Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug 7:7:24715492231192227.
doi: 10.1177/24715492231192227. eCollection 2023.

Surgical Approach for RSA has Little or no Influence on Scapular Inclination and Glenoid Baseplate Tilt Relative to the Horizontal

Collaborators, Affiliations

Surgical Approach for RSA has Little or no Influence on Scapular Inclination and Glenoid Baseplate Tilt Relative to the Horizontal

Thomas Cuinet et al. J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast. .

Abstract

Purpose: Determine whether reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) glenoid baseplate tilt is influenced by surgical approach and/or associated with functional scores.

Methods: In total, 501 shoulders (483 patients) who underwent RSA, by anterosuperior (AS, n = 88) or deltopectoral (DP, n = 413) approach. Preoperative and immediate postoperative anteroposterior and scapular Y-view radiographs were used to measure: Inclination of the supraspinatus fossa's floor relative to the horizontal (Sigma angle), inclination of the glenoid fossa line (or glenoid baseplate surface) relative to the horizontal (beta-h angle) or to the supraspinatus fossa's floor (beta-s angle).

Results: Sigma and beta-h were significantly greater for shoulders operated by DP approach, both preoperatively (P < .001, P = .002) and postoperatively (P = .004, P < .001), but net change was not significantly different (P = .501, P = .742). Conversely, beta-s was significantly greater for shoulders operated by DP approach, only postoperatively (P = .042), but there were no significant differences in either preoperative angles (P = .580) or net change thereof (P = .528).

Conclusion: Beta-s was slightly but significantly greater for shoulders operated by DP approach, while beta-h and sigma depended primarily on preoperative scapular inclination and glenoid tilt, rather than on surgical approach. At a minimum of 2 years following RSA, neither constant scores nor net improvements thereof were significantly associated with any of the angles.

Level of evidence: IV, case series.

Keywords: angles; baseplate; glenoid; reverse shoulder arthroplasty; rotation; scapula; tilt.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the study cohort.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Sigma angle.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Beta-h angle.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Beta-s angle.

References

    1. Levigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:925–935. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mole D, Wein F, Dezaly C, et al. Surgical technique: The anterosuperior approach for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2461–2468. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1861-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lignel A, Berhouet J, Loirat MA, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: Is the glenoid implant problematic? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104:773–777. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.06.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, et al. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:388–395. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.86b3.14024 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, et al. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20:146–157. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.001 - DOI - PubMed