Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for severe glenoid bone loss: Still a viable option

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty has been the gold standard for glenohumeral osteoarthritis without rotator cuff tear. There is a subset of patients with severe glenoid bone loss and glenoid retroversion that have predictably worse outcomes with component loosing and posterior instability, making reverse shoulder arthroplasty an attractive solution. Although reverse shoulder arthroplasty solves many issues with glenoid component loosing, it has concerns of higher complication rates and reduced functional outcomes. With a deeper understanding of biomechanics, there are several strategies including augmented glenoid components to make anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty a more viable option for severe glenoid bone loss.     

Posterior shoulder instability following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: A case report and review of management

We report a case of posterior shoulder instability following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). In addition, we present guidelines to aid in the management of posterior instability after TSA. A 50-year-old male underwent anatomic TSA for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Postoperatively, the patient developed posterior instability secondary to glenoid retroversion. He did not improve despite conservative treatment. He underwent an arthroscopic posterior bone block procedure, 4-month after his index arthroplasty. At 14-month follow-up, the patient had regained near full motion and strength, and radiographs demonstrated osseous integration with no evidence of component loosening. Posterior instability following TSA is a relatively rare complication and challenging to manage. The posterior, arthroscopic iliac crest bone block grafting procedure represents a treatment option for posterior instability in the setting of a stable glenoid prosthesis following TSA.     

Recent advances and future innovations in shoulder arthroplasty: a review of the current literature

There have been incredible innovations in knowledge, techniques, and implants for total shoulder arthroplasty over the last few decades. On the humeral side, modularity has improved the ability to recreate native anatomy, while shorter humeral stems have improved our ability to preserve bone stock. On the glenoid side, the anatomic restoration and baseplate fixation have improved and augments have allowed surgeons to overcome bone loss. Future innovations in implant design, surgical technique and planning will continue to improve this operation. These will likely include robotic assisted surgery, augmented reality, patient specific guides, and others. In this review, the recent literature highlighting important recent innovations in the field of shoulder arthroplasty are critically reviewed and compiled. Recent innovations and projected future trends are discussed.     

Computed tomography–based three-dimensional modeling of glenoid bone preservation with augmented baseplates

BackgroundReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is a treatment option for a variety of shoulder pathologies, including rotator cuff arthropathy, glenohumeral arthritis, and irreparable rotator cuff tears and fractures. There has been substantial improvement in rTSA implants and surgical techniques, such as augmented baseplates that preserve bone tissue. In this study, we used three-dimensional modeling to determine the extent of bone preservation with augmented baseplates in rTSA.MethodsComputed tomography scans from 50 consecutive patients before they underwent rTSA were used to create three-dimensional models of each glenoid. The virtual positions of reverse shoulder baseplate implants followed strict parameters for adequate fixation as determined through consensus among 4 fellowship-trained shoulder specialists. Parameters for adequate fixations included 100% backside contact, neutral scapular version, and 10° of inferior tilt. The 4 baseplate options trialed on each glenoid were a nonaugmented baseplate, a small 10° half-wedge augment, a medium 20° half-wedge augment, and a large 30° half-wedge augment. The extent of volumetric glenoid bone removal and lateralization of the baseplate was calculated for each scenario.ResultsPreoperative computed tomography imaging showed a mean of 10.7° of retroversion and a reverse shoulder arthroplasty angle of 21.3°. A medium augment (20° half wedge) was determined as optimal in 29 cases, and a large augment (30° half wedge) was considered optimal for the remaining 21 cases. The use of augmented baseplates was calculated to preserve 54% glenoid bone stock (1989 ± 650 mm³ bone removal vs. 4439 ± 1636 mm³ with nonaugmented baseplate; P < .001). The surgeon-selected augmented baseplate was on average 4.1 mm lateral in comparison to the nonaugmented baseplate.ConclusionsThe use of augmented baseplates reduces the volume of bone that needs to be removed in rTSA. Furthermore, augmented baseplates result in relative lateralization of the glenosphere, which has been theorized to improve soft tissue tension and limit impingement and scapular notching. Further exploration of the impact of augmented baseplates on clinical outcomes is needed.     

Mid-term outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the alternate scapular line baseplate orientation for glenoid bone loss

BackgroundGlenoid-sided bone loss poses a challenge when performing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Placing the baseplate in an anteverted position along the alternate scapular line is an option when dealing with glenoid erosion or cavitary defects. Although this allows for stable initial baseplate fixation, questions remain about the effects of placing the baseplate in a more anteverted position relative to the standard glenoid center line. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of patients treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty using an alternate scapular line baseplate orientation in the setting of glenoid bone loss.Materials and methodsFrom September 2007 to March 2014, 71 patients underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the alternate scapular line baseplate orientation and had a minimum of 5 years of follow up. Patients with no prior surgery, prior nonarthroplasty surgery, and prior arthroplasty surgery were included in this analysis. Patients were followed clinically (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, range of motion analysis, patient satisfaction) as well as radiographically, with data recorded at the 2-year point and their last recorded follow-up after a minimum of 60 months.ResultsAt the final follow-up point (average 78 months) patients had maintained their improvement in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (75 [P<.0001]), Simple Shoulder Test score (7.8 [P < .0001]), forward elevation (1300 [P < .0001]), external rotation (310 [P < .0001]) with no change in internal rotation (62% with full IR [P = 1.0]). No significant deterioration in outcome scores or motion was noted between the 2-year and final follow-up time point. At final follow-up, 92% remained satisfied with their outcome. There was a 7% complication rate (3 acromial fractures, 1 hematoma, 1 dislocation), with 1 patient requiring revision surgery secondary to instability.ConclusionUtilizing the alternate scapular line baseplate orientation in cases with glenoid bone loss resulted in clinical improvements with no deterioration in outcome scores, range of motion or patient satisfaction at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. Anteverting the baseplate in this position allowed for stable glenoid-sided fixation with no mechanical failures of the baseplate and did not appear to compromise the patient's functional outcomes. In patients with significant glenoid bone loss, where adequate bone stock along the standard glenoid line may be in question, use of the alternate scapular line for baseplate orientation is an effective option yielding sustained clinical improvements and a low rate of complications.Level of evidenceLevel IV; Case Series; Treatment Study     

Glenoid revision is best treated with glenoid implants: Opposes

Glenoid component loosening is a common cause of failure for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Revision options include reimplantation of an anatomic total shoulder, conversion to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty, or bone graft of the glenoid defect alone. In the presence of an intact rotator cuff with significant glenoid bone loss, the most predictable revision option is bone graft of the glenoid defect alone. Recent studies have demonstrated good clinical outcomes and a lower complication and re-revision rate with bone graft alone compared to attempted glenoid component reimplantation.     

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Locked Posterior Dislocation of the Shoulder Treated with Shoulder Arthroplasty: Improved Outcomes for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty are Associated with Increased Age

Locked shoulder dislocations account for up to 5% of shoulder dislocations. These relatively rare injuries are characterized by dislocation of the humeral head from the scapular glenoid cavity with the humeral head incarcerated on the glenoid in a “locked” fashion. Diagnosis is often delayed because of the complexity of clinical presentation and subtle radiographic findings, resulting in locking of the humeral head out of the glenoid cavity with severe functional deficits. Most commonly, there are bony injuries to the glenoid and humeral head that engage and prevent closed reduction. Since few patients present with this injury, evidence-based treatment guidelines have not been established. The objective of this review is to assess postoperative outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty for locked posterior shoulder dislocations (LPSD) to guide best practices for treatment. This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, searching the PubMed and Web of Science databases for original articles assessing outcomes following arthroplasty for locked posterior shoulder dislocations. Seven publications that evaluated 102 patients were included. Additionally, nine case studies were included, assessing 20 shoulder arthroplasties. Overall, the analysis demonstrated significant improvement in shoulder pain following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) (P = 0.0003). Older operative patient ages for TSA resulted in significantly improved modified Neer outcomes scores and patient satisfaction compared to younger patients (P = 0.047). A positive correlation was noted for the duration of dislocation and necessity for revision surgery following hemiarthroplasty (HSA) and TSA combined and TSA separately. The risk ratios assessing the incidence of postoperative complications (RR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.28–1.11) and necessity for revision surgery (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.24–1.39) were insignificant but noted outcomes favoring TSA. Data from the included studies show that both TSA and HSA are efficacious at treating locked posterior shoulder dislocation. Postoperative outcomes following TSA versus HSA are similar. TSA may be a more efficacious surgical treatment in elderly patients, with improved outcomes and patient satisfaction scores compared to younger patients. Early diagnosis and treatment of posterior locked dislocations may lead to reduced postoperative complications and revision surgery, signaling the importance of proper injury investigation and early treatment. The role of RSA in the management of locked posterior shoulder dislocation remains to be determined, as there is insufficient clinical outcome data currently in the literature.     

Return to golf after shoulder arthroplasty: golf performance and outcome scores

BackgroundGolf is an increasingly popular sport in the United States, especially among the age group of patients undergoing joint replacement. Return to golf after hip and knee arthroplasty has been previously studied. However, the quality and level of play after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) are less defined, especially after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). We hypothesize that shoulder pain and performance will improve during golf similarly after both anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasties.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of 69 patients identified as playing golf recreationally before undergoing either anatomic or RSA. All patients were cleared to return to golf activities 3 months after surgery. A golf-specific questionnaire was emailed to patients focusing on their experience returning to golf after shoulder arthroplasty. Results after TSA were compared with RSA. Patient-reported and functional outcome scores were evaluated.ResultsThe median age at surgery was 70 (62-73) years with 47 (68.1%) total shoulder replacements and 22 (31.9%) reverse shoulder replacements. Thirty-six (52.1%) patients returned to playing golf within 6 months and sixty (87.0%) patients returned to playing golf within 12 months after surgery. Enjoyment of golf either improved or stayed the same in 51 patients (91.0%). There was no significant change in the handicap score after shoulder replacement. Pain experienced during golf improved significantly from a median visual analog score pain of 6 to 1 (P < .001), with slightly greater improvement in pain for patients who underwent TSA (P = .025). Driving distance improved for 52.2% of patients, with patients who underwent TSA reporting significantly greater improvements in distance (P = .014). For all other questions, patients treated with anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and RSA reported similar experiences. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score, visual analog score function, active flexion, and external rotation all significantly improved at the most recent follow-up (P < .001).ConclusionReturn to golf after both reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties is a realistic expectation, with significant improvements in pain and function while playing golf. Enjoyment playing golf, golf performance, and average length of drive improve in approximately half of all patients. Patients treated with anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and RSA can expect similar golf experiences after surgery, with patients who underwent TSA experiencing a better improvement in driving distance.     

Food and Drug Administration–reported complications of anatomic stemless total shoulder arthroplasty vary with implant model

BackgroundStemless shoulder arthroplasty not only allows for shorter operative time and less blood loss but also for placement of the humeral head independent of the diaphysis, thereby preserving bone that may be needed for further revisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current adverse event profile for anatomic stemless shoulder arthroplasty using the Manufacturer and User Facility Device database.MethodsThe adverse event reports mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration for all hospitals housed in the Manufacturer and User Facility Device database were screened for mention of anatomic stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Each applicable report was then characterized by implant design and failure mode.ResultsThe most commonly reported stemless implants were the Zimmer Biomet Sidus, Zimmer Biomet Nano, and Arthrex Eclipse. The most common complications were pain/stiffness (16.8%), glenoid component loosening (12%), glenoid component failure (11%), and problems with attachment onto the humeral insert (9.9%).ConclusionsBecause of the benefits of increased bone preservation with less operative time and decreased blood loss compared with anatomic stemmed TSA, stemless implants are becoming increasingly popular in clinical practice. There were no findings that discourage the use of stemless TSA in the right candidate.Level of evidenceLevel III; Database Case Series Treatment Study     

Glenoid Reconstruction in Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty

Failed shoulder arthroplasty associated with glenoid bony deficiency is a difficult problem. Revision surgery is complex with unpredictable outcome. We asked whether revision shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid bone grafting could lead to good outcome. We retrospectively reviewed 21 patients who underwent glenoid bone grafting using corticocancellous bone grafting or impaction grafting using cancellous bone graft. Three patients underwent revision TSA, five patients hemiarthroplasty, 10 patients hemiarthroplasty with biologic resurfacing of the glenoid, and three patients revision to reverse TSA. The patients had minimum 25 months followup (average, 45 months; range, 25-92 months). All patients had improvement in their range of motion and the Constant-Murley score. Most improvement occurred in patients with glenoid reimplantation. Patients who underwent revision reverse TSA had improvement in shoulder flexion but decrease in external rotation motion. We conclude revision shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid bone grafting can produce good short-term outcome and glenoid component reinsertion should be attempted whenever possible.     

Assessing glenoid arthroplasty component positioning for surgeons utilizing surgical planning software

BackgroundGlenoid component positioning remains a challenge during total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). While preoperative three-dimensional (3D) planning software is widely available for most TSA systems today, the degree to which this software affects surgeon preoperative and intraoperative decision-making is unknown. The purpose of the study is to determine if surgeons using 3D planning software adhere to their preoperative plan and whether or not the operative plan follows glenoid component positioning guidelines for anatomic TSA (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA).MethodsA total of 695 consecutive, de-identified, planned surgeries using commercially available software were identified from the case registries of six fellowship-trained shoulder arthroplasty surgeons and reviewed retrospectively. Each preoperative plan was reviewed to assess morbid glenoid version/inclination and glenoid component position. aTSA glenoid plans were evaluated for the final implant position with less than 10° of retroversion, corrective reaming less than 15°, and avoidance of glenoid vault perforation. rTSAs were evaluated for the final implant position with less than 15° of retroversion, glenosphere position in neutral or inferior tilt with at least 3 mm of inferior offset and 3 mm of posterior offset, and backside coverage of at least 50% of the baseplate on the glenoid face. Analyses were performed to determine surgeon adherence to these guidelines and variance with specific deformity patterns. Analysis of variance was performed to determine whether glenoid size resulted in selection of differing implant sizes by surgeons. The rate at which surgeon planned component size correlated with the actual implant size utilized in surgery was also evaluated.Results185 aTSAs and 510 rTSAs preoperatively planned surgeries using commercially available software were analyzed. All planning guidelines were adhered to in 90% of all aTSA cases and 79% of all rTSA cases. The concordance, or matching, between preoperative 3D planning implant selection and final implant selection was 90% for aTSA and 91% and 95% for rTSA baseplate and glenosphere implant selection, respectively. Implant size varied in accordance with glenoid size for both aTSA and rTSA (P < .001).ConclusionSurgeons adhered to known guidelines in most TSA cases when utilizing 3D computed tomography-based shoulder arthroplasty planning software. A high concordance was found between preoperative implant selection and the final glenoid component inserted. Understanding how orthopedic surgeons utilize planning software can help lead to improvements in software design.     

Scapular notching in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Now what?

Scapular notching is a well-known complication of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. While early reports revealed no ill effects on clinical outcomes, later research has shown decreased range of motion, decreased strength, lower Constant scores, and higher pain scores. It appears that lowering the glenosphere on the glenoid decreases contact between the humeral component and the inferior bony pillar, decreasing the rate and grade of notching. Once notching occurs after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, it appears that close observation in an asymptomatic patient is sufficient. Revisions in symptomatic patients require debridement, bone grafting, and baseplate augments.     

Managing glenoid bone loss in total shoulder arthroplasty: Role of augmented patient-specific implants

Total shoulder arthroplasty has been shown to generate good to excellent results for patients with osteoarthritis and a functioning rotator cuff. However, a major complication after primary total shoulder arthroplasty is loosening of the glenoid component, which has been shown to be commonly associated with glenoid retroversion. This article highlights the importance of correcting the glenoid version and reviews various techniques, such as eccentric reaming, posterior bone grafting, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and augmented glenoid implantation to address glenoid retroversion in the setting of total shoulder arthroplasty.     

Baseplate placement in failed total shoulder replacement: Builder’s choice

Glenoid component loosening has been recognized as one of the common indications for revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. Replacement with a standard glenoid component is sometimes possible when bone loss is minimal and contained within the glenoid vault. If glenoid bone stock is poor, more complex revision strategies include bone graft reconstruction, custom implants, and the use of augmented components. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has also developed into a platform for revision surgery. However, surgeons must be aware that when used for revision, complication rates are higher and survival times are shorter. Glenoid revision is technically demanding even for an experienced shoulder surgeon and may lead to early revision failures if done improperly. Shoulder surgeons must have a detailed understanding of expected outcomes, proper indications and current bone grafting techniques when attempting glenoid reconstruction.     

Utilization of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis among American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part II candidates, 2008-2019

BackgroundDespite advances in shoulder arthroplasty, treatment options for advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) remain limited. Surgical management includes total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and hemiarthroplasty. The rates of TSA and RSA for the treatment of GHOA in the United States has increased in recent years. Trends in shoulder arthroplasty in recently trained surgeons have not been explored. The purpose of the study was to examine the trends in arthroplasty use (TSA, RSA, and hemiarthroplasty) for primary GHOA among American Board of Orthopedic Surgeons (ABOS) Part II examinees, and to identify patterns based on geographic region or fellowship training.MethodsABOS Part II examinees with at least 1 shoulder arthroplasty in the examination years 2008-2019 were collected. Hemiarthroplasty, TSA, and RSA performed from 2007-2018 for a diagnosis of primary GHOA were included. Arthroplasty for primary or secondary diagnoses of fracture, infection, tumor, rotator cuff arthropathy or tear, revision, and non-arthroplasty procedures were excluded. Proportion and volume of cases were evaluated, with sub-analyses of geographic region and fellowship training. Univariate logistic regression determined statistical significance (P< .05).ResultsA total of 946,946 cases from 8609 ABOS Part II examinees were submitted, with 8733 shoulder arthroplasties performed. Overall, 3923 arthroplasties for primary GHOA were included (44.9% of all shoulder arthroplasties). TSA was used in 50.9% of cases. The proportion of RSA performed for primary GHOA has increased over the past 11 years, with RSA surpassing TSA as the most common procedure for primary GHOA over the last 4 years (P< .001). Hemiarthroplasty is less commonly. TSA and RSA were performed in similar proportions across regions, with the largest volume in the Midwest. Most procedures (91.5%) were completed by surgeons in sports medicine, shoulder and elbow, and those completing multiple fellowships. From 2008-2019 the number of RSA procedures performed for primary GHOA by sports medicine and shoulder and elbow surgeons has increased approximately 1100% and 800%, respectively (P< .001).ConclusionUtilization of RSA for treatment of primary GHOA by ABOS Part II examinees has increased significantly over the past twelve years. Among ABOS Part II examinees, RSA has recently surpassed TSA as the most common arthroplasty utilized for treatment of primary GHOA. Examination of early-career surgical practice allows for consideration of training influence in treatment of GHOA. As volume of shoulder arthroplasty continues to increase, trends and procedure volume have implications for clinical practice and patient outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel IV; Case-series Database Study     

Augmented Glenoid Component for Bone Deficiency in Shoulder Arthroplasty

Asymmetric posterior glenoid wear caused by degenerative glenohumeral arthritis can be addressed by several techniques during total shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm outcome of a posterior augmented glenoid component to determine the clinical and radiographic outcome, including complications and the need for revision surgery. Between 1995 and 1999, 13 patients (14 shoulders) underwent a shoulder arthroplasty with an augmented glenoid component to treat posterior glenoid bone deficiency. All 14 shoulders had advanced osteoarthritis. The minimum followup for these 13 patients was 2 years (mean, 5 years; range, 2-8 years). The mean age of these patients was 66 years at the time of surgery (range, 52-78 years). The mean active elevation was 160 degrees (range, 120 degrees -180 degrees ) and external rotation was 56 degrees (range, 30 degrees -90 degrees ). According to a modified Neer result rating system, 36% of patients had an excellent result, 50% a satisfactory result, and 14% an unsatisfactory result. Our results suggest patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty with an asymmetric glenoid component for osteoarthritis achieve satisfactory mid-term pain relief and improvement in function; however, instability is not always corrected. The advantage of this component seems marginal, and its use has been discontinued.     

Glenoidersatz bei Omarthrose

In anatomical shoulder arthroplasty glenoid replacement is a critical point. Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) provides better functional and pain results than hemi shoulder arthroplasty (HSA) there is great reluctance to implant a glenoid. For successful glenoid replacement it is necessary to preoperatively evaluate clear indications for glenoid replacement. Planning is a crucial point and has to be done thoroughly. The gold standard is an all polyethylene cemented glenoid. The implantation technique is most important to obtain an excellent and long-term result without complications. Significant key factors are preservation of the subchondral bone and an anatomical reconstruction of the glenoid. It seems that after a period of 10 years the loosening rate of glenoids increases and revisions rates rise. Therefore there is a high demand to develop new implants and a need for improved and convertible glenoids with better modularity and alternative options for fixation.     

Total shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty. Indications for glenoid resurfacing

The results of total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in a similar patient population were compared in an effort to define more clearly the indications for resurfacing the glenoid. The results of 64 Neer hemiarthroplasties in 59 patients were compared with 146 Neer total shoulder arthroplasties in 134 patients in a retrospective review of the period between 1974 and 1986. The average follow-up period was 44 months (range, 24-124 months). Hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty produced similar results in terms of functional improvement. Pain relief, range of motion, and patient satisfaction were better with total shoulder arthroplasty than hemiarthroplasty in the rheumatoid population. Progressive glenoid loosening was found in 12% of total should arthroplasties but no correlation with pain relief or range of motion was noted. Total shoulder arthroplasty is recommended for patients with inflammatory arthropathies, and hemiarthroplasty is recommended for patients with osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis, and four-part fractures with preservation of glenoid congruity and absent synovitis.     

The effect of humeral component anteversion on shoulder stability with glenoid component retroversion

BACKGROUND: Posterior glenoid bone loss is often seen in association with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. This posterior asymmetric wear can lead to retroversion of the glenoid component and posterior instability after total shoulder arthroplasty. Options for the treatment of this asymmetric wear include eccentric reaming of the so-called high side, bone-grafting, and/or anteverting the humeral component. Although anteverting the humeral component has been advocated by many, it has not been substantiated on the basis of biomechanical data. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether anteverting the humeral component increases the stability of a total shoulder replacement with a retroverted glenoid component. METHODS: A total shoulder arthroplasty was performed in eight human cadaveric shoulders. The glenoid component was placed in 15 degrees of retroversion. Two humeral versions were tested for each specimen: anatomic version and 15 degrees of anteversion relative to anatomic version. The specimens were mounted supine in a custom fixture on a servohydraulic testing system. The humerus was translated posteriorly by one-half of the width of the glenoid. Three positions of humeral rotation were tested for each position of humeral version. Both the energy and the peak load were analyzed as measures of joint stability. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in either energy or peak load between the tests performed with the humeral component in 15 degrees of anteversion and those performed with the component in anatomic version in any of the three rotational positions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although anteverting the humeral component during total shoulder arthroplasty to compensate for glenoid retroversion has been advocated, these data suggest that compensatory anteversion of the humeral component does not increase the stability of a shoulder replacement with a retroverted glenoid component.