The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2008;90:885-896.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.01263
© 2008 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exams for this article:
 Shoulder/Elbow Test 24: Summer 2008 (publication date August 15, 2008; expi...
CME 2: April, May, June 2008 (publication date July 3, 2008; expiration dat...
Right arrow [FREE Spanish Translation]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Matsen, F. A.
Right arrow Articles by Richardson, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Matsen, F. A., III
Right arrow Articles by Richardson, M. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Current Concepts Review

Glenoid Component Failure in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Frederick A. Matsen, III, MD1, Jeremiah Clinton, MD1, Joseph Lynch, MD1, Alexander Bertelsen, PA1 and Michael L. Richardson, MD1

1 Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 N.E. Pacific Street, Box 356500, Seattle, WA 98195-6500. E-mail address for F.A. Matsen III: matsen{at}u.washington.edu

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. A commercial entity (DePuy, Endowed Chair for Shoulder Research) paid or directed in any one year, or agreed to pay or direct, benefits in excess of $10,000 to a research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which one or more of the authors, or a member of his or her immediate family, is affiliated or associated.

A video supplement to this article will be available from the Video Journal of Orthopaedics. A video clip will be available at the JBJS web site, www.jbjs.org. The Video Journal of Orthopaedics can be contacted at (805) 962-3410, web site: www.vjortho.com.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Modes of Failure
 Possible Strategies for...
 Overview
 References
 
Glenoid component failure is the most common complication of total shoulder arthroplasty.

Glenoid components fail as a result of their inability to replicate essential properties of the normal glenoid articular surface to achieve durable fixation to the underlying bone, to withstand repeated eccentric loads and glenohumeral translation, and to resist wear and deformation.

The possibility of glenoid component failure should be considered whenever a total shoulder arthroplasty has an unsatisfactory result. High-quality radiographs made in the plane of the scapula and in the axillary projection are usually sufficient to evaluate the status of the glenoid component.

Failures of prosthetic glenoid arthroplasty can be understood in terms of failure of the component itself, failure of seating, failure of fixation, failure of the glenoid bone, and failure to effectively manage eccentric loading.

An understanding of these modes of failure leads to strategies to minimize complications related to prosthetic glenoid arthroplasty.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Modes of Failure
 Possible Strategies for...
 Overview
 References
 
Failure of the polyethylene glenoid component is the most common complication of total shoulder arthroplasty and accounts for a majority of the unsatisfactory results after this procedure1-9. Failure of the glenoid component is often manifested clinically by pain, loss of function, and the presence of a clunking noise and sensation10,11. While many factors have been described as possible contributors to glenoid component failure, a systematic understanding of these factors is lacking. As a result, the incidence of glenoid component failure remains high. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the current peer-reviewed evidence in a way that clarifies the modes of failure and that suggests strategies for addressing each of these modes. This article does not review other causes of failure of total shoulder arthroplasty, treatment of failed shoulder arthroplasty, or failure of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.


   Modes of Failure
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Modes of Failure
Possible Strategies for...
 Overview
 References
 
Failure of the Component Itself
Failures in this category are characterized by physical change in the glenoid prosthesis occurring after it is inserted, at the time of the operation.

Distortion of the Prosthetic Surface
All studies of retrieved polyethylene glenoid components have revealed changes to the joint surface12-17. These changes were particularly well analyzed in a laser scanning study by Braman et al.12, which suggested that the pattern of loaded motion of the humeral head on the glenoid component surface in each patient's shoulder modulates the deformable polyethylene surface of the glenoid component by a combination of wear and cold flow. When the prosthetic humeral and glenoid articular surfaces are conforming (i.e., manufactured so that they have the same diameter of curvature), glenohumeral translation results in loading and flattening of the glenoid component rim. The result is a lessening of the intrinsic stability provided by the glenoid component12,15. When the surfaces are nonconforming (i.e., manufactured so that the diameter of curvature of the glenoid component surface is larger than that of the humerus), the humeral head tends to mold a more conforming concavity in the part of the glenoid component surface where glenohumeral contact is favored by the motion pattern of the shoulder12,13. The result is an increase in the intrinsic stability provided by the glenoid component12. Pitting, abrasion, or diffuse wear patterns of surface injury are also common among retrieved components12-14 (Fig. 1). Pitting could not be caused by contact with the smooth humeral head and, therefore, must arise from the interposition of particles of bone, polymethylmethacrylate bone cement, or polyethylene between the articular surfaces. Wear may be revealed by progressive thinning of the radiographic clear space normally occupied by polyethylene (Fig. 2). As reported by Conditt et al.18 for patellar components and by Silva et al.19 for tibial components, polyethylene wear is particularly severe in metal-backed components20-25 (Fig. 3). The increased wear rate of metal-backed glenoid components may be due to higher contact stresses in comparison with those seen with all-polyethylene components of the same thickness21,26,27.


Figure 1
View larger version (100K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1 Pitting and erosive wear of the posterosuperior aspect of a retrieved glenoid component that had been inserted in combination with a humeral head with a 6-mm-smaller diameter of curvature, as recommended by the manufacturer. The wear resulted in a secondary concavity of the posterosuperior articular surface with a diameter conforming to that of the humeral component. While not shown in this photograph, the keel of this prosthesis had fractured from fatigue.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (155K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2 Thinning of polyethylene at the superior aspect of the component as evidenced by narrowing of the distance between the humeral head and the upper metal marker in the glenoid component in comparison with the distance between the humeral head and the lower metal marker in the glenoid component. The loss of the concavity of the superior aspect of the glenoid component is accompanied by upward migration of the humeral prosthesis relative to the glenoid prosthesis.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (136K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3 Complete wearing through of the upper polyethylene of a metal-backed component manifested by the absence of any radiographic clear space between the humeral prosthesis and the metal backing. The wear is accompanied by superior migration of the humeral component and so-called rocking-horse loosening of the glenoid component—i.e., loosening resulting from loading of one edge of the component causing lifting of the opposite edge of the component away from the bone. Note also the large amount of cement that had been used for fixation of the glenoid component and the radiolucent line surrounding the cement.

 
Fracture or Delamination of the Component
Glenoid components can fail as a result of fracture of the polyethylene body, fracture of the pegs or keel, delamination of the polyethylene, fracture of the metal back, or fracture of screws used for fixation16,25. Catastrophic failure of polyethylene has been a particular problem when the polyethylene was sterilized by radiation in air, giving rise to free radicals that contributed to progressive oxidative deterioration of the components while they were on the storage shelf and after implantation28. Fatigue failure of polyethylene or metal is a risk if the component is loaded with insufficient bone support16 (Fig. 4).


Figure 4
View larger version (163K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4 Radiograph of a failed glenoid prosthesis, showing posterior subluxation of the humerus, eccentric glenoid loading, and posterior wear of the component rim. The keel of the glenoid component and the surrounding cement are fractured (arrow).

 
Separation of Polyethylene from the Metal Back of a Prosthesis
A particular problem with metal-backed glenoid components is the risk of dissociation of the polyethylene surface from its metal backing20,25,29,30. Because it is difficult to chemically bond polyethylene and metal, the metal must achieve a mechanical purchase on the polyethylene. Dissociation results when eccentric loads exceed the strength of the fixation of the two components of the prosthesis to each other or when loading of the glenoid component deforms the polyethylene so that it is no longer captured by the metal portion of the component.

Failure of Component Seating
Failures in this category are characterized by inadequate support of the body of the glenoid component by the underlying bone. Poor seating predisposes the component to deformation, fatigue, and micromotion with a heightened risk of loosening.

Inadequate Preparation of the Bone Surface
Collins et al.31 demonstrated the importance of the preparation of the bone surface for minimizing wobble and warp of the glenoid component in response to eccentric loads. Wobble refers to movement of the component when it is challenged by off-center loads (Fig. 5). Warp refers to the bending of the polyethylene that occurs with off-center loads. Both wobble and warp challenge glenoid component fixation. Of the different methods of preparation, concentric reaming around a normalized glenoid centerline is the one that maximizes component stability when eccentric loads are applied. A flat bone surface provides less component stability than one that is concave32-34.


Figure 5
View larger version (130K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5 Lifting up of the posterior aspect of a glenoid component (large arrow) associated with loading of the anterior aspect of the component. This rocking-horse wobbling is associated with resorption of bone around the component keel (small arrows).

 
Prosthesis Not Fully Seated on the Prepared Bone
Glenoid component malpositioning is common among failed total shoulder arthroplasties7. Poor positioning can contribute to glenoid component loosening35,36. Lazarus et al. described a system for the radiographic characterization of glenoid component seating and found that up to a third of the 328 glenoid components in their study population were poorly seated36. Seating was worse for keeled components than for pegged components, at least in part because of the greater precision of the match between the geometry of the pegged component and that of the prepared glenoid bone. Keeled glenoid components provide less secure fixation than do pegged designs32,36.

Loss of Cement Interposed Between the Body of the Component and the Glenoid Bone Surface
Opinions vary among surgeons regarding the advisability of placing cement between the body of the component and the prepared glenoid bone surface37,38. On one hand, the grouting effect of cement can increase the quality of contact between the component and bone by filling in small voids. On the other hand, interposing cement between the back of the component and the bone presents a risk because a thin layer of cement is brittle and highly susceptible to fatigue, fracture, and displacement37,39-41. The risk of cement fatigue may be increased by the admixture of antibiotics and by preparation methods that introduce porosity into the cement42. Failure of the cement interposed between the back of the component and the bone surface results in loss of seating and support for the component (Fig. 6).


Figure 6
View larger version (152K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6 A loose glenoid component with bone loss beneath a thin layer of cement underlying the glenoid component (arrows). At the time of operative revision, this thin layer of cement was seen to be cracked.

 
Fracture or Bone Deficiency
Insufficient osseous support for the glenoid component may result from preoperative or intraoperative fracture, from glenoid bone erosion43, from dislocation44, or from dysplasia45. It may also result from absorption of bone graft inserted at the time of the arthroplasty46,47.

Resorption of Bone at the Prepared Surface
Reaming of the bone surface has been shown to create an optimal fit between the component body and the bone31. However, reaming may heat and disrupt the circulation to the surface of the glenoid bone, leading to a zone of necrosis, resorption, and loss of surface support of the prosthetic component (Fig. 7).


Figure 7
View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7 Trabeculae exposed at the reamed surface of the glenoid bone may be damaged by the heat of reaming or by a lack of circulation to the surface. This freshly reamed canine glenoid was bisected through the shorter axis of its oval articular surface and in the plane normal to the surface and then was embedded in methylmethacrylate without decalcification. Ten-micrometer-thick sections were cut parallel to the sawn surface with use of a sledge microtome (model SM 2500; Leica, Wetzlar, Germany), thus providing a transverse cross section of the glenoid concavity and its underlying osseous architecture. The sections were stained with Goldner modified trichrome. Bone is stained teal blue while the marrow contents are stained dark red. The horizontal line indicates 1 cm.

 
Failure of Initial Component Fixation
Inadequate fixation enables the glenoid component to move with respect to the glenoid bone48. This motion may lead to a cycle of bone resorption around the implant, less stability, and increased motion of the prosthesis with a risk of complete failure of fixation. Metal-backed prostheses have been noted to have a higher rate of loosening than all-polyethylene components23,24,49.

Suboptimal Cement Technique—Immediate Radiolucent Lines
Interposition of fluid or clot between the cement and the glenoid bone compromises the security of the fixation of the glenoid component, as does failure of cement to penetrate into the cancellous bone50. Lack of secure cement purchase predisposes to motion of the glenoid component and to resorption of the glenoid bone. Most importantly, a lack of secure fixation reduces the ability of the component to resist lift-off in response to eccentric or rim loading. Poor cementing technique may or may not be revealed by postoperative radiographs. It is noteworthy, however, that radiographs made immediately after the operation frequently show a very high prevalence of periprosthetic radiolucent lines24,36,37,48,51-54. Lazarus et al.36 provided a classification of these lucent lines. The prevalence of immediate postoperative radiographic lucency is greater with keeled glenoid components than it is with pegged glenoid components36,53,55. The fact that these immediate postoperative lucent lines contain fluid or clot and not bone or cement suggests that radiolucent lines indicate suboptimal fixation of the component, predisposing it to motion and progressive loosening.

The ability to detect lucent lines is affected by the radiographic technique and positioning56. Computed tomography is more sensitive than fluoroscopically controlled radiography for the detection of radiolucent lines37. Postoperative lucent lines are associated with poorer clinical results57 and have been shown to have a high probability of progressing3,24,52,58,59.

Fixation in Bone of Limited Quantity and Poor Quality
The bone available for fixation of the glenoid component is limited by the geometry of the scapula60-62. Glenoid bone stock can be compromised by age, disuse, inflammatory arthropathy63,64, previous arthroplasty65,66, and excessive reaming.

Failure of Bone
Loss of the quality and quantity of the bone into which the component was initially fixed leads to progressive instability of the component, which in turn accelerates bone resorption.

Progression of Radiolucent Lines and Development of Component Loosening
Because bone cement is not resorbed, any increase in the thickness or extent of radiolucent lines between cement and bone indicates loss of the periprosthetic glenoid bone necessary for glenoid component fixation67,68. Such bone resorption may result from micromotion, from infection, or from bone death due to the heat produced by the drilling of holes or the curing of cement69-71. The amount of heat from the exothermic reaction of cement curing is related to the volume of the cement that is used69 and is a particular cause for concern because the thermal insulation properties of polyethylene do not allow dissipation of the heat.

Goodman et al.72,73 demonstrated that, while micromotion applied at a low frequency stimulates bone formation, a higher frequency of motion could have the opposite effect. Van der Vis et al.74 attributed progressive micromotion to mechanical compression of the fibrous membrane that often forms between a prosthesis and bone, possibly leading to locally high fluid pressures that in turn may lead to osteocyte death and bone resorption. De Man et al.75 demonstrated that compression of the fibrous membrane around a prosthesis leads to bone necrosis and cartilage formation, possibly because of fluid pressure or fluid flow. They concluded that compression of the fibrous membrane might play an important role in the early stages of loosening of a prosthetic joint replacement system.

Immunological Response to Polyethylene
In a study examining the immunological response to proteins that bind to ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene hip and knee components in patients who had aseptic loosening, Wooley et al.76 discovered a high prevalence of antibodies to these polyethylene-bound proteins. This immunological response may contribute to an inflammatory reaction in the periprosthetic tissue, ultimately leading to increased bone resorption around the prosthesis.

Osteolysis
Minute particles, especially those of polyethylene, can lead to progressive resorption of bone and consequently to prosthetic failure77 (Fig. 8). Particles of <1 µm in size are taken in by monocytes, macrophages, and osteoblasts, which then activate osteoclastic bone resorption by means of the receptor/activator of nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-{kappa}B) (RANK)/receptor/activator of NF-{kappa}B ligand (RANKL) mechanism as well as the prostaglandin E2, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-1, and interleukin-6 mechanisms73,78-84. Fibroblasts may also respond to particulate debris and express proinflammatory cytokines and RANKL, stimulating osteoclastogenesis and bone resorption85. These events are much more common in the hip, in which the risk of osteolysis is related to the rate of polyethylene wear86,87. As a possible explanation of this difference in prevalence, Wirth et al.88 demonstrated that the polyethylene debris particles seen after shoulder arthroplasty are larger and less spherical than those seen after total hip arthroplasty. These larger particles may be less ingestible and thus less provocative of osteoclast activation.


Figure 8
View larger version (159K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 8 The osteolytic bone resorption shown in this radiograph is much greater than the bone resorption seen with mechanical loosening alone. Pathologic and bacteriologic testing showed no evidence of infection but did reveal a massive chronic inflammatory reaction with small intracellular particles of polyethylene on polarized microscopy.

 
The observation of bone loss after arthroplasty should always raise concern regarding the possibility of infection89. Because infections at the sites of shoulder arthroplasties are often caused by organisms of low virulence, such as Propionibacter acnes or Staphylococcus epidermidis, the radiographic appearance of an infected shoulder may be similar to that of a shoulder with aseptic loosening.

Prosthetic Loading
Polyethylene, cement, and bone are generally tolerant of loading in compression—i.e., concentric loading. However, eccentric loading challenges the integrity of all three of these materials40,90.

Conforming Joint Surfaces
When the prosthetic humeral head is pressed into a glenoid component concavity with the same diameter of curvature, the position of the head is precisely defined by concavity compression1,91. Some translation occurs with shoulder motion92. With conforming joint surfaces, the humeral head cannot translate on the glenoid component without separation of the joint surfaces and rim loading93. As long as the joint surfaces remain in contact, all eccentric and translational forces are applied directly to the fixation of the glenoid component to bone32,33,94-98. This mechanism helps us to understand the observation of Walch et al.99 that the closer the match between the humeral and glenoid component diameters of curvature, the higher the prevalence of periprosthetic radiolucency on follow-up radiographs.

Rim Loading
Component malposition can give rise to the rocking-horse loosening mechanism, in which loading of one edge of the glenoid component causes the opposite edge to lift off of the glenoid bone (Fig. 9)31,33,54. Inferior placement of the glenoid component and/or superior placement of the humeral component are common causes for this phenomenon (Fig. 10).


Figure 9
 Fig. 9 Rocking-horse loosening. Although the glenoid component is stable when the load applied by the humeral head is centered (middle figure), anterior (left) or posterior (right) translation of the head of the glenoid causes eccentric loading and lifting up of the opposite, unloaded glenoid rim. (Reproduced, with modification, from: Matsen FA 3rd, Lippitt SB. Shoulder surgery: principles and procedures. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2004. Principles of glenoid arthroplasty; p 508. Reprinted with permission.)

 

Figure 10
View larger version (149K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 10 Poor register of the humeral and glenoid components. The humeral component has been placed too high and the glenoid component, too low. The resulting eccentric loading has caused rocking-horse loosening of the glenoid component.

 
Weight-Bearing Shoulder Prosthesis
Individuals who must use crutches, a cane, or a walker to walk place eccentric loads on the glenoid component that may contribute to prosthetic loosening100.

Glenoid Component Version
If the glenoid component is abnormally retroverted, anteverted, or inclined superiorly or inferiorly, loads that would otherwise be concentric (aligned with the glenoid centerline) become eccentric26,101,102, predisposing to displacement of the glenohumeral contact point and a substantial increase of stress within the cement mantle103. Abnormal glenoid version can result from fracture, dysplasia, instability, or asymmetrical wear and has been associated with an increased rate of glenoid component failure104-108.

Glenohumeral Instability
Any tendency of the humeral head to assume an uncentered position on the glenoid component will result in eccentric loading109,110. Conditions such as subscapularis deficiency, abnormal capsuloligamentous balance, and other causes of glenohumeral instability increase the risk of glenoid component loosening108,111,112.

Rotator Cuff Insufficiency
As a special type of glenohumeral instability, the superior subluxation seen with massive rotator cuff deficiency is an important cause of eccentric loading113-115, creating the risk of rocking-horse loosening of the glenoid component31,33,54.


   Possible Strategies for Minimizing the Risk of Glenoid Component Failure
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Modes of Failure
 Possible Strategies for...
Overview
 References
 
Patient Selection
Patients with poor-quality glenoid bone, glenoid bone deficiency, or major glenoid deformity are at increased risk for glenoid component failure. Patients whose shoulders are prone to eccentric loading, such as those with lower-extremity weakness and those with glenohumeral instability or rotator cuff deficiency, have higher rates of glenoid component failure.

Patient Counseling
Before and after total shoulder arthroplasty, patients should be advised that the glenoid component is at increased risk for failure with heavy use and with activities that involve impact to the shoulder. Patients are also told that they should promptly report any loss of comfort or function or any new sensations of instability or clunking to their surgeon so that the shoulder can be assessed for glenoid component failure before major glenoid bone loss has occurred.

Component Design
Round-backed, all-polyethylene components with peg fixation perform better than do flat-backed, metal-backed, or keeled components16,20-27,29,30,32-36,49,53,55. While many different polyethylenes with different amounts of cross-linking and different methods of component formation are available, there is no clear evidence supporting one over the other, although it is known that components sterilized with radiation in air should be avoided. Glenoid components with a diameter of curvature that is greater than that of the humeral head component are less subject to loosening32,33,94-99.

Technique of Operative Implantation
It is desirable to restore normal glenoid version by reaming along a normalized glenoid centerline to the extent allowed by the available glenoid bone stock; posterior glenoid bone-grafting is technically difficult and prone to failure. Reaming and drilling of the glenoid bone should be done with sharp tools that are cooled during use to minimize the risk of thermal damage to the bone. Seating is optimized by careful preparation of the glenoid bone so that there is a precise fit between the back of the glenoid component and the bone surface. All fluid and clot need to be removed from the fixation holes, and the bone should be dried before the insertion of cement to minimize the development of the immediate postoperative lucent lines that indicate suboptimal fixation. Minimizing the amount of cement used reduces the risk of heat damage to the bone. Placing the glenoid component directly on a carefully prepared congruently reamed joint surface avoids the need to insert cement between the back of the glenoid component and the glenoid bone surface, eliminating the risk of fatigue fracture of this thin brittle layer of cement and loss of component support.

Optimizing the Glenohumeral Relationship, Balance, and Stability
The humeral and glenoid components need to be positioned so that the humeral articular surface is centered on the glenoid articular surface in both the anteroposterior and the superior-inferior directions. This has been referred to as ensuring proper register38. Improper register with eccentric contact creates the risk of glenoid component loosening. At the conclusion of the operation, the shoulder should have an ample range of motion but should not allow the humeral head to be translated posteriorly by >50% of the width of the glenoid component surface.

Use of Pharmacological Agents
Although there is no evidence of the effectiveness of pharmacological agents in reducing the risk of glenoid component failure, we would like to call attention to this possibility, especially with regard to enhancing the stability of bone around prosthetic implants. Skripitz and Aspenberg116 reported that parathyroid hormone might increase the attachment of bone to polymethylmethacrylate. Clohisy et al.117 and Millett et al.118 explored the use of bisphosphonates in modulating osteolysis in animal models. Bhandari et al.119, Morris and Einhorn120, and Hilding and Aspenberg121 reported that bisphosphonates might have a beneficial effect with regard to maintaining periprosthetic bone mineral density. Additional considerations regarding the use of bisphosphonates in the context of the fixation of cemented and press-fit prosthetic components were reviewed by Shanbhag122.


   Overview
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Modes of Failure
 Possible Strategies for...
 Overview
References
 
Glenoid component failure remains the most frequent complication of total shoulder arthroplasty. While new designs of humeral components appear each year, there has been little progress in developing strategies for minimizing the risk of glenoid component failure. It is clear that the mechanisms of glenoid component failure are different from those of tibial and acetabular component failure, in large part because the glenoid component is subject to eccentric loads, the glenoid component concavity is challenged to provide glenohumeral stability, and the bone available to support the glenoid component is limited. Formula


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Modes of Failure
 Possible Strategies for...
 Overview
 References
 

  1. Matsen FA 3rd, Bicknell RT, Lippitt SB. Shoulder arthroplasty: the socket perspective. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5 Suppl):S241-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Pearl ML, Romeo AA, Wirth MA, Yamaguchi K, Nicholson GP, Creighton RA. Decision making in contemporary shoulder arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2005;54:69-85.[Medline]
  3. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:603-16.[Free Full Text]
  4. Barrett WP, Franklin JL, Jackins SE, Wyss CR, Matsen FA 3rd. Total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:865-72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Hasan SS, Leith JM, Campbell B, Kapil R, Smith KL, Matsen FA 3rd. Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:431-41.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Dines JS, Fealy S, Strauss EJ, Allen A, Craig EV, Warren RF, Dines DM. Outcomes analysis of revision total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1494-500.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Neradilek B, Matsen FA 3rd. The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:555-62.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Bohsali KI, Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2279-92.[Free Full Text]
  9. Rosenberg N, Neumann L, Modi A, Mersich IJ, Wallace AW. Improvements in survival of the uncemented Nottingham Total Shoulder prosthesis: a prospective comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:76.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Hawkins RJ, Greis PE, Bonutti PM. Treatment of symptomatic glenoid loosening following unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 1999;22:229-34.[Medline]
  11. Buckingham BP, Parsons IM, Campbell B, Titelman RM, Smith KL, Matsen FA. Patient functional self-assessment in late glenoid component failure at three to eleven years after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:368-74.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Braman JP, Falicov A, Boorman R, Matsen FA 3rd. Alterations in surface geometry in retrieved polyethylene glenoid component. J Orthop Res. 2006;24:1249-60.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Hertel R, Ballmer FT. Observations on retrieved glenoid components. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:361-6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Scarlat MM, Matsen FA 3rd. Observations on retrieved polyethylene glenoid components. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:795-801.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Weldon EJ 3rd, Scarlat MM, Lee SB, Matsen FA 3rd. Intrinsic stability of unused and retrieved polyethylene glenoid components. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10:474-81.[Medline]
  16. Gunther SB, Graham J, Norris TR, Ries MD, Pruitt L. Retrieved glenoid components: a classification system for surface damage analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:95-100.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Ramsey ML, Getz CL, Parsons BO. What's new in shoulder and elbow surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:220-30.[Free Full Text]
  18. Conditt MA, Noble PC, Allen B, Shen M, Parsley BS, Mathis KB. Surface damage of patellar components used in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1265-71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Silva M, Kabbash CA, Tiberi JV 3rd, Park SH, Reilly DT, Mahoney OM, Schmalzried TP. Surface damage on open box posterior-stabilized polyethylene tibial inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:135-44.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Cheung EV, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Polyethylene insert exchange for wear after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:574-8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Hopkins AR, Hansen UN, Amis AA, Knight L, Taylor M, Levy O, Copeland SA. Wear in the prosthetic shoulder: association with design parameters. J Biomech Eng. 2007;129:223-30.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Gupta S, van der Helm FC, van Keulen F. Stress analysis of cemented glenoid prostheses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Biomech. 2004;37:1777-86.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Martin SD, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Uncemented glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1284-92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Boileau P, Avidor C, Krishnan SG, Walch G, Kempf JF, Molé D. Cemented polyethylene versus uncemented metal-backed glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:351-9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  25. Wallace AL, Phillips RL, MacDougal GA, Walsh WR, Sonnabend DH. Resurfacing of the glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty. A comparison, at a mean of five years, of prostheses inserted with and without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:510-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Hopkins AR, Hansen UN, Amis AA, Emery R. The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:668-75.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Swieszkowski W, Bednarz P, Prendergast PJ. Contact stresses in the glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2003;217:49-57.[Medline]
  28. Rockwood CA Jr, Wirth MA. Observation on retrieved Hylamer glenoids in shoulder arthroplasty: problems associated with sterilization by gamma irradiation in air. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:191-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Wallace AL, Walsh WR, Sonnabend DH. Dissociation of the glenoid component in cementless total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999;8:81-4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Kirk PG, Sorger J. Failure of an implant after total shoulder arthroplasty. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:597-8.[Free Full Text]
  31. Collins D, Tencer A, Sidles J, Matsen F 3rd. Edge displacement and deformation of glenoid components in response to eccentric loading. The effect of preparation of the glenoid bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:501-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Anglin C, Wyss UP, Nyffeler RW, Gerber C. Loosening performance of cemented glenoid prosthesis design pairs. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001;16:144-50.[CrossRef]
  33. Anglin C, Wyss UP, Pichora DR. Mechanical testing of shoulder prostheses and recommendations for glenoid design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9:323-31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Szabo I, Buscayret F, Edwards TB, Nemoz C, Boileau P, Walch G. Radiographic comparison of flat-back and convex-back glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:636-42.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Suppl S):111S-21S.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Lazarus MD, Jensen KL, Southworth C, Matsen FA 3rd. The radiographic evaluation of keeled and pegged glenoid component insertion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1174-82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Yian EH, Werner CM, Nyffeler RW, Pfirrmann CW, Ramappa A, Sukthankar A, Gerber C. Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1928-36.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Matsen FA 3rd, Lippitt SB, DeBartolo SE, editors. Shoulder surgery: principles and procedures. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2004.
  39. Vasu R, Carter DR, Harris WH. Evaluation of bone cement failure criteria with applications to the acetabular region. J Biomech Eng. 1983;105:332-7.[Medline]
  40. Terrier A, Büchler P, Farron A. Bone-cement interface of the glenoid component: stress analysis for varying cement thickness. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005;20:710-7.[CrossRef]
  41. Cristofolini L, Erani P, Savigni P, Grupp T, Thies O, Viceconti M. Increased long-term failure risk associated with excessively thin cement mantle in cemented hip arthroplasty: a comparative in vitro study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2007;22:410-21.[CrossRef]
  42. Postak PD, Greenwald AS. The influence of antibiotics on the fatigue life of acrylic bone cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88 Suppl 4:148-55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Iannotti JP, Norris TR. Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:251-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Matsoukis J, Tabib W, Guiffault P, Mandelbaum A, Walch G, Némoz C, Cortés ZE, Edwards TB. Primary unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty in patients with a fixed anterior glenohumeral dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:547-52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Edwards TB, Boulahia A, Kempf JF, Boileau P, Némoz C, Walch G. Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis and dysplastic glenoid morphology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:1-4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Hill JM, Norris TR. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:877-83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Phipatanakul WP, Norris TR. Treatment of glenoid loosening and bone loss due to osteolysis with glenoid bone grafting. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:84-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  48. Rahme H, Mattsson P, Larsson S. Stability of cemented all-polyethylene keeled glenoid components. A radiostereometric study with a two-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:856-60.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:19-22.[CrossRef][Medline]
  50. Nyffeler RW, Meyer D, Sheikh R, Koller BJ, Gerber C. The effect of cementing technique on structural fixation of pegged glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:106-11.[CrossRef][Medline]
  51. Edwards TB, Sabonghy EP, Elkousy H, Warnock KM, Hammerman SM, O'Connor DP, Gartsman GM. Glenoid component insertion in total shoulder arthroplasty: comparison of three techniques for drying the glenoid before cementation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S107-10.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Mileti J, Boardman ND 3rd, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Torchia ME, O'Driscoll SW, Rowland CM. Radiographic analysis of polyethylene glenoid components using modern cementing techniques. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:492-8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  53. Klepps S, Chiang AS, Miller S, Jiang CY, Hazrati Y, Flatow EL. Incidence of early radiolucent glenoid lines in patients having total shoulder replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;435:118-25.[Medline]
  54. Franklin JL, Barrett WP, Jackins SE, Matsen FA 3rd. Glenoid loosening in total shoulder arthroplasty. Association with rotator cuff deficiency. J Arthroplasty. 1988;3:39-46.[Medline]
  55. Gartsman GM, Elkousy HA, Warnock KM, Edwards TB, O'Connor DP. Radiographic comparison of pegged and keeled glenoid components. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:252-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  56. Havig MT, Kumar A, Carpenter W, Seiler JG 3rd. Assessment of radiolucent lines about the glenoid. An in vitro radiographic study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:428-32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Godenèche A, Boileau P, Favard L, Le Huec JC, Lévigne C, Nové-Josserand L, Walch G, Edwards TB. Prosthetic replacement in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the shoulder: early results of 268 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:11-8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  58. Szabo I, Buscayret F, Edwards TB, Nemoz C, O'Connor DP, Boileau P, Walch G. Radiographic comparison of two glenoid preparation techniques in total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;431:104-10.[Medline]
  59. Nagels J, Valstar ER, Stokdijk M, Rozing PM. Patterns of loosening of the glenoid component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:83-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  60. Anglin C, Tolhurst P, Wyss UP, Pichora DR. Glenoid cancellous bone strength and modulus. J Biomech. 1999;32:1091-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  61. Karelse A, Kegels L, De Wilde L. The pillars of the scapula. Clin Anat. 2007;20:392-9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  62. Kwon YW, Powell KA, Yum JK, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Use of three-dimensional computed tomography for the analysis of the glenoid anatomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:85-90.[CrossRef][Medline]
  63. Lacroix D, Murphy LA, Prendergast PJ. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of glenoid replacement prostheses: a comparison of keeled and pegged anchorage systems. J Biomech Eng. 2000;122:430-6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  64. Collins DN, Harryman DT 2nd, Wirth MA. Shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2489-96.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Neyton L, Sirveaux F, Roche O, Molé D, Boileau P, Walch G. [Results of revision surgery for glenoid loosening: a multicentric series of 37 shoulder prosthesis]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2004;90:111-21.[Medline]
  66. Neyton L, Walch G, Nové-Josserand L, Edwards TB. Glenoid corticocancellous bone grafting after glenoid component removal in the treatment of glenoid loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:173-9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  67. Edwards TB, Kadakia NR, Boulahia A, Kempf JF, Boileau P, Némoz C, Walch G. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12:207-13.[CrossRef][Medline]
  68. O'Driscoll SW, Petrie RS, Torchia ME. Arthroscopic removal of the glenoid component for failed total shoulder arthroplasty. A report of five cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:858-63.[Free Full Text]
  69. Churchill RS, Boorman RS, Fehringer EV, Matsen FA 3rd. Glenoid cementing may generate sufficient heat to endanger the surrounding bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;419:76-9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  70. Berman AT, Reid JS, Yanicko DR Jr, Sih GC, Zimmerman MR. Thermally induced bone necrosis in rabbits. Relation to implant failure in humans. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;186:284-92.[Medline]
  71. Li C, Kotha S, Huang CH, Mason J, Yakimicki D, Hawkins M. Finite element thermal analysis of bone cement for joint replacements. J Biomech Eng. 2003;125:315-22.[CrossRef][Medline]
  72. Goodman S, Wang JS, Doshi A, Aspenberg P. Difference in bone ingrowth after one versus two daily episodes of micromotion: experiments with titanium chambers in rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993;27:1419-24.[CrossRef][Medline]
  73. Goodman SB, Song Y, Doshi A, Aspenberg P. Cessation of strain facilitates bone formation in the micromotion chamber implanted in the rabbit tibia. Biomaterials. 1994;15:889-93.[CrossRef][Medline]
  74. Van der Vis HM, Aspenberg P, Tigchelaar W, Van Noorden CJ. Mechanical compression of a fibrous membrane surrounding bone causes bone resorption. Acta Histochem. 1999;101:203-12.[Medline]
  75. De Man FH, Tigchelaar W, Marti RK, Van Noorden CJ, Van der Vis HM. Effects of mechanical compression of a fibrous tissue interface on bone with or without high-density polyethylene particles in a rabbit model of prosthetic loosening. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1522-33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Wooley PH, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Song Z, Davis P, Whalen JD, Trumble S, Nasser S. Proteins bound to polyethylene components in patients who have aseptic loosening after total joint arthroplasty. A preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:616-23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  77. Maloney WJ, Smith RL, Schmalzried TP, Chiba J, Huene D, Rubash H. Isolation and characterization of wear particles generated in patients who have had failure of a hip arthroplasty without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1301-10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  78. Vermes C, Chandrasekaran R, Jacobs JJ, Galante JO, Roebuck KA, Glant TT. The effects of particulate wear debris, cytokines, and growth factors on the functions of MG-63 osteoblasts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:201-11.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  79. Vermes C, Glant TT, Hallab NJ, Fritz EA, Roebuck KA, Jacobs JJ. The potential role of the osteoblast in the development of periprosthetic osteolysis: review of in vitro osteoblast responses to wear debris, corrosion products, and cytokines and growth factors. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(8 Suppl 1):95-100.[CrossRef][Medline]
  80. Archibeck MJ, Jacobs JJ, Roebuck KA, Glant TT. The basic science of periprosthetic osteolysis. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:185-95.[Medline]
  81. Jacobs JJ, Roebuck KA, Archibeck M, Hallab NJ, Glant TT. Osteolysis: basic science. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:71-7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  82. Jacobs JJ, Hallab NJ, Urban RM, Wimmer MA. Wear particles. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88 Suppl 2:99-102.[CrossRef][Medline]
  83. Clohisy D. Cellular mechanisms of osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85 Suppl 1:S4-6.[Free Full Text]
  84. Silva MJ, Sandell LJ. What's new in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1490-6.[Free Full Text]
  85. Koreny T, Tunyogi-Csapó M, Gál I, Vermes C, Jacobs JJ, Glant TT. The role of fibroblasts and fibroblast-derived factors in periprosthetic osteolysis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:3221-32.[CrossRef][Medline]
  86. Orishimo KF, Claus AM, Sychterz CJ, Engh CA. Relationship between polyethylene wear and osteolysis in hips with a second-generation porous-coated cementless cup after seven years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1095-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  87. Wilkinson JM, Hamer AJ, Stockley I, Eastell R. Polyethylene wear rate and osteolysis: critical threshold versus continuous dose-response relationship. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:520-5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  88. Wirth MA, Agrawal CM, Mabrey JD, Dean DD, Blanchard CR, Miller MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Isolation and characterization of polyethylene wear debris associated with osteolysis following total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:29-37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  89. Cheung EV, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Reimplantation of a glenoid component following component removal and allogenic bone-grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1777-83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  90. Mansat P, Briot J, Mansat M, Swider P. Evaluation of the glenoid implant survival using a biomechanical finite element analysis: influence of the implant design, bone properties, and loading location. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S79-83.[CrossRef][Medline]
  91. Anglin C, Wyss UP, Pichora DR. Shoulder prosthesis subluxation: theory and experiment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9:104-14.[CrossRef][Medline]
  92. Harryman DT 2nd, Sidles JA, Clark JM, McQuade KJ, Gibb TD, Matsen FA 3rd. Translation of the humeral head on the glenoid with passive glenohumeral motion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:1334-43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  93. Harryman DT, Sidles JA, Harris SL, Lippitt SB, Matsen FA 3rd. The effect of articular conformity and the size of the humeral head component on laxity and motion after glenohumeral arthroplasty. A study in cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:555-63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  94. Couteau B, Mansat P, Estivalèzes E, Darmana R, Mansat M, Egan J. Finite element analysis of the mechanical behavior of a scapula implanted with a glenoid prosthesis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001;16:566-75.[CrossRef]
  95. Karduna AR, Williams GR, Iannotti JP, Williams JL. Total shoulder arthroplasty biomechanics: a study of the forces and strains at the glenoid component. J Biomech Eng. 1998;120:92-9.[Medline]
  96. Karduna AR, Williams GR, Williams JL, Iannotti JP. Glenohumeral joint translations before and after total shoulder arthroplasty. A study in cadavera. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1166-74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  97. Severt R, Thomas BJ, Tsenter MJ, Amstutz HC, Kabo JM. The influence of conformity and constraint on translational forces and frictional torque in total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;292:151-8.[Medline]
  98. Terrier A, Büchler P, Farron A. Influence of glenohumeral conformity on glenoid stresses after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:515-20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  99. Walch G, Edwards TB, Boulahia A, Boileau P, Mole D, Adeleine P. The influence of glenohumeral prosthetic mismatch on glenoid radiolucent lines: results of a multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2186-91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  100. Garreau De Loubresse C, Norton MR, Piriou P, Walch G. Replacement arthroplasty in the weight-bearing shoulder of paraplegic patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13:369-72.[CrossRef][Medline]
  101. Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Atkinson TS, Jacob HA, Favre P, Gerber C. Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:625-9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  102. Shapiro TA, McGarry MH, Gupta R, Lee YS, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S90-5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  103. Farron A, Terrier A, Büchler P. Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:521-6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  104. Badet R, Boileau P, Noel E, Walch G. Arthrography and computed arthrotomography study of seventy patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Rev Rhum Engl Ed. 1995;62:555-62.[Medline]
  105. Badet R, Walch G, Boulahia A. Computed tomography in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis without humeral head elevation. Rev Rhum Engl Ed. 1998;65:187-94.[Medline]
  106. Habermeyer P, Magosch P, Luz V, Lichtenberg S. Three-dimensional glenoid deformity in patients with osteoarthritis: a radiographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1301-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  107. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:756-60.[CrossRef][Medline]
  108. Sperling JW, Antuna SA, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck C, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty for arthritis after instability surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1775-81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  109. Büchler P, Ramaniraka NA, Rakotomanana LR, Iannotti JP, Farron A. A finite element model of the shoulder: application to the comparison of normal and osteoarthritic joints. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2002;17:630-9.[CrossRef]
  110. Stevens KJ, Preston BJ, Wallace WA, Kerslake RW. CT imaging and three-dimensional reconstructions of shoulders with anterior glenohumeral instability. Clin Anat. 1999;12:326-36.[CrossRef]