The effect of glenoid bone loss on reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate fixation

Background Glenoid bone loss is commonly observed during primary and revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Glenoid baseplates are often implanted with incomplete glenoid bone support. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the glenoid component fixation of the glenoid baseplate with variable am...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2015-11, Vol.24 (11), p.e312-e319
Hauptverfasser: Formaini, Nathan T., DO, Everding, Nathan G., MD, Levy, Jonathan C., MD, Santoni, Brandon G., PhD, Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD, Wilson, Cooper, MD, Cabezas, Andres F., ME
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e319
container_issue 11
container_start_page e312
container_title Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery
container_volume 24
creator Formaini, Nathan T., DO
Everding, Nathan G., MD
Levy, Jonathan C., MD
Santoni, Brandon G., PhD
Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD
Wilson, Cooper, MD
Cabezas, Andres F., ME
description Background Glenoid bone loss is commonly observed during primary and revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Glenoid baseplates are often implanted with incomplete glenoid bone support. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the glenoid component fixation of the glenoid baseplate with variable amounts of incomplete coverage. Methods Twenty-eight polyurethane trabecular bone surrogates were instrumented with the same center screw–type glenoid baseplate with 4 peripheral 5.0-mm locking screws in a glenoid bone loss model consisting of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% coverage. Each construct was tested through a 55° arc of motion with both compressive and shear forces across the glenosphere. Baseplate micromotion was recorded throughout 10,000 cycles for each model. Results There was no significant difference in baseline micromotion between the 4 experimental groups ( P  = .099). In the 25% baseplate coverage group, 3 of 7 exhibited micromotion above the 150-μm threshold (624.5, 469.1, and 712.1 μm) during cyclic loading. After 10,000 cycles of loading, the 25% coverage group exhibited significantly more micromotion than the 50% ( P  = .049), 75% ( P  = .026), and 100% ( P  = .040) coverage groups. There was no significant difference between the 100%, 75%, and 50% coverage groups ( P  = 1.00). Conclusions Glenoid baseplate fixation in the setting of glenoid bone loss is no different when 50%, 75%, or 100% of the baseplate is supported by glenoid bone. Bone loss resulting in only 25% coverage results in significantly greater micromotion, often above the 150-μm threshold.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.045
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1725023495</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1058274615002906</els_id><sourcerecordid>1725023495</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-c2c53b8eaa9c8a58d72581dffd2ae98646699056ae27ffad57022a38342864113</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFrFTEUhQdRbK3-ADeSpZt53mSSTAZBkGKrUOiidR3ykhtfxrzJM5kpvn9vhldduChcyIWcc-B-p2neUthQoPLDuBkLbhhQsYE6XDxrzqnoWCsFwPO6g1At67k8a16VMgLAwIG9bM6YpJJzxc6bu_sdEvQe7UySJz8iTik4sk0TkphKIWkiGR8wFyRll5boMBOT511Oh2jKfCRbU7CuMxIffps5pOl188KbWPDN43vRfL_6cn_5tb25vf52-fmmtbxXc2uZFd1WoTGDVUYo1zOhqPPeMYODklzKYQAhDbLee-NED4yZTnWc1U9Ku4vm_Sn3kNOvBcus96FYjNFMmJaiaQ0E1vFBVCk9SW2uR2X0-pDD3uSjpqBXlnrUlaVeWWqow1fPu8f4ZbtH98_xF14VfDwJsB75EDDrYgNOFl3Ilad2KTwZ_-k_t41hCtbEn3jEMqYlT5WeprowDfpuLXPtktZu2QCy-wNWpJlf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1725023495</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of glenoid bone loss on reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate fixation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Formaini, Nathan T., DO ; Everding, Nathan G., MD ; Levy, Jonathan C., MD ; Santoni, Brandon G., PhD ; Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD ; Wilson, Cooper, MD ; Cabezas, Andres F., ME</creator><creatorcontrib>Formaini, Nathan T., DO ; Everding, Nathan G., MD ; Levy, Jonathan C., MD ; Santoni, Brandon G., PhD ; Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD ; Wilson, Cooper, MD ; Cabezas, Andres F., ME</creatorcontrib><description>Background Glenoid bone loss is commonly observed during primary and revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Glenoid baseplates are often implanted with incomplete glenoid bone support. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the glenoid component fixation of the glenoid baseplate with variable amounts of incomplete coverage. Methods Twenty-eight polyurethane trabecular bone surrogates were instrumented with the same center screw–type glenoid baseplate with 4 peripheral 5.0-mm locking screws in a glenoid bone loss model consisting of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% coverage. Each construct was tested through a 55° arc of motion with both compressive and shear forces across the glenosphere. Baseplate micromotion was recorded throughout 10,000 cycles for each model. Results There was no significant difference in baseline micromotion between the 4 experimental groups ( P  = .099). In the 25% baseplate coverage group, 3 of 7 exhibited micromotion above the 150-μm threshold (624.5, 469.1, and 712.1 μm) during cyclic loading. After 10,000 cycles of loading, the 25% coverage group exhibited significantly more micromotion than the 50% ( P  = .049), 75% ( P  = .026), and 100% ( P  = .040) coverage groups. There was no significant difference between the 100%, 75%, and 50% coverage groups ( P  = 1.00). Conclusions Glenoid baseplate fixation in the setting of glenoid bone loss is no different when 50%, 75%, or 100% of the baseplate is supported by glenoid bone. Bone loss resulting in only 25% coverage results in significantly greater micromotion, often above the 150-μm threshold.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-2746</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-6500</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.045</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26164482</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement - methods ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone Resorption ; glenoid baseplate ; glenoid bone loss ; glenosphere ; Humans ; Joint Prosthesis ; Models, Biological ; Orthopedics ; Prosthesis Fitting ; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty ; Shoulder Joint - surgery</subject><ispartof>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2015-11, Vol.24 (11), p.e312-e319</ispartof><rights>Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees</rights><rights>2015 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-c2c53b8eaa9c8a58d72581dffd2ae98646699056ae27ffad57022a38342864113</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-c2c53b8eaa9c8a58d72581dffd2ae98646699056ae27ffad57022a38342864113</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1058274615002906$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26164482$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Formaini, Nathan T., DO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Everding, Nathan G., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy, Jonathan C., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santoni, Brandon G., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Cooper, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cabezas, Andres F., ME</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of glenoid bone loss on reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate fixation</title><title>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</title><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><description>Background Glenoid bone loss is commonly observed during primary and revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Glenoid baseplates are often implanted with incomplete glenoid bone support. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the glenoid component fixation of the glenoid baseplate with variable amounts of incomplete coverage. Methods Twenty-eight polyurethane trabecular bone surrogates were instrumented with the same center screw–type glenoid baseplate with 4 peripheral 5.0-mm locking screws in a glenoid bone loss model consisting of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% coverage. Each construct was tested through a 55° arc of motion with both compressive and shear forces across the glenosphere. Baseplate micromotion was recorded throughout 10,000 cycles for each model. Results There was no significant difference in baseline micromotion between the 4 experimental groups ( P  = .099). In the 25% baseplate coverage group, 3 of 7 exhibited micromotion above the 150-μm threshold (624.5, 469.1, and 712.1 μm) during cyclic loading. After 10,000 cycles of loading, the 25% coverage group exhibited significantly more micromotion than the 50% ( P  = .049), 75% ( P  = .026), and 100% ( P  = .040) coverage groups. There was no significant difference between the 100%, 75%, and 50% coverage groups ( P  = 1.00). Conclusions Glenoid baseplate fixation in the setting of glenoid bone loss is no different when 50%, 75%, or 100% of the baseplate is supported by glenoid bone. Bone loss resulting in only 25% coverage results in significantly greater micromotion, often above the 150-μm threshold.</description><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement - methods</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Bone Resorption</subject><subject>glenoid baseplate</subject><subject>glenoid bone loss</subject><subject>glenosphere</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Joint Prosthesis</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Prosthesis Fitting</subject><subject>Reverse shoulder arthroplasty</subject><subject>Shoulder Joint - surgery</subject><issn>1058-2746</issn><issn>1532-6500</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFrFTEUhQdRbK3-ADeSpZt53mSSTAZBkGKrUOiidR3ykhtfxrzJM5kpvn9vhldduChcyIWcc-B-p2neUthQoPLDuBkLbhhQsYE6XDxrzqnoWCsFwPO6g1At67k8a16VMgLAwIG9bM6YpJJzxc6bu_sdEvQe7UySJz8iTik4sk0TkphKIWkiGR8wFyRll5boMBOT511Oh2jKfCRbU7CuMxIffps5pOl188KbWPDN43vRfL_6cn_5tb25vf52-fmmtbxXc2uZFd1WoTGDVUYo1zOhqPPeMYODklzKYQAhDbLee-NED4yZTnWc1U9Ku4vm_Sn3kNOvBcus96FYjNFMmJaiaQ0E1vFBVCk9SW2uR2X0-pDD3uSjpqBXlnrUlaVeWWqow1fPu8f4ZbtH98_xF14VfDwJsB75EDDrYgNOFl3Ilad2KTwZ_-k_t41hCtbEn3jEMqYlT5WeprowDfpuLXPtktZu2QCy-wNWpJlf</recordid><startdate>20151101</startdate><enddate>20151101</enddate><creator>Formaini, Nathan T., DO</creator><creator>Everding, Nathan G., MD</creator><creator>Levy, Jonathan C., MD</creator><creator>Santoni, Brandon G., PhD</creator><creator>Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD</creator><creator>Wilson, Cooper, MD</creator><creator>Cabezas, Andres F., ME</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151101</creationdate><title>The effect of glenoid bone loss on reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate fixation</title><author>Formaini, Nathan T., DO ; Everding, Nathan G., MD ; Levy, Jonathan C., MD ; Santoni, Brandon G., PhD ; Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD ; Wilson, Cooper, MD ; Cabezas, Andres F., ME</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-c2c53b8eaa9c8a58d72581dffd2ae98646699056ae27ffad57022a38342864113</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement - methods</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Bone Resorption</topic><topic>glenoid baseplate</topic><topic>glenoid bone loss</topic><topic>glenosphere</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Joint Prosthesis</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Prosthesis Fitting</topic><topic>Reverse shoulder arthroplasty</topic><topic>Shoulder Joint - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Formaini, Nathan T., DO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Everding, Nathan G., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Levy, Jonathan C., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Santoni, Brandon G., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Cooper, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cabezas, Andres F., ME</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Formaini, Nathan T., DO</au><au>Everding, Nathan G., MD</au><au>Levy, Jonathan C., MD</au><au>Santoni, Brandon G., PhD</au><au>Nayak, Aniruddh N., PhD</au><au>Wilson, Cooper, MD</au><au>Cabezas, Andres F., ME</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of glenoid bone loss on reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate fixation</atitle><jtitle>Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Shoulder Elbow Surg</addtitle><date>2015-11-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e312</spage><epage>e319</epage><pages>e312-e319</pages><issn>1058-2746</issn><eissn>1532-6500</eissn><abstract>Background Glenoid bone loss is commonly observed during primary and revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Glenoid baseplates are often implanted with incomplete glenoid bone support. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the glenoid component fixation of the glenoid baseplate with variable amounts of incomplete coverage. Methods Twenty-eight polyurethane trabecular bone surrogates were instrumented with the same center screw–type glenoid baseplate with 4 peripheral 5.0-mm locking screws in a glenoid bone loss model consisting of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% coverage. Each construct was tested through a 55° arc of motion with both compressive and shear forces across the glenosphere. Baseplate micromotion was recorded throughout 10,000 cycles for each model. Results There was no significant difference in baseline micromotion between the 4 experimental groups ( P  = .099). In the 25% baseplate coverage group, 3 of 7 exhibited micromotion above the 150-μm threshold (624.5, 469.1, and 712.1 μm) during cyclic loading. After 10,000 cycles of loading, the 25% coverage group exhibited significantly more micromotion than the 50% ( P  = .049), 75% ( P  = .026), and 100% ( P  = .040) coverage groups. There was no significant difference between the 100%, 75%, and 50% coverage groups ( P  = 1.00). Conclusions Glenoid baseplate fixation in the setting of glenoid bone loss is no different when 50%, 75%, or 100% of the baseplate is supported by glenoid bone. Bone loss resulting in only 25% coverage results in significantly greater micromotion, often above the 150-μm threshold.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26164482</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.045</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-2746
ispartof Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2015-11, Vol.24 (11), p.e312-e319
issn 1058-2746
1532-6500
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1725023495
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Arthroplasty, Replacement - methods
Biomechanical Phenomena
Bone Resorption
glenoid baseplate
glenoid bone loss
glenosphere
Humans
Joint Prosthesis
Models, Biological
Orthopedics
Prosthesis Fitting
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty
Shoulder Joint - surgery
title The effect of glenoid bone loss on reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate fixation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T20%3A57%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20glenoid%20bone%20loss%20on%20reverse%20shoulder%20arthroplasty%20baseplate%20fixation&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20shoulder%20and%20elbow%20surgery&rft.au=Formaini,%20Nathan%20T.,%20DO&rft.date=2015-11-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e312&rft.epage=e319&rft.pages=e312-e319&rft.issn=1058-2746&rft.eissn=1532-6500&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.045&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1725023495%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1725023495&rft_id=info:pmid/26164482&rft_els_id=S1058274615002906&rfr_iscdi=true