Effect of the Glenosphere Position and Size on Reverse Shoulder Prostheses Mobility

Details

Serval ID
serval:BIB_A1BB58163F3F
Type
Inproceedings: an article in a conference proceedings.
Publication sub-type
Abstract (Abstract): shot summary in a article that contain essentials elements presented during a scientific conference, lecture or from a poster.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Effect of the Glenosphere Position and Size on Reverse Shoulder Prostheses Mobility
Title of the conference
Annual meeting of the Swiss Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
Author(s)
Terrier A., Ramondetti S., Pioletti D., Farron A.
Address
St. Gallen - Switzerland, 30 June - 2 July 2010
ISBN
1424-7860
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2010
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
140
Series
Swiss Medical Weekly
Pages
18S
Language
english
Notes
Meeting Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: Several methods have already been proposed to improve the mobility of reversed prostheses (lateral or inferior displacement, increase of the glenosphere size). However, the effect of these design changes have only been evaluated on the maximal range of motion and were not related to activities of daily living (ADL). Our aim was thus to measure the effect of these design changes and to relate it to 4 typical ADL.
Methods: CT data were used to reconstruct a accurate geometric model of the scapula and humerus. The Aequalis reversed prosthesis (Tornier) was used. The mobility of a healthy shoulder was compared to the mobility of 4 different reversed designs: 36 and 42 mm glenospheres diameters, inferior (4 mm) and lateral (3.2 mm) glenospheres displacements. The complete mobility map of the prosthesis was compared to kinematics measurement on healthy subjects for 4 ADL: 1) hand to contra lateral shoulder, 2) hand to mouth, 3) combing hair, 4) hand to back pocket. The results are presented as percentage of the allowed movement of the prosthestic shouder relative to the healthy shoulder, considered as the control group.
Results: None of the tested designs allowed to recover a full mobility. The differences of allowed range of motion among each prosthetic designs appeared mainly in two of the 4 movements: hand to back pocket and hand to contra lateral shoulder. For the hand to back pocket, the 36 had the lowest mobility range, particularly for the last third of the movement. The 42 appeared to be a good compromise for all ADL activities.
Conclusion: Reverse shoulder prostheses does not allow to recover a full range of motion compared to healthy shoulders, even for ADL. The present study allowed to obtain a complete 3D mobility map for several glenosphere positions and sizes, and to relate it to typical ADL. We mainly observed an improved mobility with inferior displacement and increased glenosphere size. We would suggest to use larger glenosphere, whenever it is possible.
Web of science
Create date
14/10/2010 11:41
Last modification date
20/08/2019 15:07
Usage data