Treating cuff tear arthropathy by reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: do the inclination of the humeral component and the lateral offset of the glenosphere influence the clinical and the radiological outcome?

PurposeReverse total shoulder arthroplasty is widely used for the treatment of cuff tear arthropathy. Standard implants consist of a humeral component with an inclination angle of 155 degrees and a glenosphere without lateral offset. Recently, lower inclination angles of the humeral component as well as lateralized glenospheres are implanted to provide better rotation of the arm and to decrease the rate of scapular notching. This study investigates the clinical and radiological results of a standard reverse total shoulder in comparison with an implant with an inclination angle of 135 degrees in combination with a 4 mm lateralized glenosphere in context of cuff tear arthropathy. Material and methodsFor this retrospective comparative analysis 42 patients treated by reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy were included. Twenty-one patients (m=11, f=10; mean age 76 years; mean follow-up 42 months) were treated with a standard 155 degrees humeral component and a standard glenosphere with caudal eccentricity (group A), while twenty-one patients (m=5, f=16; mean age 72 years; mean follow-up 34 months) were treated with a 135 degrees humeral component and 4 mm lateral offset of the glenosphere (group B). At follow-up patients of both groups were assessed with plain X-rays (a.p. and axial view), Constant Score, adjusted Constant Score, the subjective shoulder value and the range of motion. ResultsThe clinical results were similar in both groups concerning the Constant Score (group A=56.3 vs. group B=56.1; p=0.733), the adjusted CS (group A=70.4% vs. group B=68.3%; p=0.589) and the SSV (group A=72.0% vs. group B=75.2%; p=0.947). The range of motion of the operated shoulders did not differ significantly between group A and group B: Abduction=98 degrees versus 97.9 degrees, p=0.655; external rotation with the arm at side=17.9 degrees versus 18.7 degrees, p=0.703; external rotation with the arm positioned in 90 degrees of abduction=22.3 degrees versus 24.7 degrees, p=0.524; forward flexion=116.1 degrees versus 116.7 degrees, p=0.760. The rate of scapular notching was higher (p=0.013) in group A (overall: 66%, grade 1: 29%, grade 2: 29%, grade 3: 10%, grade 4: 0%) in comparison to group B (overall: 33%, grade 1: 33%, grade 2: 0%, grade 3: 0%, grade 4: 0%). Radiolucency around the humeral component was detected in two patients of group B. Stress shielding at the proximal humerus was observed in six patients of Group A (29%; cortical thinning and osteopenia in zone M1 and L1) and two patients of group B (10%; cortical thinning and osteopenia in zone M1 and L1). Calcifications of the triceps origin were observed in both groups (group A=48% vs. group B=38%). ConclusionTheoretically, a lower inclination angle of the humeral component and an increased lateral offset of the glenosphere lead to improved impingement-free range of motion and a decreased rate of scapular notching, when compared to a standard reverse total shoulder implant. This study compared two different designs of numerous options concerning the humeral component and the glenosphere. In comparison to a standard-fashioned implant with a humeral inclination of 155 degrees and a standard glenosphere, implants with a humeral inclination angle of 135 degrees and a 4 mm lateralized glenosphere lead to comparable clinical results and rotatory function, while the rate of scapular notching is decreased by almost 50%. While the different implant designs did not affect the clinical outcome, our results indicate that a combination of a lower inclination angle of the humeral component and lateralized glenosphere should be favored to reduce scapular notching.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective comparative study