Humeral Stem Designs in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Focus on the Adjustability of Inclination, Torsion, and Version

Abdelkader Shekhbihi; Philipp Moroder

DOI: 10.70885/hmsj.2025.04.001

Abstract

Background: While the inclination of the humeral component in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has been extensively studied, less attention has been given to the parameters of version and torsion. These parameters, which influence outcomes in rTSA, warrant closer examination. This study aims to analyze the designs of humeral stems in rTSA, focusing on their ability to independently adjust inclination (coronal plane), torsion (axial plane), and version (sagittal plane). We hypothesize that while most designs allow for inclination and torsion adjustments, independent version adjustment is rare and may offer unique biomechanical implications.Purpose: To systematically review currently available rTSA humeral stem designs and assess their capacity for independent adjustment of inclination, torsion, and version based on manufacturer specifications and design features.Methods: A comprehensive review of commercially available rTSA humeral stem designs was conducted. Humeral stems from various manufacturers were analyzed for their capacity to allow independent adjustment of inclination, torsion, and version. The analysis relied on technical specifications and data provided by manufacturers, supplemented by a critical review of design features.Results: The review showed that while a few stem designs offer inclination adjustment up to 12.5° via angled liners, there is one implant allowing inclination adjustment within the same stem design, through a modular metaphyseal cup, permitting adjustment from 135° to 155°. Torsion was found to be freely adjustable across all designs, independent of the specific stem configuration. While all systems provide a fixed stem version of 0°, one system offered adjustability of humeral version (0° and 20°) through a modular metaphyseal component.Conclusions: While torsion can be freely adjusted independent of stem design, the ability to modify inclination is limited to certain systems, mostly relying on angled liners for this purpose. Independent adjustability in the sagittal plane (version) remains rare, with only one system offering this feature through a modular metaphysis. The potential clinical implications of adjustable humeral version in rTSA are yet to be investigated.What this study adds: This review provides the first comprehensive comparison of rTSA humeral stem designs regarding the independent adjustability of key biomechanical parameters—inclination, torsion, and version. It identifies critical limitations in current implant designs and emphasizes the potential relevance of humeral version adjustment, a largely overlooked variable.Potential impacts on research, practice, or policy: This review may raise awareness of the variability in humeral stem design with respect to adjustability of inclination, torsion, and version, and highlights areas that warrant further biomechanical and clinical investigation. While the clinical benefit of independent version adjustability remains uncertain, the findings may stimulate future research into whether such modular features influence outcomes following rTSA.Study design: Manufacturer-Based ReviewLevel of Evidence: Level VKeywords: Inclination; Torsion; Version; Humeral stem; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty.https://doi.org/10.70885/hmsj.2025.04.001

References

  1. Ferle M, Pastor MF, Hagenah J, Hurschler C, Smith T. Effect of the humeral neck-shaft angle and glenosphere lateralization on stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 May;28(5):966–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.025
  2. Oh JH, Shin SJ, McGarry MH, Scott JH, Heckmann N, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of humeral neck-shaft angle and subscapularis integrity in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Aug;23(8):1091–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.003
  3. Berliner JL, Regalado-Magdos A, Ma CB, Feeley BT. Biomechanics of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(1):150–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.003
  4. Boutsiadis A, Lenoir H, Denard PJ, Panisset JC, Brossard P, Delsol P, Guichard F, Barth J. The lateralization and distalization shoulder angles are important determinants of clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jul;27(7):1226–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.02.036
  5. Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:146–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.001
  6. Lévigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, Garaud P, Molé D, Sirveaux F, Walch G. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):925-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010
  7. Moroder P, Urvoy M, Raiss P, Werthel JD, Akgün D, Chaoui J, Siegert P. Patient Posture Affects Simulated ROM in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Modeling Study Using Preoperative Planning Software. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022;480(3):619-631. DOI:10.1097/CORR.0000000000002003
  8. Moroder P, Akgün D, Plachel F, Baur ADJ, Siegert P. The influence of posture and scapulothoracic orientation on the choice of humeral component retrotorsion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Oct;29(10):1992–2001. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.089
  9. Oh JH, Sharma N, Rhee SM, Park JH. Do individualized humeral retroversion and subscapularis repair affect the clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Apr;29(4):821–9. DOI:10.1016/j.jse.2019.08.016
  10. Kate BR. Anteversion versus torsion of the femoral neck. Cells Tissues Organs. 1976;94(3):457–63. DOI: 10.1159/000144576
  11. Werthel JD, Walch G, Vegehan E, Deransart P, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Valenti P. Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice. Int Orthop. 2019 Oct 28;43(10):2349–60. doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04365-3
  12. Gobezie R, Shishani Y, Lederman E, Denard PJ. Can a functional difference be detected in reverse arthroplasty with 135° versus 155° prosthesis for the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathy: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 May;28(5):813–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.064
  13. Merolla G, Walch G, Ascione F, Paladini P, Fabbri E, Padolino A, Porcellini G. 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 Apr;27(4):701–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.016
  14. Bryce CD, Davison AC, Okita N, Lewis GS, Sharkey NA, Armstrong AD. A biomechanical study of posterior glenoid bone loss and humeral head translation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Oct;19(7):994–1002. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.04.010
  15. Moeckel BH, Altchek DW, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL, Dines DM. Instability of the shoulder after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 1993 Apr;75(4):492–7. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199375040-00010
  16. Ovesen J, Nielsen S. Prosthesis position in shoulder arthroplasty: A cadaver study of the humeral component. Acta Orthop Scand. 1985 Jan 8;56(4):330–1. DOI: 10.3109/17453678508993027
  17. Jomaa MN, Branni M, Ingoe H, Pareyon R, Italia K, Launay M, Salhi A, Gilliand L, Nielsen J, Maharaj J, Cutbush K, Gupta A. Does forearm referencing using a retroversion guide achieve the targeted retroversion of the humeral component in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024 Jul;33(7):1555–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.10.038
  18. Goetti P, Denard PJ, Collin P, Ibrahim M, Mazzolari A, Lädermann A. Biomechanics of anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev. 2021 Oct;6(10):918–31. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210014
  19. Wiater JM, Lee JYJ, Shields EJW, Childers K, Dery L, Koueiter D. Humeral Component Version Has No Effect on Outcomes Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2024 Jul 3;106(13):1181–8. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.23.00893
  20. Berhouet J, Garaud P, Favard L. Influence of glenoid component design and humeral component retroversion on internal and external rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A cadaver study. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2013 Dec;99(8):887–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.08.008
  21. Kontaxis A, Chen X, Berhouet J, Choi D, Wright T, Dines DM, Warren RF, Gulotta L V. Humeral version in reverse shoulder arthroplasty affects impingement in activities of daily living. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Jun;26(6):1073–82. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.11.052
  22. Grammont PM, Baulot E. DELTA SHOULDER PROSTHESIS FOR ROTATOR CUFF RUPTURE. Orthopedics. 1993 Jan;16(1):65–8. DOI: 10.3928/0147-7447-19930101-11
  23. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1):147-161. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006
  24. Karelse ATJA, Bhatia DN, De Wilde LF. Prosthetic component relationship of the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis in the transverse plane of the body. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008 Jul;17(4):602–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.005
  25. Stephenson DR, Oh JH, McGarry MH, Rick Hatch GF, Lee TQ. Effect of humeral component version on impingement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jun;20(4):652–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.020
  26. Schroeder DD, Borsgard A, Rossman TL, Stewart CM. Modification of Humeral Component Results in Increased Impingement Free Range of Motion in a Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Model. J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast. 2024 Jan 15;8. DOI: 10.1177/24715492241237034
  27. Permeswaran VN, Caceres A, Goetz JE, Anderson DD, Hettrich CM. The effect of glenoid component version and humeral polyethylene liner rotation on subluxation and impingement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(10). DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.03.027
  28. Chalmers PN, Rahman Z, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Early dislocation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 May;23(5):737–44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.015
  29. Teusink MJ, Pappou IP, Schwartz DG, Cottrell BJ, Frankle MA. Results of closed management of acute dislocation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Apr;24(4):621–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.07.015
  30. Moroder P, Siegert P, Coifman I, Rüttershoff K, Spagna G, Scaini A, Weber B, Schneller T, Scheibel M, Audigé L. Scapulothoracic orientation has a significant influence on the clinical outcome after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024 Mar; 33(10):2159‑2170 DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.02.018

Full text PDF