Pegged or keeled glenoid component use: Which is it?

With variation in glenoid design focused mainly on the backside interface of the component with the glenoid bone, keeled and pegged glenoid components have become the basis for most implants. Keeled implants offer a single, deep anchor for the component, while pegged implants offer stability with less bone removal. There is a trend in multiple studies for decreased radiolucent lines, decreased loosening, and decreased revision rates with pegged components. In-line pegs confer several advantages over out-of-line pegs. Advancements in cementing techniques and glenoid preparation have improved longevity for all types of glenoid implants.     

Managing glenoid bone loss virtual surgery—A software solution

Inaccurate placement of glenoid prosthesis in shoulder arthroplasty can lead to early loosening, instability, and failure. To address difficult glenoid morphology, patient-specific instrumentation and navigation techniques have been developed. Advanced imaging data has demonstrated utility in preoperative decision making. Cadaveric studies have subsequently shown that the application of advancing imaging and navigation can lead towards increased accuracy with prosthesis placement. Clinical trials have also shown increased accuracy with navigation and advanced imaging, but data demonstrating improved long-term outcomes and decreased complication rates is not yet available. This technology continues to evolve as a method to address glenoid bone loss and abnormal morphology.     

Alterations in surface geometry in retrieved polyethylene glenoid component.

This study characterized and quantified the changes found in retrieved glenoid polyethylene components found at revision total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Twenty components obtained at revision TSA were evaluated, all from a system (Global, DePuy, Warsaw, IN) with a glenoid radius of curvature 3 mm greater than that of the humeral head. Laser surface scanning provided three-dimensional analysis of the surface of the glenoid component. Scans of unused components of similar sizes enabled determination of the changes occurring after implantation. Alterations in radius of curvature were noted in every glenoid. All showed loss of the balance stability angle (BSA, the maximal angle that the net humeral joint reaction force can make with the glenoid center line before the humeral head would dislocate) of at least 5 degrees in one or more directions. Increase in BSA in one direction was seen in 11 of the components. In five of these, the increase was associated with a reduction of the local radius to match that of the humeral component. Glenoid surface morphology and stability can be changed by in vivo use. While correlation with clinical instability in the patients from whom the implants were obtained was not possible, many of the observed changes in surface morphology are of sufficient magnitude to compromise the contribution of the glenoid surface to shoulder stability. Three patterns of wear were identified: "humeral" that showed loss of the mismatch between the humeral and glenoid radii of curvature (5 of 20 components), "diffuse" that showed broad surface irregularity (18 of 20), and "rim" wear with loss of the polyethylene rim of the component (14 of 20). More than one type of wear was possible within a single glenoid.     

Symptomatic Glenoid Loosening Complicating Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Glenoid component loosening is one of the most common causes of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. Previous reports indicate that it is desirable to reimplant the glenoid component during revision shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of our study was to retrospectively evaluate the satisfaction of patients undergoing glenoid revision (reimplantation or resection) following total shoulder replacement specifically for symptomatic glenoid loosening. Twenty-eight shoulders that developed symptomatic glenoid loosening following primary total shoulder arthroplasty were included in the study. Patients were retrospectively evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Patients either underwent resection followed by reimplantation of the glenoid component (13) or resection of the component with or without bone grafting (15). Each patient was evaluated with the UCLA Shoulder Scale and the Constant–Murley Shoulder Assessment. There were seven excellent, 13 good, five fair and three poor results on the UCLA score. Functional outcome scores trended higher in the reimplantation group but were not statistically significant. Both groups reported equal pain relief and satisfaction. Five out of 15 patients underwent arthroscopic resection of the glenoid, and these patients scored as well on the UCLA and Constant scores as the reimplantation group. When symptomatic glenoid loosening is the indication for revision total shoulder replacement, patients tend to achieve good to excellent results. Though functional scores were slightly higher in the reimplantation group, satisfaction was equally high in both groups. Resection, when indicated, should be performed arthroscopically as this improved functional outcome in our series.