Subscapularis Tendon Repair Improves Functional Internal Rotation after Onlay Design Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Felipe Lacerda ; Alexandre Lädermann; Mahmoud Faisal Adam; Angélique Delarue; Céline Daniel; Philippe Collin

DOI: 10.70885/hmsj.2025.01.002

Abstract

Background: A major challenge of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is to restore postoperative range of motion, especially internal and external rotation. Attempting to address this issue, several modifications to the prosthesis design have been made.Purpose: This study aimed to compare functional internal rotation (fIR) outcomes following RSA with different humeral implant designs.Methods: We conducted a retrospective comparative analysis of data from 384 patients, each with a minimum of two years of follow-up, who underwent RSA with two distinct implant models: an inlay 155° neck-shaft angle and an onlay 145° neck-shaft angle. We assessed the postoperative progress of fIR based on type I IR (with the hand blocked against the buttock), type II IR (involving lumbar sliding), and type III IR (characterized by smooth motion). We categorized type I as non-fIR, while types II and III were considered as fIR. To analyze the influence of subscapularis repair on fRI, both groups were further categorized into two subgroups: those with repaired subscapularis (subgroup R) and those without repaired subscapularis (subgroup NR).Results: No statistically significant difference was observed when comparing postoperative fIR between the two groups. Within the entire cohort, patients in subgroup R exhibited superior fIR outcomes compared to subgroup NR (40% type III vs. 19% type III, respectively; p<0.0001). In the inlay group, no statistically significant difference in fIR was found among subgroups. Conversely, patients in the onlay subgroup R demonstrated better fIR than those in the group NR (42% type III vs. 17% type III, respectively; p<0.0001).Conclusion: There was no significant difference in fIR following RSA based on humeral design. However, in subgroup R, there was an improvement in fIR for group onlay, but no significant impact was observed in the inlay group. These results suggest that subscapularis repair should be attempted in lateralized designs whenever possible. Patients with higher preoperative IR were more likely to experience a decrease in IR after surgery.Keywords: Prosthesis; Onlay; Inlay; Prosthetic design; Range of motion; Complications; PROMs.Level of Evidence: Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.https://doi.org/10.70885/hmsj.2025.01.002

References

  1. Frank JK, Siegert P, Plachel F, Heuberer PR, Huber S, Schanda JE. The evolution of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-from the first steps to novel implant designs and surgical techniques. J Clin Med. 2022;11:1512. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061512
  2. Nabergoj M, Onishi S, Lädermann A, Kalache H, Trebše R, Bothorel H, Collin P. Can Lateralization of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Improve Active External Rotation in Patients with Preoperative Fatty Infiltration of the Infraspinatus and Teres Minor? J Clin Med. 2021 Sep 13;10(18):4130. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184130
  3. Adam MF, Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Lacerda F, Collin P. Preoperative diagnosis and rotator cuff status impact functional internal rotation following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024 Jan 11:S1058-2746(24)00021-1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.11.020.
  4. Collin P., Rol M., Muniandy M., Gain S., Lädermann A., Ode G. Relationship between Postoperative Integrity of Subscapularis Tendon and Functional Outcome in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2021;31:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2021.05.024
  5. Wirth B, Kolling C, Schwyzer HK, et al. Risk of insufficient internal rotation after bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and patient-reported outcome in 57 patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25: 1146–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.11.010
  6. Kim MS, Jeong HY, Kim JD, Ro KH, Rhee S-M, Rhee YG. Difficulty in performing activities of daily living associated with internal rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 29:86-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.05.031
  7. Rojas J, Bitzer A, Joseph J, Srikumaran U, McFarland EG. Toileting ability of patients after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Int 2020;4:174-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2019.10.104
  8. Werthel, J.-D.; Schoch, B.S.; Hooke, A.; Sperling, J.W.; An, K.-N.; Valenti, P.; Elhassan, B. Biomechanical Effectiveness of Tendon Transfers to Restore Active Internal Rotation in Shoulder with Deficient Subscapularis with and without Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2021, 30, 1196–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.026
  9. Kim HM, Nguyen M, Groneck A, Internal Rotation Limitation is Prevalent Following Modern Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty and Negatively Affects Patients' Subjective Rating of the Procedure, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.011
  10. Lädermann A, Denard PJ, Collin P, Zbinden O, Chiu JC, Boileau P, Olivier F, Walch G. Effect of humeral stem and glenosphere designs on range of motion and muscle length in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2020 Mar;44(3):519-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04463-2
  11. Hochreiter B, Hasler A, Hasler J, et al. Factors influencing functional internal rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Int. 2021;5(4):679–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.03.005
  12. Saccomanno MF, Lädermann A, Collin P. Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Infection Provides Comparable Functional Outcomes to Primary Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Clin Med. 2024 Feb 4;13(3):904. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13030904
  13. Goutallier D, Postel JM, Bernageau J, Lavau L, Voisin MC. Fatty muscle degeneration in cuff ruptures. Pre- and postoperative evaluation by CT scan. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jul;(304):78-83.
  14. Denard PJ, Noyes MP, Lädermann A. A Tensionable Method for Subscapularis Repair after Shoulder Arthroplasty. JSES Open Access. 2018 Dec 18;2(4):205-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2018.08.003
  15. Collin P, Matsukawa T, Denard PJ, Gain S, Lädermann A. Pre-operative factors influence the recovery of range of motion following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2017 Oct;41(10):2135-2142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3573-4
  16. Constant, Christopher R., A. H. G. Murley. “A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder.” Clinical orthopaedics and related research 214 (1987): 160-4.
  17. Collin P, Baverel L, Ferrand M, Gain S. Internal rotation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. In: Favard L, Mansat P, eds. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Paris: Elsevier Masson; 2020, p. 153-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-2-294-76591-9.00018-7
  18. Beltrame A, Di Benedetto P, Cicuto C, Cainero V, Chisoni R, Causero A. Onlay versus inlay humeral stem in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA): clinical and biomechanical study. Acta Biomed. 2019;90:54–63. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i12-S.8983
  19. Franceschetti E, Palumbo A, Baldari A, De Angelis D’Ossat GM, Paciotti M, Papapietro N, et al. Clinical results of humeral stem lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: comparative study of 145° onlay curved stem vs 155° inlay straight stem. Semin Arthroplasty 2020;30:181-7. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sart.2020.08.005
  20. Giordano MC, Corona K, Morris BJ, Mocini F, Saturnino L, Cerciello S. Comparative study of 145° onlay curved stem versus 155° inlay straight stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and radiographic results with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Oct;31(10):2089-2095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.02.042
  21. Merolla G, Walch G, Ascione F, Paladini P, Fabbri E, Padolino A, et al. Grammont humeral design versus onlay curved-stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty: comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27:701–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.016
  22. Meshram P, Joseph J, Zhou Y, Srikumaran U, McFarland EG. Lateralized glenosphere reverse shoulder arthroplasty: inlay and onlay designs have similar clinical outcomes in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Apr;31(4):747-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2021.08.016
  23. Erickson B.J., Frank R.M., Harris J.D., Mall N., Romeo A.A. The influence of humeral head inclination in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:988–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.001
  24. Larose G, Fisher ND, Gambhir N, Alben MG, Zuckerman JD, Virk MS, Kwon YW. Inlay versus onlay humeral design for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022 Nov;31(11):2410-2420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.002
  25. Rojas J, Joseph J, Srikumaran U, McFarland EG. How internal rotation is measured in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. JSES Int. 2020;4:182–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2019.10.109
  26. Ladermann A, Denard PJ, Boileau P, Farron A, Deransart P, Terrier A, et al. Effect of humeral stem design on humeral position and range of motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2015;39:2205-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2984-
  27. Chan K, Langohr GD, Mahaffy M, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. Does humeral component lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty affect rotator cuff torque?: evaluation in a cadaver model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(10):2564-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5413-7
  28. Greiner S, Schmidt C, Herrmann S, Pauly S, Perka C. Clinical performance of lateralized versus non-lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(9):1397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.041
  29. Helmkamp JK, Bullock GS, Amilo NR, et al. The clinical and radiographic impact of center of rotation lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27(11): 2099–2107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.007
  30. Huish E.G., Athwal G.S., Neyton L., Walch G. Adjusting implant size and position can improve internal rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in a three-dimensional computational model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479:198–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001526
  31. Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. Neer Award 2005: The Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(5):527–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.003
  32. Clark JC, Ritchie J, Song FS, Kissenberth MJ, Tolan SJ, Hart ND, Hawkins RJ. Complication rates, dislocation, pain, and postoperative range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with and without repair of the subscapularis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.009
  33. Franceschetti E., de Sanctis E.G., Ranieri R., Palumbo A., Paciotti M., Franceschi F. The role of the subscapularis tendon in a lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Repair versus nonrepair. Int. Orthop. 2019;43:2579–2586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4275-2
  34. Friedman RJ, Flurin P-H, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Roche CP. Comparison of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes with and without subscapularis repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26:662–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.027
  35. Oak SR, Kobayashi E, Gagnier J, Denard PJ, Sears BW, Gobezie R, Lederman E, Werner BC, Bedi A, Miller BS. Patient reported outcomes and ranges of motion after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with and without subscapularis repair. JSES Int. 2022 Aug 10;6(6):923-928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2022.07.009
  36. Vourazeris J.D., Wright T.W., Struk A.M., King J.J., Farmer K.W. Primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes in patients with subscapularis repair versus tenotomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26:450–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.017
  37. Wall B, Nové-Josserand L, O’Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A. 2007;89(7):1476–85. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00666
  38. Matthewson G., Kooner S., Kwapisz A., Leiter J., Old J., MacDonald P. The effect of subscapularis repair on dislocation rates in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A meta-analysis and systematic review. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2019;28:989–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.069
  39. de Boer F.A., van Kampen P.M., Huijsmans P.E. The Influence of Subscapularis Tendon Reattachment on Range of Motion in Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Clinical Study. Musculoskelet. Surg. 2016;100:121–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-016-0401-8
  40. Kozak T, Bauer S, Walch G, Al-Karawi S, Blakeney W. An update on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: current indications, new designs, same old problems. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6:189–201. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.200085
  41. Levy O., Narvani A., Hous N., Abraham R., Relwani J., Pradhan R., Bruguera J., Sforza G., Atoun E. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a cementless short metaphyseal humeral implant without a stem: Clinical and radiologic outcomes in prospective 2- to 7-year follow-up study. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2016;25:1362–1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.017
  42. Melis B., DeFranco M., Lädermann A., Molé D., Favard L., Nérot C., Maynou C., Walch G. An Evaluation of the Radiological Changes around the Grammont Reverse Geometry Shoulder Arthroplasty after Eight to 12 Years. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. Vol. 2011;93:1240–1246. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B9.25926

Full text PDF