Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, glenoid bone loss and an intact rotator cuff: an algorithmic approach and review of the literature.
Andrew B Harris, Filippo Familiari, Raffaella Russo, Piotr Lukasiewicz, Edward G McFarland
{"title":"Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, glenoid bone loss and an intact rotator cuff: an algorithmic approach and review of the literature.","authors":"Andrew B Harris, Filippo Familiari, Raffaella Russo, Piotr Lukasiewicz, Edward G McFarland","doi":"10.21037/aoj-22-53","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In patients with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) and preserved rotator cuff function who have failed nonoperative treatment, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has historically been the preferred surgical treatment. Shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss setting is technically demanding. Many techniques have been described to deal with glenoid bone loss including eccentric reaming, bone grafting, augmented glenoid baseplates, and patient-specific implants. Still, the decision to perform anatomic TSA or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is often unclear, especially as the use of RTSA increases and evolves, making historical studies less useful when considering modern implant designs. RTSA has been advocated as a solution for patients with severe glenoid bone loss with intact rotator cuff function. Moreover, in appropriately selected patients, good outcomes can be achieved without the use of bone grafting or augmented baseplates. In cases of severe glenoid bone loss, RTSA can be performed with reaming the glenoid flat such that the baseplate rests on native glenoid bone. We have previously reported excellent prosthetic survival with this technique at 5-year follow-up. The purpose of this article is to highlight our suggested treatment algorithm for glenohumeral OA with glenoid bone loss and intact rotator cuff. Specifically, we focus on situations where RTSA may be preferred as opposed to anatomic TSA, and our suggested approach to managing bone loss intraoperatively in this complex patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":44459,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Joint","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10929383/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Joint","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/aoj-22-53","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In patients with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) and preserved rotator cuff function who have failed nonoperative treatment, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has historically been the preferred surgical treatment. Shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss setting is technically demanding. Many techniques have been described to deal with glenoid bone loss including eccentric reaming, bone grafting, augmented glenoid baseplates, and patient-specific implants. Still, the decision to perform anatomic TSA or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is often unclear, especially as the use of RTSA increases and evolves, making historical studies less useful when considering modern implant designs. RTSA has been advocated as a solution for patients with severe glenoid bone loss with intact rotator cuff function. Moreover, in appropriately selected patients, good outcomes can be achieved without the use of bone grafting or augmented baseplates. In cases of severe glenoid bone loss, RTSA can be performed with reaming the glenoid flat such that the baseplate rests on native glenoid bone. We have previously reported excellent prosthetic survival with this technique at 5-year follow-up. The purpose of this article is to highlight our suggested treatment algorithm for glenohumeral OA with glenoid bone loss and intact rotator cuff. Specifically, we focus on situations where RTSA may be preferred as opposed to anatomic TSA, and our suggested approach to managing bone loss intraoperatively in this complex patient population.
对于患有严重盂肱骨关节炎(OA)并保留肩袖功能的非手术治疗失败患者,解剖全肩关节置换术(TSA)历来是首选的手术治疗方法。在盂骨缺失的情况下进行肩关节置换术对技术要求很高。针对盂骨缺失的治疗技术有很多,包括偏心扩孔、骨移植、盂基底增强板和患者特异性植入物。然而,解剖性TSA还是反向全肩关节置换术(RTSA)的决定往往并不明确,尤其是随着RTSA使用的增加和发展,使得历史研究在考虑现代植入物设计时变得不那么有用。对于肩关节盂骨严重缺损且肩袖功能完好的患者,RTSA一直被认为是一种解决方案。此外,对于经过适当选择的患者,不使用植骨或增强基板也能取得良好的疗效。在盂骨严重缺失的病例中,RTSA可以在盂骨平坦处进行扩孔,使基板位于原生盂骨上。我们曾报道过采用这种技术的假体在5年的随访中存活率极高。本文旨在强调我们针对盂骨缺失和肩袖完好的盂肱骨 OA 所建议的治疗算法。具体而言,我们将重点介绍在哪些情况下,RTSA可能比解剖性TSA更可取,以及我们建议的在这种复杂患者群体中术中处理骨质流失的方法。