Factors affecting internal rotation following total shoulder arthroplasty

• Published in: JSES reviews, reports, and techniques reports, and techniques, 2022-11, Vol.2 (4), p.431-436
• Main Authors: Lauria, Mychaela, BS, Hastings, Mikaela, DiPaola, Matthew J., MD, Duquin, Thomas R., MD, Ablove, Robert H., MD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Internal rotation; Orthopedics; Postoperative outcomes; Range of motion; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Review and Full-Length; Shoulder motion; Shoulder replacement
• ISSN: 2666-6391; 2666-6391
• DOI: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2022.08.003

BackgroundReverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) was developed in the late twentieth century to provide a stable arthroplasty option for patients with rotator cuff deficiency arthropathy. Since its inception, there have been changes in materials, design, and positioning. One of the persistent clinical issues has been difficulty with internal rotation (IR) and the associated difficulty with behind the back activities. Implant design, positioning, and the available soft tissues may influence IR after RSA. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess factors that impact IR following RSA. MethodsThe literature search, based on PRISMA guidelines, used 4 databases: Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included clinical trials that compared different implantation and design modifications and assessed IR. ResultsOf the 617 articles identified in the initial search, 46 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The articles explored multiple factors of RSA and their effects on IR, including humeral and glenoid components and muscle function and integrity. Among humeral factors affecting rotation, there was a broad consensus that: IR decreases as retroversion increases, humeral neck-shaft angle less than 155° improves IR, lateralized humeral offset does not improve IR, and shallow cups improve IR. Insert thickness was not associated with a reproducible effect. Of the studies evaluating the effect of glenoid components, there was majority agreement that glenosphere lateralization improved IR, and there were mixed results regarding the effects of glenosphere size and tilt. Others included one study in each: glenoid overhang, retroversion, and baseplate. One study found an association between teres minor insufficiency and improved IR, with mixed results in the presence of fatty infiltration in both teres minor and subscapularis. Most studies noted subscapularis repair had no effect on IR. ConclusionProsthetic variables affecting IR are not widely studied. Based on the existing literature, evidence is conflicting. More research needs to be undertaken to gain a greater understanding regarding which factors can be modified to improve IR in RSA patients.