BackgroundLittle guidance exists regarding the minimum screw length and screw quantity necessary to achieve fixation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA); to that end, this study quantified the displacement of 2 different sizes of glenoid baseplates using multiple different screw lengths and quantities of screws in a low-density polyurethane bone-substitute model.MethodsTesting of rTSA glenoid loosening was conducted according to ASTM F 2028-17. To independently evaluate the impact of screw quantity and screw length on rTSA glenoid fixation for 2 different sizes of glenoid baseplates, baseplates were constructed using 2 screws, 4 screws, or 6 screws (with the latter being used for the larger baseplate only) with 3 different poly-axial locking compression screw lengths.ResultsBoth sizes of glenoid baseplates remained well fixed after cyclic loading regardless of screw length or screw quantity. Baseplates with 2 screws had significantly greater displacement than baseplates with 4 or 6 screws. No differences were observed between baseplates with 4 screws and those with 6 screws (used for the larger baseplate). Both sizes of baseplates with 18-mm screws had significantly greater displacement than baseplates with 30- or 46-mm screws. For larger baseplates, those with 30-mm screws had significantly greater displacement than those with 46-mm screws in the superior-inferior direction.DiscussionFor the 2 different sizes of baseplates tested in this study, rTSA glenoid fixation was impacted by both screw quantity and screw length. Irrespective of screw quantity, longer screws showed significantly better fixation. Irrespective of screw length, the use of more screws showed significantly better fixation, up to a point, as the use of more than 4 screws showed no incremental benefit. Finally, longer screws can be used as a substitute for additional fixation if it is not feasible to use more screws.
BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare characteristics of patients who reported to be subjectively unimproved vs. improved after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.MethodsData were derived from a prospective registry of patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were asked to rate their subjective satisfaction and then divided into those who were unchanged or worse (unimproved group [UG]) vs. better or much better (improved group [IG]). The groups were compared for differences in demographic characteristics, preoperative factors, functional outcomes, and complications.ResultsThere were 1425 patients in the IG and 134 patients in the UG. Patients in the IG were more likely to have a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Patients in the UG were more likely to have coronary artery disease and diabetes and to have undergone prior surgery. No differences in implant configuration were found between groups. Preoperative measures for patients in the UG were worse for pain and function but not for range of motion. The outcomes in patients in the UG were worse for all postoperative measures, as well as for preoperative-to-postoperative improvement. Of the patients in the UG, 48% continued to have moderate to severe pain postoperatively. The complication rate was significantly higher in the UG.DiscussionUp to 8.5% of patients rate themselves as unimproved after surgery. These patients are more likely to have certain comorbidities and to have undergone prior surgery. Although outcomes were significantly worse for all measures in the UG, improvement occurred in all measures despite patients subjectively being worse or unchanged. Residual pain and difficulty sleeping play a substantial role in subjective assessment of overall outcome.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.