Correction of acquired glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis with a standard versus an augmented glenoid component

Sabesan, Vani J.; Callanan, Mark; Sharma, Vinay; Iannotti, Joseph P.

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.019

Cited by 93 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2,10 Osseous landmarks were used to define the coronal scapular plane and the 0 version plane, as previously described. 6,7,11,14,16 A plane was also created to define the 3D version of the neoglenoid ( Fig. 2), termed the neo-version plane, by a method similar to the intermediate plane, 1 and the version plane.…”

Section: Glenoid Models and Virtual Implantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2), termed the neo-version plane, by a method similar to the intermediate plane, 1 and the version plane. 14,16 The neo-version plane was defined by 3 points; one point was placed on the inferior aspect of the ridge of bone separating the neoglenoid from the paleoglenoid, a second point was placed on the superior aspect of the ridge of bone separating the neoglenoid from the paleoglenoid, and a third was placed at the most medial point of the posterior rim of the eroded glenoid (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Glenoid Models and Virtual Implantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Augmented glenoid component designs for type B2 erosions: a computational comparison by volume of bone removal and quality of remaining bone

Knowles

Ferreira

Athwal

2015

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Glenoid Models and Virtual Implantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Glenoid Models and Virtual Implantationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Augmented glenoid component designs for type B2 erosions: a computational comparison by volume of bone removal and quality of remaining bone

Knowles

Ferreira

Athwal

2015

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An anatomic study [35] showed that these augmented glenoid components may decrease the amount of glenoid vault medialization necessary and more accurately correct glenoid retroversion. Clinical series using augmented glenoid components often are limited by sample size and followup duration, [31,35], with results of persistent glenohumeral instability and increased risk of failure [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Posterior Glenoid Wear in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Eccentric Anterior Reaming Is Superior to Posterior Augment

Wang

Abrams

Behn

et al. 2015

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Uncorrected glenoid retroversion during total shoulder arthroplasty may lead to an increased likelihood of glenoid prosthetic loosening. Augmented glenoid components seek to correct retroversion to address posterior glenoid bone loss, but few biomechanical studies have evaluated their performance. Questions/purposes We compared the use of augmented glenoid components with eccentric reaming with standard glenoid components in a posterior glenoid wear model. The primary outcome for biomechanical stability in this model was assessed by (1) implant edge displacement in superior and inferior edge loading at intervals up to 100,000 cycles, with secondary outcomes including (2) implant edge load during superior and inferior translation at intervals up to 100,000 cycles, and (3) incidence of glenoid fracture during implant preparation and after cyclic loading. Methods A 12°-posterior glenoid defect was created in 12 composite scapulae, and the specimens were divided in two equal groups. In the posterior augment group, glenoid version was corrected to 8°and an 8°-augmented polyethylene glenoid component was placed. In the eccentric reaming group, anterior glenoid reaming was performed to neutral version and a standard polyethylene glenoid component was placed. Specimens were cyclically loaded in the superoinferior direction to 100,000 cycles. Superior and inferior glenoid edge displacements were recorded. Results Surviving specimens in the posterior augment group showed greater displacement than the eccentric reaming group of superior (1.01 ± 0.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.13] versus 0. 83 ± 0.10 [95% CI,

show abstract

“…However, observations from our study and other previous studies suggest that removal of the cortical bone due to reaming could cause increased glenoid loosening. 33,38,42 Therefore, we believe that a balance may exist between creating a stable joint and ensuring durable implant fixation. The current surgical practice of correcting for retroversion may be adjusted to correct slightly for retroversion to maintain stability and to decrease the possibility of stress shielding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of osteoarthritis on load transfer after cemented total shoulder arthroplasty

Patel

Gulotta

Wright

et al. 2015

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Correction of acquired glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis with a standard versus an augmented glenoid component

Cited by 93 publications

References 32 publications

Augmented glenoid component designs for type B2 erosions: a computational comparison by volume of bone removal and quality of remaining bone

Augmented glenoid component designs for type B2 erosions: a computational comparison by volume of bone removal and quality of remaining bone

Posterior Glenoid Wear in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Eccentric Anterior Reaming Is Superior to Posterior Augment

Effects of osteoarthritis on load transfer after cemented total shoulder arthroplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About