Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Designs of Glenospheres in the SMR Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis: Micromotion of the Baseplate and Risk of Loosening
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2010
Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Designs of Glenospheres in the SMR Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis: Micromotion of the Baseplate and Risk of Loosening
Early outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty have been encouraging. Scapular notching remains a major concern. In an attempt to reduce this problem, newer glenospheres are available. This biomechanical study performed in vitro, assessed the micromotions of baseplate in different designs of glenospheres and the relative risk of loosening.
Methods
A dynamic shear force was applied to each type of glenosphere in various angles of abduction. The micromotion of the glenoid baseplate after 1000 cycles of dynamic loading was measured and compared.
Results
Eccentric glenospheres were shown to have increased micromotion compared to the concentric designs of the same size. The greatest baseplate micromotion (26.83 μm) was well within the accepted limit for osseous in growth into uncemented prosthesis.
Discussion
We therefore conclude that the magnitude of the increased micromotion is small and is not expected to adversely affect osseous in growth onto the glenoid baseplate.
BoileauP, WatkinsonDJ, HatzidakisAM, HovorkaI. Neer Award 2005: The Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2006; 15: 527–40.
2.
FrankleM, LevyJC, PupelloD,. The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88(Suppl 1): 178–90.
3.
GueryJ, FavardL, SirveauxF,. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship analysis of eighty replacements followed for five to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88: 1742–7.
4.
AhirSP, WalkerPS, Squire-TaylorCJ, BlunnGW, BayleyJI. Analysis of glenoid fixation for a reversed anatomy fixed-fulcrum shoulder replacement. J Biomech2004; 37: 1699–708.
5.
NeytonL, BoileauP, Nove-JosserandL, EdwardsTB, WalchG. Glenoid bone grafting with a reverse design prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2007; 16(Suppl):S71–S78.
6.
CuffD, PupelloD, ViraniN, LevyJ, FrankleM. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90: 1244–51.
7.
JastyM, BragdonC, BurkeD,. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am1997; 79: 707–14.
8.
PilliarRM, LeeJM, ManiatopoulosC. Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res1986; 208: 108–13.
9.
McFarlandEG, SanguanjitP, TasakiA,. The reverse shoulder prosthesis: a review of imaging features and complications. Skeletal Radiol2006; 35: 488–96.
10.
NyffelerRW, WernerCML, GerberC. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2005; 14: 524–8.
11.
GutierrezS, LevyJC, LeeWEIII, KellerTS, MaitlandME. Center of rotation affects abduction range of motion of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2007; 458: 78–82.
12.
ViraniNA, HarmanM, LiK,. In vitro and finite element analysis of glenoid bone/baseplate interaction in the reverse shoulder design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2008; 17: 509–21.
13.
ChebliC, HuberP, WatlingJ,. Factors affecting fixation of the glenoid component of a reverse total shoulder prothesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2008; 17: 323–7.
14.
ChouJ, MalakSF, AndersonIA, AstleyT, PoonPC. Biomechanical evaluation of different designs of glenospheres in the SMR reverse total shoulder prosthesis: range of motion and risk of scapular notching. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 354–9.
15.
ASTM F1839–97.Standard specification for rigid polyurethane foam for use as a standard material for testing orthopaedic devices and materials.West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.
16.
GutierrezS, ComiskeyCAT, LuoZP, PupelloDR, FrankleMA. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90: 2606–15.
17.
GutierrezS, LevyJC, FrankleMA,. Evaluation of abduction range of motion and avoidance of inferior scapular impingement in a reverse shoulder model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2008; 17: 608–15.
18.
RocheC, FlurinPH, WrightT,. An evaluation of the relationships between reverse shoulder design parameters and range of motion, impingement, and stability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 734–41.
19.
HarmanM, FrankleM, VaseyM, BanksS. Initial glenoid component fixation in ‘reverse’ total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2005; 14: 162S–7S.
20.
AnglinC, TolhurstP, WyssUP, PichoraDR. Glenoid cancellous bone strength and modulus. J Biomech1999; 32: 1091–7.
21.
ASTM F2028-00.Standard test methods for the dynamic evaluation of glenoid loosening or disassociation.West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.
22.
ASTM F1829-98.Standard test method for static evaluation of the glenoid locking mechanism.West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 2001.
23.
SeebauerL, WalterW, KeylW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of defect arthropathy. Oper Orthop Traumatol2005; 17: 1–24.
24.
WallB, Nove-JosserandL, O'ConnorDP, EdwardsTB, WalchG. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 1476–85.
25.
HumphreyCS, KellyJDII, NorrisTR. Optimizing glenosphere position and fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, part two: the three-column concept. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2008; 17: 595–601.
26.
GutierrezS, GreiweRM, FrankleMA, SiegalS, LeeWE. Biomechanical comparison of component position and hardware failure in the reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2007; 16: 9S–12S.
27.
SimovitchRW, ZumsteinMA, LohriE, HelmyN, GerberC. Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the Delta III reverse total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 588–600.
28.
De WildeLF, AudenaertEA, BerghsBM. Shoulder prostheses treating cuff tear arthropathy: a comparative biomechanical study. J Orthop Res2004; 22(6): 1222–30.
29.
WernerCM, SteinmannPA, GilbartM, GerberC. Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87: 1476–86.
JastyM, BragdonCR, ZalenskiE,. Enhanced stability of uncemented canine femoral components by bone ingrowth into the porous coatings. J Arthroplasty1997; 12: 106–13.
32.
AnglinC, WyssUP, PichoraDR. Mechanical testing of shoulder prostheses and recommendations for glenoid design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2000; 9: 323–31.
33.
YoungSW, EvertsNM, BallCM, AstleyTM, PoonPC. The SMR reverse shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of cuff-deficient shoulder conditions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2009; 18: 622–6.
