Influence of humeral liner constraint in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty on simulated range of motion in patients with various posture types – a modeling study

Sebastian Lappen; Patric Raiss; Patrick J Denard; Justin William Griffin; Anup Shah ; Sergii Poltaretskyi; Nick Metcalfe; Eva Herbst; Philipp Moroder

Abstract

Background: The degree of constraint of the humeral liner is a key determinant of the stability of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). However, it remains largely unknown to what extent the degree of constraint affects range of motion (ROM).Purpose: To analyze the influence of various liner types on simulated ROM following virtual rTSA implantation in patients with different posture types.Methods: The CT scans of 48 consecutive patients scheduled for rTSA implantation were utilized to create patient-specific 3D bone models. For all cases, six shoulder surgeons independently virtually implanted a rTSA (lateralized 135° semi-inlay design) according to their respective preferences using an experimental surgical planning software. ROM was determined simulating posture type A (upright posture), B (intermediate), and C (kyphotic posture) utilizing a standard, constrained, and high mobility liner, resulting in a total of 2592 different rTSA configurations. Subgroup analyses were performed to determine the influence of the degree of constraint on simulated ROM across the three posture types.Results: Total ROM decreased with increasing liner constraint from a median of 611° [interquartile range 522° to 666°] with high mobility liners to 512° [IQR 441-570°] with standard liners to 411° [IQR 322-470°] with constrained liners (p < 0.01). For all posture types, the use of a high mobility liner led to a significant increase in ROM in all planes except abduction, except for flexion in posture type A. Constrained liners significantly decreased ROM in all planes except abduction in posture type A. For posture type A, the greatest increase in ROM due to more mobile liners was observed in extension (+17°; p <0.01) and internal rotation (+17°; p <0.01), while the greatest decrease (due to more constrained liners) was also seen in extension (-34°; p <0.01). In posture type B, the greatest increase in ROM occurred in adduction (+19°; p <0.01), whereas the greatest decrease was in high internal rotation (-28°; p <0.01). Similarly, for posture type C, the greatest increase in ROM was observed in adduction (+30°; p <0.01), while the greatest decrease was in high internal rotation (-21°; p <0.01).Conclusion: While in posture types B and C, high mobility liners improved particularly adduction and constrained liners decreased high internal rotation, in posture type A extension and internal rotation could be improved most prominently while extension was most prominently decreased by a constrained liner.What this study adds: This study shows that humeral liner constraint significantly impacts ROM in rTSA and that the effect varies by patient posture type. High mobility liners improve ROM, especially in extension and internal rotation, while constrained liners limit it.How this study might affect research, practice or policy: These findings support posture-specific implant selection and encourage the use of virtual planning tools to optimize functional outcomes in rTSA.Study Design: Computer-based modeling study (Simulation study)Level of evidence: Level VKeywords: Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty; Humeral Liners; Prosthetic Joint Stability; Posture Types; Range of Motionhttps://doi.org/10.70885/hmsj.2025.08.004

References

  1. Gerber C, Pennington SD, Nyffeler RW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(5):284-95. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200905000-00003
  2. 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(6) 1559. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11061512
  3. Goodloe JB, Denard PJ, Lederman E, Gobezie R, Werner BC. No difference in range of motion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using standard or constrained liners: a matched cohort study. JSES Int. 2022;6(6):929-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.07.004
  4. Nakazawa K, Manaka T, Minoda Y, Hirakawa Y, Ito Y, Iio R, Nakamura H. Impact of constrained humeral liner on impingement-free range of motion and impingement type in reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a computer simulation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024;33(1):181-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.06.038
  5. Carpenter S, Pinkas D, Newton MD, Kurdziel MD, Baker KC, Wiater JM. Wear rates of retentive versus nonretentive reverse total shoulder arthroplasty liners in an in vitro wear simulation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(9):1372-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.016
  6. Moroder P, Siegert P, Coifman I, Ruttershoff K, Spagna G, Scaini A, et al. Scapulothoracic orientation has a significant influence on the clinical outcome after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.02.018
  7. Moroder P, Akgun 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;29(10):1992-2001. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.01.089
  8. Moroder P, Urvoy M, Raiss P, Werthel JD, Akgun 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):619-31. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002003
  9. Siegert P, Meraner D, Pokorny-Olsen A, Akgun D, Korn G, Albrecht C, et al. Practical considerations for determination of scapular internal rotation and its relevance in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty planning. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):279. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-03762-0
  10. Vlachopoulos L, Luthi M, Carrillo F, Gerber C, Szekely G, Furnstahl P. Restoration of the Patient-Specific Anatomy of the Proximal and Distal Parts of the Humerus: Statistical Shape Modeling Versus Contralateral Registration Method. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(8):e50. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.17.00829
  11. Moroder P, Herbst E, Pawelke J, Lappen S, Schulz E. Large variability in degree of constraint of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty liners between different implant systems. Bone & Joint Open. 2024;5(10):818-824. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2024-0204.R1
  12. Aibinder W, Schoch B, Parsons M, Watling J, Ko JK, Gobbato B, et al. Risk factors for complications and revision surgery after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(11):e689-e701. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.04.029
  13. Clouthier AL, Hetzler MA, Fedorak G, Bryant JT, Deluzio KJ, Bicknell RT. Factors affecting the stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):439-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2012.05.032
  14. Abdulla I, Langohr DG, Giles JW, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. The effect of humeral polyethylene insert constraint on reverse shoulder arthroplasty biomechanics. Shoulder Elbow. 2018;10(1):25-31. DOI: 10.1177/1758573217701065
  15. Hochreiter B, Wyss S, Gerber C. Extension of the shoulder is essential for functional internal rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022;31(6):1166-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.11.006
  16. Lädermann A, Gueorguiev B, Charbonnier C, Stimec BV, Fasel JHD, Zderic I, et al. Scapular Notching on Kinematic Simulated Range of Motion After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is Not the Result of Impingement in Adduction. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(38):e1615. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001615

Full text PDF