Reverse anatomy shoulder replacement: Comparison of two designs

Abstract

The aim of this study was to use a biomechanical model of the shoulder to examine the characteristics of two concepts of reverse anatomy implant; those that preserve the natural glenohumeral centre such as the Bayley—Walker (B—W) replacement and those medializing it such as Delta. A biomechanical model of the shoulder was used to evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of these prostheses. The moment arms of the shoulder muscles were predicted for the implanted models over a wide workspace and were compared to those of natural anatomy. The deltoid muscle moment arms through almost all of the range of motion in the Delta model were greatest. As a result the shoulder joint contact force was decreased for this implant. Furthermore, although the B—W model predicted similar moment arms to natural anatomy, the contact force decreased owing to change in the joint constraints. Finally, it was concluded that the reverse anatomy can compensate for loss of rotator cuff muscles in terms of joint stability, yet the shoulder function depends on the individual's musculature.

Keywords

shoulder reverse anatomy prosthesis Bayley—Walker Delta deltoid moment arm stability joint contact forces

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Jost

Pfirrmann

C. W.

Gerber

Switzerland

‘Clinical outcome after structural failure of rotator cuff repairs.’

J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 82 (3) (2000): 304–314

Sher

J. S.

Uribe

J. W.

Posada

Murphy

B. J.

Zlatkin

M. B.

‘Abnormal findings on magnetic resonance images of asymptomatic shoulders.’

J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 77 (1) (1995): 10–15

Gagey

Hue

‘Mechanics of the deltoid muscle. A new approach.’

Clin. Orthop. Related Res. 375 (2000): 250–257

Raikova

R. T.

Prilutsky

B. I.

‘Sensitivity of predicted muscle forces to parameters of the optimization-based human leg model revealed by analytical and numerical analyses.’

J. Biomechanics 34 (10) (2001): 1243–1255

de Leest

Rozing

P. M.

Rozendaal

L. A.

van der Helm

F. C.

‘Influence of glenohumeral prosthesis geometry and placement on shoulder muscle forces.’

Clin. Orthop. Related Res. 330 (1996): 222–233

Nyffeler

R. W.

Sheikh

Jacob

H. A.

Gerber

‘Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction. An in vitro study.’

J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 86-A (3) (2004): 575–580

Charlton

I. W.

Johnson

G. R.

‘A model for the prediction of the forces at the glenohumeral joint.’

Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine 220 (H8) (2006): 801–812 DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM147.

Kontaxis

Johnson

G. R.

‘The biomechanics of reverse anatomy shoulder replacement—a modelling study.’

Clin. Biomechanics 24 (3) (2009): 254–260

Terrier

Reist

Merlini

Farron

‘Simulated joint and muscle forces in reversed and anatomic shoulder prostheses.’

J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 90 (6) (2008): 751–756

10.

Kessel

Bayley

‘Prosthetic replacement of shoulder joint: Preliminary communication.’

J. R. Soc. Med. 72 (10) (1979): 748–752

11.

Ahir

S. P.

Walker

P. S.

Squire-Taylor

C. J.

Blunn

G. W.

Bayley

J. I.

‘Analysis of glenoid fixation for a reversed anatomy fixed-fulcrum shoulder replacement.’

J. Biomechanics 37 (11) (2004): 1699–1708

12.

Grammont

P. M.

Baulot

‘Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture.’

Orthopedics 16 (1) (1993): 65–68

13.

Delp

S. L.

Loan

J. P.

‘A graphics-based software system to develop and analyze models of musculoskeletal structures.’

Comput. Biol. Med. 25 (1) (1995): 21–34

14.

Barnett

N. D.

Duncan

R. D.

Johnson

G. R.

‘The measurement of three dimensional scapulohumeral kinematics — a study of reliability.’

Clin. Biomechanics 14 (4) (1999): 287–290

15.

Marchese

S. S.

Johnson

G. R.

‘ Measuring the kinematics of the clavicle.’ In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on the 3D Analysis of human movement, Cape Town, South Africa, May 2000, pp. 37–40.

16.

van der Helm

F. C. T.

‘A standardized protocol for the description of shoulder motions.’ In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the International Shoulder Group (Eds Veeger

H. E. T.

van der Helm

F. C. T.

Rozing

P. M.

), 1997, pp. 7–12 (Delft University of Technology, Shaker Publishing B.V.).

17.

Oztuna

Ozturk

Eskandari

M. M.

Kuyurtar

‘Measurement of the humeral head retroversion angle. A new radiographic method.’

Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 122 (7) (2002): 406–409

18.

van der Helm

F. C. T.

‘A finite element musculoskeletal model of the shoulder mechanism.’

J. Biomechanics 27 (5) (1994): 551–569

19.

de Wilde

L. F.

Audenaert

E. A.

Berghs

B. M.

‘Shoulder prostheses treating cuff tear arthropathy: A comparative biomechanical study.’

J. Orthop. Res. 22 (6) (2004): 1222–1230

20.

Nyffeler

R. W.

Werner

C. M.

Simmen

B. R.

Gerber

‘Analysis of a retrieved delta III total shoulder prosthesis.’

J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 86 (8) (2004): 1187–1191

21.

van der Helm

F. C. T.

‘The ‘reversed’ glenohumeral endoprosthesis: The role of the rotator cuff muscles for stability and strength.’

J. Biomechanics 31 (Suppl. 1) (1998): 27

22.

Parsons

B. O.

Gruson

K. I.

Accousti

K. J.

Klug

R. A.

Flatow

E. L.

‘Optimal rotation and screw positioning for initial glenosphere baseplate fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.’

J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 18 (6) (2009): 886–891

23.

Chebli

Huber

Watling

Bertelsen

Bicknell

R. T.

Matsen

III

‘Factors affecting fixation of the glenoid component of a reverse total shoulder prothesis.’

J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 17 (2) (2008): 323–327