Abstract:Background: Metallic lateralized-offset glenoid reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for cuff tear arthropathy combines the use of a metallic augmented baseplate with a metaphyseally oriented short stem design that can be applied at a 135° or 145° neck-shaft angle, leading to additional lateralization on the humeral side. Lateralization of the center of rotation decreases the risk of inferior scapular notching and improves external rotation, deltoid wrapping, residual rotator cuff tensioning, and prosthetic stability1-4. Metallic increased-offset RSA (MIO-RSA) achieves lateralization and corrects inclination and retroversion while avoiding graft resorption and other complications of bony increased-offset RSA (BIO-RSA)5-8. Reducing the neck-shaft angle from the classical Grammont design, in combination with glenoid lateralization, improves range of motion9,10 by reducing inferior impingement during adduction at the expense of earlier superior impingement during abduction2,11. Lädermann et al.12 investigated how different combinations of humeral stem and glenosphere designs influence range of motion and muscle elongation. They assessed 30 combinations of humeral components, as compared with the native shoulder, and found that the combination that allows for restoration of >50% of the native range of motion in all directions was a 145° onlay stem with a concentric or lateralized tray in conjunction with a lateralized or inferior eccentric glenosphere. In addition, the use of a flush-lay or a slight-onlay stem design (like the one utilized in the presently described technique) may decrease the risk of secondary scapular spine fracture13,14. The goal of this prosthetic design is to achieve an excellent combination of motion and stability while reducing complications. Description: This procedure is performed via a deltopectoral approach with the patient in the beach-chair position under general anesthesia combined with a regional interscalene nerve block. Subscapularis tenotomy and capsular release are performed, the humeral head is dislocated, and any osteophytes are removed. An intramedullary cutting guide is placed for correct humeral resection. The osteotomy of the humeral head is performed in the anatomical neck with an inclination of 135° and a retroversion of 20° to 40°, depending on the anatomical retroversion. The glenoid is prepared as usual. The lateralized, augmented baseplate is assembled with the central screw and the baseplate-wedge-screw complex is placed by inserting the screw into the central screw hole. Four peripheral screws are utilized for definitive fixation. An eccentric glenosphere with inferior overhang is implanted. The humerus is dislocated, and the metaphysis is prepared. Long compactors are utilized for proper stem alignment, and an asymmetric trial insert is positioned before the humerus is reduced. Stability and range of motion are assessed. The definitive short stem is inserted and the asymmetric polyethylene is impacted, resulting in a neck-shaft angle of 145°. Following reduction, subscapularis repair and wound closure are performed. Alternatives: BIO-RSA is the main alternative to MIO-RSA. Boileau et al.15 demonstrated satisfactory early and long-term outcomes of BIO-RSA for shoulder osteoarthritis. A larger lateral offset may also be achieved with a thicker glenosphere2,16. Mark A. Frankle developed an implant that addressed the drawbacks of the Grammont design: a lateralized glenosphere combined with a 135° humeral neck-shaft angle. The 135° neck-shaft angle provides lateral humeral offset, preserving the normal length-tension relationship of the residual rotator cuff musculature, which optimizes its strength and function. The lateralized glenosphere displaces the humeral shaft laterally, minimizing the potential for impingement during adduction2,9,17,18. The advantage of BIO-RSA and MIO-RSA over lateralized glenospheres is that the former options provide correction of angular deformities without excessive reaming, which can lead to impingement19. Rationale: BIO-RSA has been proven to achieve excellent functional outcomes15,20,21; however, the bone graft can undergo resorption, which may result in early baseplate loosening. Bipolar metallic lateralized RSA is an effective strategy for achieving lateralization and correction of multiplanar defects while avoiding the potential complications of BIO-RSA6,7,22-24. MIO-RSA also overcomes another limitation of BIO-RSA, namely that BIO-RSA is not applicable when the humeral head is not available for use (e.g., humeral head osteonecrosis, revision surgery, fracture sequelae). Expected outcomes: A recent study evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of metallic humeral and glenoid lateralized implants. A total of 42 patients underwent primary RSA. Patients were documented prospectively and underwent follow-up visits at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. That study demonstrated that bipolar metallic lateralized RSA achieves excellent clinical results in terms of shoulder function, pain relief, muscle strength, and patient-reported subjective assessment, without instability or radiographic signs of scapular notching23. Kirsch et al.25 reported the results of primary RSA with an augmented baseplate in 44 patients with a minimum of 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up. The use of an augmented baseplate resulted in excellent short-term clinical outcomes and substantial deformity correction in patients with advanced glenoid deformity. No short-term complications and no failure or loosening of the augmented baseplate were observed. Merolla et al.7 compared the results of 44 patients who underwent BIO-RSA and 39 patients who underwent MIO-RSA, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Both techniques provided good clinical outcomes; however, BIO-RSA yielded union between the cancellous bone graft and the surface of the native glenoid in <70% of patients. On the other hand, complete baseplate seating was observed in 90% of MIO-RSA patients. Important tips: When performing subscapularis tenotomy, leave an adequate stump to allow end-to-end repair.Tenotomize the superior part of the subscapularis tendon in an L-shape, sparing the portion below the circumflex vessels.As glenoid exposure is critical, perform a 270° capsulotomy.Continuously check the orientation of the baseplate relative to the prepared hole and reamed surface to ensure accurate implantation of the full wedge baseplate to achieve a proper fit.Aim for 70% to 80% seating of the baseplate onto the prepared glenoid surface. Avoid overtightening or excessive advancement of the baseplate into the subchondral bone. Gaps between the baseplate and glenoid surface should also be avoided.In order to avoid varus or valgus malpositioning of the final implant, obtain proper diaphyseal alignment by following "the three big Ls": large, lateral, and long. Use a large metaphyseal component to fill the metaphysis. Place the guide pin for the reaming of the metaphysis slightly laterally into the resected surface of the humerus. Use long compactors for diaphyseal alignment to avoid varus or valgus malpositioning of the final implant.Use an intramedullary cutting guide for correct humeral resection.Utilize the correct liner in order to obtain proper tensioning and avoid instability. Acronyms and abbreviations: K wire = Kirschner wireROM = range of motion.

Lateralising reverse shoulder arthroplasty using bony increased offset (BIO-RSA) or increasing glenoid component diameter: comparison of clinical, radiographic and patient reported outcomes in a matched cohort

Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Posteroinferior Glenosphere Positioning is Associated with Improved Range of Motion Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with a 135° Inlay Humeral Component and Lateralized Glenoid

Development, Evolution, and Outcomes of More Anatomical Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Early Outcomes, Pitfalls, and Challenges

Structural Bone Grafting with Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis with Severe Glenoid Bone Loss: outcomes using a long post

Management of glenoid bone loss with impaction and structural bone grafting in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

A gender and size specific evaluation of Grammont-type inlay versus lateralizing onlay stem designs in achieving lateralization and distalization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Metallic Lateralized-Offset Glenoid Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Surgical Experience and Clinical Outcomes

Clinical and radiological outcomes with an augmented baseplate for superior glenoid wear in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Using Lateralized Glenoid Baseplates Has Superior Patient-determined Outcome Scores at Short-term Follow-up

Assessing the efficacy: mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes of the comprehensive short stem system in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Impact of humeral and glenoid component variations on range of motion in reverse geometry total shoulder arthroplasty: a standardized computer model study

The Real Post-Operative Range of Motion Differs from the Virtual Pre-Operative Planned Range of Motion in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Eccentricity and greater size of the glenosphere increase impingement-free range of motion in glenoid lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A computational study

Functional and radiographic outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

Inverted-bearing reverse shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, complications, clinical, and radiological outcomes

The Effect of Lateralization and Distalization After Grammont-Style Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Relationship between the prosthesis scapular neck angle and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

The base plate orientation angle: a plain radiographic technique for designing the base plate's inclination in reverse shoulder arthroplasty