Joint motion calculated using multi-body models and inverse kinematics presents many advantages over direct marker-based calculations. However, the sensitivity of the computed kinematics is known to be partly caused by the model and could also be influenced by the participants’ anthropometry and sex. This study aimed to compare kinematics computed from an anatomical shoulder model based on medical images against a scaled-generic model and quantify the effects of anatomical errors and participants’ anthropometry on the calculated joint angles. Twelve participants have had planar shoulder movements experimentally captured in a motion lab, and their shoulder anatomy imaged using an MRI scanner. A shoulder multi-body dynamics model was developed for each participant, using both an image-based approach and a scaled-generic approach. Inverse kinematics have been performed using the two different modelling procedures and the three different experimental motions. Results have been compared using Bland–Altman analysis of agreement and further analysed using multi-linear regressions. Kinematics computed via an anatomical and a scaled-generic shoulder models differed in average from 3.2 to 5.4 degrees depending on the task. The MRI-based model presented smaller limits of agreement to direct kinematics than the scaled-generic model. Finally, the regression model predictors, including anatomical errors, sex, and BMI of the participant, explained from 41 to 80% of the kinematic variability between model types with respect to the task. This study highlighted the consequences of modelling precision, quantified the effects of anatomical errors on the shoulder kinematics, and showed that participants' anthropometry and sex could indirectly affect kinematic outcomes.

No abstract

Revision shoulder arthroplasty is increasing with the number of primary shoulder replacements rising globally. Complex primary and revisions of shoulder arthroplasties pose specific challenges for the surgeon, which must be addressed preoperatively and intraoperatively. This article aimed to present strategies for the management of revision of shoulder arthroplasties through a single-stage approach. Preoperatively, patient factors, such as age, comorbidities, and bone quality, should be considered. The use of planning software can aid in accurately evaluating implants in situ and predict bony anatomy that will remain after explantation during the revision surgery. The planning from such software can then be executed with the help of mixed reality technology to allow accurate implant placement. Single-stage revision is performed in two steps (debridement as first step, implantation and reconstruction as the second step), guided by the following principles: adequate debridement while preserving key soft tissue attachments (i.e., rotator cuff, pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi, deltoid), restoration of glenoid joint line using bone grafting, restoration of humeral length, reconstruction and/or reattachment of soft tissues, and strict compliance with the postoperative antibiotic regimen. Preliminary results of single-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty show improvement in patient outcomes (mean 1 year), successful treatment of infection for those diagnosed with periprosthetic joint infection, and improved cost–benefit parameters for the healthcare system.

No abstract