéplatz 1, DE-10117 Berlin, Germany; Antragsnr. EA2/173/18) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

All patients provided written informed consent prior to patient enrolment / data collection and use of their data for research purposes.

Not applicable.

Florian Freislederer is a paid consultant of Stryker Inc.

Philipp Moroder is a paid consultant of and receives royalties from Arthrex Inc.

Markus Scheibel is a paid consultant of and receives royalties from Stryker Inc.

Sources

References

55 references, in the article's own order. Citation numbers in the text are this list's numbers (49 records are cited).

  1. Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, Kobayashi Y. Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 (254):92–6. Epub 1990/05/01.2323152

    Authors not recorded

    · PMID 2323152

  2. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders

    Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Mole D

    2004J Bone Joint Surg Br. 86(3):388–95 · PMID 15125127doi:10.1302/0301-620X.86B3.14024

  3. Grammont's idea: The story of Paul Grammont's functional surgery concept and the development of the reverse principle

    Baulot E, Sirveaux F, Boileau P

    2011Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(9):2425–2431 · PMID 21210311doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1757-y

  4. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy: the clinical effect of deltoid lengthening and center of rotation medialization

    Jobin CM, Brown GD, Bahu MJ, Gardner TR, Bigliani LU, Levine WN, et al.

    2012J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(10):1269–1277 · PMID 22056324doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.049

  5. Impact of scapular notching on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 476 shoulders

    Mollon B, Mahure SA, Roche CP, Zuckerman JD

    2017J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26(7):1253–1261 · PMID 28111179doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.11.043

  6. Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis

    Werner CM, Steinmann PA, Gilbart M, Gerber C

    2005J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(7):1476–1486 · PMID 15995114doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02342

  7. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

    Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P

    2011J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20(1):146–157 · PMID 21134666doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.001

  8. Medialized versus lateralized center of rotation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Berton A, Gulotta LV, Longo UG, De Salvatore S, Piergentili I, Bandini B, et al.

    2021J Clin Med 10(24):5868 · PMID 34945160doi:10.3390/jcm10245868

  9. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency

    Cuff D, Pupello D, Virani N, Levy J, Frankle M

    2008J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(6):1244–1251 · PMID 18519317doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00775

  10. The Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients

    Frankle M, Siegal S, Pupello D, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M

    2005J Bone Joint Surg Am. 87(8):1697–705 · PMID 16085607doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02813

  11. The clinical and radiographic impact of center of rotation lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

    Helmkamp JK, Bullock GS, Amilo NR, Guerrero EM, Ledbetter LS, Sell TC, et al.

    2018J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27(11):2099–2107 · PMID 30340806doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.007

  12. Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice

    Werthel JD, Walch G, Vegehan E, Deransart P, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Valenti P

    2019Int Orthop 43(10):2349–2360 · PMID 31254018doi:10.1007/s00264-019-04365-3

  13. Inlay versus onlay humeral design for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Larose G, Fisher ND, Gambhir N, Alben MG, Zuckerman JD, Virk MS, et al.

    2022J Shoulder Elbow Surg 31(11):2410–2420 · PMID 35671928doi:10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.002

  14. Range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: which combinations of humeral stem and glenosphere work best?

    Lädermann A, Collin P, Denard PJ

    2020Obere Extremität 15(3):172–178doi:10.1007/s11678-020-00599-5

  15. Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice

    Werthel JDWG, Vegehan E, Deransart P, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Valenti P

    2019Int Orthop 43:2349–2360 · PMID 31254018doi:10.1007/s00264-019-04365-3

  16. Comparison of lateralized versus medialized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Cho SH, Lee HJ, Aldhafian OR, Kim YS

    2022Orthop J Sports Med. 10(1):23259671211063922 · PMID 35005051doi:10.1177/23259671211063922

  17. Factors associated with internal rotation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a Narrative review

    Gruber MD, Kirloskar KM, Werner BC, Lädermann A, Denard PJ

    2022JSES Rev Rep Techniq 2(2):117–124 · PMID 37587964doi:10.1016/j.xrrt.2021.12.007

  18. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 1: Systematic review of clinical and functional outcomes

    Samitier G, Alentorn-Geli E, Torrens C, Wright TW

    2015Int J Shoulder Surg. 9(1):24–31 · PMID 25709242doi:10.4103/0973-6042.150226

  19. Constant CR. Age related recovery of shoulder function after injury. Thesis, University College. 1986

    Authors not recorded

  20. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score

    Gilbart MK, Gerber C

    2007J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 16(6):717–21 · PMID 18061114doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123

  21. Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI)

    Breckenridge JD, McAuley JH

    2011J Physiother. 57(3):197 · PMID 21843839doi:10.1016/S1836-9553(11)70045-5

  22. Core set of radiographic parameters for shoulder arthroplasty monitoring: criteria defined by an International Delphi consensus process

    Durchholz H, Salomonsson B, Moroder P, Lambert S, Page R, Audige L, et al.

    2019JB JS Open Access. 4(4):e0025 · PMID 32043057doi:10.2106/JBJS.OA.19.00025

  23. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support

    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG

    2009J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381 · PMID 18929686doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010

  24. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples

    Austin PC

    2009Stat Med 28(25):3083–3107 · PMID 19757444doi:10.1002/sim.3697

  25. The minimal clinically important difference for function and strength in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty

    Torrens C, Guirro P, Santana F

    2016J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(2):262–268 · PMID 26422525doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.07.020

  26. Lateralized vs. classic Grammont-style reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff deficiency Hamada stage 1–3: does the design make a difference?

    Freislederer F, Toft F, Audigé L, Marzel A, Endell D, Scheibel M

    2022J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 31(2):341–51 · PMID 34450279doi:10.1016/j.jse.2021.07.022

  27. Bony increased-offset reversed shoulder arthroplasty: minimizing scapular impingement while maximizing glenoid fixation

    Boileau P, Moineau G, Roussanne Y, O'Shea K

    2011Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(9):2558–2567 · PMID 21286887doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1775-4

  28. Does lateralisation of the centre of rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty avoid scapular notching? Clinical and radiological review of one hundred and forty cases with forty five months of follow-up

    Katz D, Valenti P, Kany J, Elkholti K, Werthel J-D

    2016Int Orthopaed. 40(1):99–108 · PMID 26338343doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2976-3

  29. Do less medialized reverse shoulder prostheses increase motion and reduce notching?

    Valenti P, Sauzieres P, Katz D, Kalouche I, Kilinc AS

    2011Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(9):2550–2557 · PMID 21403989doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1844-8

  30. Does bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty decrease scapular notching?

    Athwal GS, MacDermid JC, Reddy KM, Marsh JP, Faber KJ, Drosdowech D

    2015J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(3):468–473 · PMID 25441556doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.015

  31. Center of rotation affects abduction range of motion of reverse shoulder arthroplasty

    Gutiérrez S, Levy JC, Lee WEI, Keller TS, Maitland ME

    2007Clin Orthopaed Related Res®. 458:78–82 · PMID 17308474doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31803d0f57

  32. What is the best glenoid configuration in onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

    Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Boileau P, Farron A, Deransart P, Walch G

    2018Int Orthopaed. 42(6):1339–46 · PMID 29492611doi:10.1007/s00264-018-3850-x

  33. Grammont humeral design versus onlay curved-stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty: comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes with minimum 2-year follow-up

    Merolla G, Walch G, Ascione F, Paladini P, Fabbri E, Padolino A, et al.

    2018J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27(4):701–710 · PMID 29290604doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.016

  34. Implant design variations in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty influence the required deltoid force and resultant joint load

    Giles JW, Langohr DGG, Johnson JA, Athwal GS

    2015Clin Orthopaed Rel Res®. 473(11):3615–26 · PMID 26310680doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4526-0

  35. Implant positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty has an impact on acromial stresses

    Wong MT, Langohr GDG, Athwal GS, Johnson JA

    2016J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(11):1889–1895 · PMID 27374235doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.04.011

  36. Anatomical reconstruction to treat acromion fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty

    Hess F, Zettl R, Smolen D, Knoth C

    2018Int Orthopaed. 42(4):875–81 · PMID 29222664doi:10.1007/s00264-017-3710-0

  37. The risk of postoperative scapular spine fracture following reverse shoulder arthroplasty is increased with an onlay humeral stem

    Haidamous G, Lädermann A, Frankle MA, Gorman RA, Denard PJ

    2020J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29(12):2556–2563 · PMID 32713666doi:10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.036

  38. Initial glenoid component fixation in “reverse” total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical evaluation

    Harman M, Frankle M, Vasey M, Banks S

    2005J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 14(1, Supplement):S162–S7 · PMID 15726076doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.030

  39. Acromial spine fracture after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

    Patterson DC, Chi D, Parsons BO, Cagle PJ

    2019J Shoulder Elbow Surg 28(4):792–801 · PMID 30497925doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.08.033

  40. Clinical results of bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) associated with an onlay 145 degrees curved stem in patients with cuff tear arthropathy: a comparative study

    Franceschetti E, Ranieri R, Giovanetti de Sanctis E, Palumbo A, Franceschi F

    2020J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 29(1):58–67 · PMID 31401130doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.05.023

  41. The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion

    Langohr GD, Giles JW, Athwal GS, Johnson JA

    2015J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(6):972–979 · PMID 25547853doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.018

  42. Effect of lateral offset center of rotation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study

    Henninger HB, Barg A, Anderson AE, Bachus KN, Burks RT, Tashjian RZ

    2012J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21(9):1128–1135 · PMID 22036546doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.034

  43. The effects of progressive lateralization of the joint center of rotation of reverse total shoulder implants

    Costantini O, Choi DS, Kontaxis A, Gulotta LV

    2015J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(7):1120–1128 · PMID 25601382doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.11.040

  44. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty prosthesis design classification system

    Routman HD, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Hamilton MA, Roche CP

    2013Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2015(73 Suppl 1):S5–14 · PMID 26631189

  45. Standard versus bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative cohort study

    Collin P, Liu X, Denard PJ, Gain S, Nowak A, Ladermann A

    2018J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27(1):59–64 · PMID 28969891doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.07.020

  46. Clinical performance of lateralized versus non-lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study

    Greiner S, Schmidt C, Herrmann S, Pauly S, Perka C

    2015J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24(9):1397–1404 · PMID 26163281doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.041

  47. Bipolar lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for avoidance of scapular notching

    Raiss P, Neumann R

    2020Obere Extremität 15(3):207–212doi:10.1007/s11678-020-00594-w

  48. Metallic humeral and glenoid lateralized implants in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy and primary osteoarthritis

    Imiolczyk JP, Audige L, Harzbecker V, Moroder P, Scheibel M

    2022JSES Int 6(2):221–228 · PMID 35252917doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2021.10.009

  49. Results after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without subscapularis repair: a prospective-randomized trial

    Engel NM, Holschen M, Schorn D, Witt KA, Steinbeck J

    2023Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143(1):255–264 · PMID 34236460doi:10.1007/s00402-021-04024-6

  50. Onlay versus inlay reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes

    Polisetty TS, Baessler AM, Levy JC, Badman BL

    2021Sem Arthroplasty: JSES. 31(2):202–8doi:10.1053/j.sart.2020.11.013

  51. Comparison of clinical performance of inlay versus onlay humerus implants in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

    Lee HJ, Yoon CY, Kim YS

    2023Clin Orthop Surg 15(1):135–144 · PMID 36778983doi:10.4055/cios22084

  52. Reverse shuolder arthroplasty: does reduced medialisation improve radiological and clinical results?

    Kalouche ISN, Wahegaonker A, Sauzieres P, Katz D, Valenti P

    2009Acta Orthop Belg 75(2):158–166 · PMID 19492554

  53. Prosthetic overhang is the most effective way to prevent scapular conflict in a reverse total shoulder prosthesis

    de Wilde LF, Poncet D, Middernacht B, Ekelund A

    2010Acta Orthop 81(6):719–726 · PMID 21110704doi:10.3109/17453674.2010.538354

  54. Lateralized vs. classic Grammont-style reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff deficiency Hamada stage 1–3: does the design make a difference?

    Freislederer F, Toft F, Audige L, Marzel A, Endell D, Scheibel M

    2022J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 31(2):341–51 · PMID 34450279doi:10.1016/j.jse.2021.07.022

  55. Medialized versus lateralized Center of rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

    Streit JJSY, Gobezie R

    2015Orthopedics 38:e1090–e1103 · PMID 26652330doi:10.3928/01477447-20151120-06

Article record

The record

Status

Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Status
Version of record: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2024
Journal version
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (2024) · doi:10.1186/s12891-024-07312-5
Confirmed
2024-03-07
Licence
CC BY 4.0

This reprint has no DOI of its own: cite the journal article.

The journal's version is the version of record. This page re-typesets it under the article's licence; where they differ, the journal's version is authoritative.

Version history

  1. Published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders2024-03-07
  2. Living reprint on Literature Decoded2026-10-01
  3. Reprinted here2026-10-01
  4. This HTML2026-10-01

Cite this article

Citation
Freislederer F, Moroder P, Audigé L, Schneller T, Ameziane Y, Trefzer R, et al. Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy – the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024;25:204. doi:10.1186/s12891-024-07312-5
BibTeX
@article{Freislederer2024Analysis,
  title     = {Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy – the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility},
  author    = {Florian Freislederer and Philipp Moroder and Laurent Audigé and Tim Schneller and Yacine Ameziane and Raphael Trefzer and Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk and Markus Scheibel},
  journal   = {BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders},
  year      = {2024},
  volume    = {25},
  pages     = {204},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12891-024-07312-5},
  pmid      = {38454432},
  publisher = {BMC}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy – the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility
AU  - Florian Freislederer
AU  - Philipp Moroder
AU  - Laurent Audigé
AU  - Tim Schneller
AU  - Yacine Ameziane
AU  - Raphael Trefzer
AU  - Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk
AU  - Markus Scheibel
JO  - BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
PY  - 2024
VL  - 25
SP  - 204
DO  - 10.1186/s12891-024-07312-5
PB  - BMC
SN  - 1471-2474
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07312-5
ER  -

Cite the original article (the version of record), not this reprint.

Take it with you

One self-contained HTML file: the text, data and figures, readable offline.

Disclaimer and limitations

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Licence and attribution

This page reproduces Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy – the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility by Florian Freislederer, Philipp Moroder, Laurent Audigé, Tim Schneller, Yacine Ameziane, Raphael Trefzer, Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk, Markus Scheibel, first published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2024;25:204, doi:10.1186/s12891-024-07312-5, PMID 38454432, PMC10918945. © The Author(s) 2024. It is used under the CC BY 4.0 licence.

Changes made:

The words, data, figures and conclusions are the authors’. Literature Decoded is not the publisher of record and does not claim endorsement by the authors or the journal. The version of record is the journal’s; cite it.

Licence statement in the article: “Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.”

Are you an author of this article? Claim it or ask us to take it down.

Cite this article

Living reprint · journal article