Original Research

Radiographic Study of Humeral Stem in Shoulder Arthroplasty After Lesser Tuberosity Osteotomy or Subscapularis Tenotomy

Publish date: May 23, 2018

References

1. Blasier R, Soslowsky L, Malicky D, Palmer M. Posterior glenohumeral subluxation: Active and passive stabilization in a biomechanical model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79-A(3):433-440.

2. Buckley T, Miller R, Nicandri G, Lewis R, Voloshin I. Analysis of subscapularis integrity and function after lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis tenotomy in total shoulder arthroplasty using ultrasound and validated clinical outcome measures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(9):1309-1317. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.12.009.

3. Gerber C, Costouros JG, Sukthankar A, Fucentese SF. Static posterior humeral head subluxation and total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4):505-510. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.003.

4. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Wright TW, O'Driscoll SW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Radiographic assessment of uncemented humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(2):180-187.

5. Litchfield RB, McKee MD, Balyk R, et al. Cemented versus uncemented fixation of humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthrtitis of the shoulder: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial-A JOINTs Canada Project. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;20(4):529-536. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.01.041.

6. Lo IK, Griffin S, Kirkley A. The development of a disease specific quality of life measurement tool for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9(8):771-778. doi:10.1053/joca.2001.0474

7. Lo IK, Litchfield RB, Griffin S, Faber K, Patterson SD, Kirkley A. Quality of life outcome following hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(10):2178-2185. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02198

8. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med. 1996;29(6):602-608. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L.

9. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Sojbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the constant score: Modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(2):355-361. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022.

10. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164.

11. Mayerhoefer ME, Breitenseher MJ, Wurnig C, Roposch A. Shoulder impingement: Relationship of clinical symptoms and imaging criteria. Clin J Sport Med. 2009;19(2):83-89. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e318198e2e3.

12. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasy. 1999;14(6):756-760.

13. Saupe N, Pfirmann CW, Schmid MR, et al. Association between rotator cuff abnormalities and reduced acromiohumeral distance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):376-382. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0435.

14. Jackson J, Cil A, Smith J, Steinmann SP. Integrity and function of the subscapularis after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1085-1090. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.04.001.

15. Miller SL, Hazrati Y, Klepps S, Chiang A, Flatow EL. Loss of subscapularis function after total shoulder replacement: a seldom recognized problem. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(1):29-34. doi:10.1067/mse.2003.128195.

16. Gerber C, Yian EH, Pfirrmann AW, Zumstein MA, Werner CM. Subscapularis muscle function and structure after total shoulder replacement with lesser tuberosity osteotomy and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1739-1745. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02788.

17. Qureshi S, Hsiao A, Klug RA, Lee E, Braman J, Flatow EL. Subscapularis function after total shoulder replacement: results with lesser tuberosity osteotomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(1): 68-72. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.04.018.

18. Scalise JJ, Ciccone J, Iannotti JP. Clinical, radiographic and ultrasonographic comparison of subscapularis tenotomy and lesser tuberosity osteotomy for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(7):1627-1634. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.01461.

19. Ponce BA, Ahluwalia RS, Mazzocca AD, Gobezie RG, Warner JJ, Millett PJ. Biomechanical and clinical evaluation of a novel lesser tuberosity in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87 Suppl 2:1-8.

20. Giuseffi SA, Wongtriratanachai P, Omae H, et al. Biomechanical comparison of lesser tuberosity osteotomy versus subscapularis tenotomy in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(8):1087-1095. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.008.

21. Caplan JL, Whitfield W, Nevasier RJ. Subscapularis function after primary tendon to tendon repair in patients after replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(2):193-196. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.019.

22. Lapner PLC, Sabri E, Rakhra K, Bell K, Athwal GS. Comparison of LTO to subscapularis peel in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(24):2239-2246. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01365.

Posterior subluxation is indicated by a value >65%, a centered head is between 35% and 65%, and anterior subluxation is indicated by a value <35% (Figure 4).³

The subluxation index was calculated using the method outlined by Gerber and colleagues³ using the axillary view radiograph (Figure 4). The midpoint of the glenoid was identified. Then, a perpendicular line (line z) was drawn projecting from the midpoint of the glenoid through the humeral head. Two lines were then drawn in an anterior-to-posterior direction on the humeral head. The first line (measurement A) was drawn from the posterior cortex to the previous perpendicular line (line z). The second line (measurement B) was drawn from the posterior to the anterior cortex. Measurements A and B should be calculated at the same height on the humeral head, roughly at the anatomic neck. The subluxation index is then calculated as A/B × 100. This was calculated both preoperatively and postoperatively.

The humeral stems were evaluated for loosening by assessing for lucency on final radiographic follow-up films. These were evaluated in a zonal fashion as demonstrated by Sanchez-Sotelo and colleagues⁴ and in Figure 5.

The humeral stem-bone interface was evaluated in 8 radiographic zones. A lucency was not considered significant unless >2 mm. The zone of lucency was then determined for any significant lucencies. Zones 1 and 7 were at the level of the neck component, zones 2 and 6 were at the proximal half of the stem component, and zones 3 and 5 were at the distal half of the stem component. Zone 8 was noted directly inferior to the humeral head prosthesis.⁴

FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME EVALUATION

Before clinical evaluation, each study patient completed the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index; the Disabilities of the Hand, Arm and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire, and the pain and function sections of the Constant score. The functional outcomes scores were captured postoperatively from October to November 2011. The WOOS is a validated outcome measure specific to osteoarthritis of the shoulder and has been used in prior studies evaluating outcomes of TSA.^5-7 Previous studies have determined that the minimal clinically important difference for the WOOS score is 15 on a normalized 0 to 100 scale (100 being the best). The DASH score is a validated outcome measure for disorders of the upper extremity but is not specific to osteoarthritis of the shoulder.⁸ The Constant score is a validated outcome measure for a number of shoulder disorders, including TSA.^9,10

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical analyses were completed by a trained biostatistician. A power analysis was calculated using the noninferiority test to determine if adequate data had been obtained for this study. This was calculated by using previously accepted data demonstrating a statistically significant difference for subsidence and HAD. The data from these studies were used to make assumptions regarding accepted standard deviations and noninferiority margins, as calculated from the mean values of the 2 groups analyzed in each respective study.^4,11 This analysis demonstrated power of 0.97 and 0.85 for the subsidence and HAD, respectively, given the current sample sizes. Intraclass coefficients were calculated to evaluate the measurements obtained during the radiographic analysis to determine the interrater agreement. Two samples’ t tests were calculated for the variables analyzed, along with P values and means.

RESULTS

DEMOGRAPHICS

A total of 51 consecutive patients were retrospectively selected for analysis. Of these, 16 patients were excluded from the study because they had <9 months of radiographic follow-up and were unavailable for further follow-up evaluation. Of the remaining 35 patients available for analysis, 4 patients had bilateral TSA, providing 39 shoulders for evaluation. Demographic characteristics of the study cohort are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics
	Tenotomy (n = 24)	Osteotomy (n = 15)	P-value
Age	68.2 [7.4]	70.2 [7.1]	0.46
Follow-up	20.6 [11.5]	18.5 [6.25]	0.94
Females	7 (29%)	6 (40%)	0.58
Dominant shoulder	14 (58%)	8 (53%)	0.81
Primary Diagnosis
Osteoarthritis	22 (92%)	15 (100%)
Rheumatoid arthritis	2 (8%)	0 (0%)

Fifteen patients underwent LTO, and 24 underwent ST. One patient underwent a tenotomy of the right shoulder and LTO of the left shoulder. Three LTOs were performed by the surgeon who primarily performed ST, owing to potential benefits of LTO. He eventually returned to his preferred technique of ST because of surgeon preference. Three ST procedures were completed by the surgeon who typically performed LTO at the start of the series prior to establishing LTO as his preferred technique. There was no significant difference between the study populations in terms of age, follow-up, male-to-female ratio, hand dominance, and primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis vs rheumatoid arthritis.

Continue to: There was no significant difference...

References

1. Blasier R, Soslowsky L, Malicky D, Palmer M. Posterior glenohumeral subluxation: Active and passive stabilization in a biomechanical model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79-A(3):433-440.

4. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Wright TW, O'Driscoll SW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Radiographic assessment of uncemented humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(2):180-187.

10. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164.

12. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasy. 1999;14(6):756-760.

13. Saupe N, Pfirmann CW, Schmid MR, et al. Association between rotator cuff abnormalities and reduced acromiohumeral distance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(2):376-382. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0435.

22. Lapner PLC, Sabri E, Rakhra K, Bell K, Athwal GS. Comparison of LTO to subscapularis peel in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(24):2239-2246. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01365.

Radiographic Study of Humeral Stem in Shoulder Arthroplasty After Lesser Tuberosity Osteotomy or Subscapularis Tenotomy

References

FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME EVALUATION

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

RESULTS

DEMOGRAPHICS

Pages

Recommended Reading