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
Multicenter Study
. 2024 Aug 7;106(15):1384-1394.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.23.01203. Epub 2024 Jun 5.

Implant-Positioning and Patient Factors Associated with Acromial and Scapular Spine Fractures After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Study by the ASES Complications of RSA Multicenter Research Group

Collaborators, Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Implant-Positioning and Patient Factors Associated with Acromial and Scapular Spine Fractures After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Study by the ASES Complications of RSA Multicenter Research Group

Michael A Moverman et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. .

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to identify implant positioning parameters and patient factors contributing to acromial stress fractures (ASFs) and scapular spine stress fractures (SSFs) following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

Methods: In a multicenter retrospective study, the cases of patients who underwent RSA from June 2013 to May 2019 and had a minimum 3-month follow-up were reviewed. The study involved 24 surgeons, from 15 U.S. institutions, who were members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES). Study parameters were defined through the Delphi method, requiring 75% agreement among surgeons for consensus. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors linked to ASFs and SSFs. Radiographic data, including the lateralization shoulder angle (LSA), distalization shoulder angle (DSA), and lateral humeral offset (LHO), were collected in a 2:1 control-to-fracture ratio and analyzed to evaluate their association with ASFs/SSFs.

Results: Among 6,320 patients, the overall stress fracture rate was 3.8% (180 ASFs [2.8%] and 59 SSFs [0.9%]). ASF risk factors included inflammatory arthritis (odds ratio [OR] = 2.29, p < 0.001), a massive rotator cuff tear (OR = 2.05, p = 0.010), osteoporosis (OR = 2.00, p < 0.001), prior shoulder surgery (OR = 1.82, p < 0.001), cuff tear arthropathy (OR = 1.76, p = 0.002), female sex (OR = 1.74, p = 0.003), older age (OR = 1.02, p = 0.018), and greater total glenoid lateral offset (OR = 1.06, p = 0.025). Revision surgery (versus primary surgery) was associated with a reduced ASF risk (OR = 0.38, p = 0.019). SSF risk factors included female sex (OR = 2.45, p = 0.009), rotator cuff disease (OR = 2.36, p = 0.003), osteoporosis (OR = 2.18, p = 0.009), and inflammatory arthritis (OR = 2.04, p = 0.024). Radiographic analysis of propensity score-matched patients showed that a greater increase in the LSA (ΔLSA) from preoperatively to postoperatively (OR = 1.42, p = 0.005) and a greater postoperative LSA (OR = 1.76, p = 0.009) increased stress fracture risk, while increased LHO (OR = 0.74, p = 0.031) reduced it. Distalization (ΔDSA and postoperative DSA) showed no significant association with stress fracture prevalence.

Conclusions: Patient factors associated with poor bone density and rotator cuff deficiency appear to be the strongest predictors of ASFs and SSFs after RSA. Final implant positioning, to a lesser degree, may also affect ASF and SSF prevalence in at-risk patients, as increased humeral lateralization was found to be associated with lower fracture rates whereas excessive glenoid-sided and global lateralization were associated with higher fracture rates.

Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: No external funding was received for this work. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/I54).

References

    1. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;14(1)(Suppl S):147S-61S.
    1. Klug A, Herrmann E, Fischer S, Hoffmann R, Gramlich Y. Projections of Primary and Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty until 2040: Facing a Massive Rise in Fracture-Related Procedures. J Clin Med. 2021 Oct 31;10(21):5123.
    1. Kirsch JM, Puzzitiello RN, Swanson D, Le K, Hart PA, Churchill R, Elhassan B, Warner JJP, Jawa A. Outcomes After Anatomic and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022 Aug 3;104(15):1362-9.
    1. Mahendraraj KA, Abboud J, Armstrong A, Austin L, Brolin T, Entezari V, Friedman L, Garrigues GE, Grawe E, Gulotta L, Gutman M, Hart PA, Hobgood R, Horneff JG, Iannotti J, Khazzam M, King J, Kloby MA, Knack M, Levy J, Murthi A, Namdari S, Okeke L, Otto R, Parsell DE, Polisetty T, Ponnuru P, Ricchetti E, Tashjian R, Throckmorton T, Townsend C, Wright M, Wright T, Zimmer Z, Menendez ME, Jawa A; ASES Complications of RSA Research Group. Predictors of acromial and scapular stress fracture after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a study by the ASES Complications of RSA Multicenter Research Group. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Oct;30(10):2296-305.
    1. Hamilton MA, Diep P, Roche C, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Routman H. Effect of reverse shoulder design philosophy on muscle moment arms. J Orthop Res. 2015 Apr;33(4):605-13.

Publication types