Mid-term comparative study between the glenoid and humerus lateralization designs for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: which lateralization design is better?

• Published in: BMC musculoskeletal disorders Vol. 24; no. 1; p. 290
• Main Authors: Lee, Hwan-Hee, Park, Sang-Eun, Ji, Jong-Hun, Jun, Hyun-Sik
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central 14-04-2023; BMC
• Subjects: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arthroplasty; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder - methods; Comparative studies; Complication; Glenoid lateralization; Humans; Humeral lateralization; Humerus; Humerus - diagnostic imaging; Humerus - surgery; Joint replacement surgery; Lateralization design reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Musculoskeletal diseases; Neck; Patients; Population studies; Prostheses; Range of Motion, Articular; Retrospective Studies; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Rotator cuff; Shoulder; Shoulder Joint - diagnostic imaging; Shoulder Joint - surgery; Shoulder Prosthesis; Skin & tissue grafts; Treatment Outcome; United States > US; Complication; Humeral lateralization; Lateralization design reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Glenoid lateralization; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
• ISSN: 1471-2474; 1471-2474
• DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06383-0

The complications of the conventional medialized design for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are increased scapular notching, and decreased external rotation and deltoid wrapping. Currently, lateralization design RSA, which avoid scapular notching and improve impingement-free range of motion, is commonly used. Especially, humeral lateralization design was most commonly used and glenoid lateralization design was preferred for glenoid abnormities. We compared mid-term clinical and radiologic outcomes of glenoid and humeral lateralization RSA in an Asian population in this study.
We enrolled 124 shoulders of 122 consecutive patients (mean age 73.8 ± 6.8 years) who received glenoid or humeral lateralization RSA from May, 2012 to March, 2019. We divided these patients into two groups according to RSA using either glenoid or humeral lateralization design. These different designs were introduced consecutively in Korea. The clinical and radiological results of 60 glenoid lateralization RSA (Group I, 60 patients) and 64 humeral lateralization RSA (Group II, 62 patients) were retrospectively evaluated and also were compared between the two groups. All patients were followed for mean 3 years.
The clinical and radiologic outcomes of the two groups did not differ significantly, including scapular notching (p = 0.134). However, humeral lateralization RSA showed a larger glenoid-tuberosity (GT) distance (p = 0.000) and less distalization shoulder angle (DSA) (p = 0.035). The complication rate did not differ significantly either. But, revision surgery was performed for 2 humeral loosening in the Group II.
The clinical and radiologic outcomes of the two groups did not differ significantly, including scapular notching at mid-term follow-up. However, humeral lateralization design showed larger GT distance and less DSA. Humeral lateralization design RSA could preserve the normal shoulder contour due to a larger GT distance (more lateralization) and provide less deltoid tension due to less DSA (less distalization of COR).