0
Scientific Articles   |    
The Effect of Humeral Component Anteversion on Shoulder Stability with Glenoid Component Retroversion
Edwin E. SpencerJr., MD1; Antonio Valdevit, MS2; Helen Kambic, PhD3; John J. Brems, MD3; Joseph P. Iannotti, MD, PhD3
1 Knoxville Orthopaedic Clinic, 260 Fort Sanders West Boulevard, Knoxville, TN 37922. E-mail address: spencer9882@comcast.net
2 Lutheran Medical Center, 150 55th Street, Brooklyn, NY 22110.
3 Departments of Biomechanical Engineering (H.K.) and Orthopaedic Surgery (J.J.B., J.P.I.), Cleveland Clinic Foundation, ND-20 (H.K.) and A/41 (J.J.B., J.P.I.), 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195.
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2005; 87:808-814  doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.00770
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

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° of retroversion. Two humeral versions were tested for each specimen: anatomic version and 15° 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° 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.

Clinical Relevance: These data further suggest that restoring a more neutral glenoid surface might be preferred when the surgeon is presented with posterior glenoid bone loss.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $30
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Joseph P. Iannotti, M.D., Ph.D.
    Posted on July 26, 2005
    Dr. Iannoti responds to the Editor and to Dr. Rama
    Dept. of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic Fdn., Cleveland, OH 44195

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Upon receipt of the letter from Dr. Rama, the Editors in Chief of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery conferred. They asked for and received an independent review about whether there had been duplicate publications, and then requested a response from Dr. Iannoti. Dr. Ionnoti's response follows.

    Dear Dr. Heckman:

    This letter is in response to a Letter to the Editor from Dr. Rama regarding redundant publication in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery and The Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

    Please accept our apology for any apparent duplication of our research work. It was the author's intention to publish a review article in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery and to have our only peer reviewed publication of the entire work published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. The Journal of Bone and Joint paper presented the methods, and all of the data and conclusions of a cadaver study to help define the effect of humeral torsion on humeral stability in the presence of glenoid component retroversion. It is stated in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery that this publication is a review article. The material published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery was a brief summary of this cadaver work and also included the work of other investigators and a general summary of the issues related to component malposition. It was our original expectation when writing the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery review article that the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery article would have already been in print. Both papers were printed about one month apart. We regret any perception of duplication of publication.

    Sincerely yours,

    Joseph P. Iannotti, M.D., Ph.D. Professor and Chairman Department of Orthopaedic Surgery

    KRISHNA REDDI BODDU SIVA RAMA
    Posted on April 02, 2005
    Redundant publications – It is time to control
    Imperial College, London

    Dear Sir,

    We read the article by Spencer Jr., et al, (1) with great interest. But unfortunately this happens to be a ‘redundant publication’ (2). A recent publication by Iannotti, et al, (3) in a peer reviewed orthopaedic journal contained essentially similar data, discussion and conclusions as the present article. The principle author of each of these two articles co- authored the other article. The sections of materials and methods, results and discussion of the present article (1) are merely elaborated versions of the section titled “Glenoid malpositioning: humeral stability in a cadaveric model” in the article by Iannotti, et al, (3). Figure 4 and figure 5 in the present paper (1) are two dimensional charts of the same data, which was presented as three dimensional charts in figure 5 and figure 6 respectively in the other article (3). Neither article has provided a cross reference identifying the other.

    A recent call by the editors of three major orthopaedic journals (4) strongly criticises the practice of redundant publication. Dual publications not only waste the editorial time and resources (5), but also cause a confounding effect on the meta-analysis (6).

    Concurrent submission seems to be the main reason in the present case, which made the ‘duplication’, undetectable by the editors. Ultimately it is the authors’ ethical responsibility to both the journal and the readers to avoid such practice.

    References:

    1. Edwin E. Spencer, Jr., Antonio Valdevit, Helen Kambic, John J. Brems, and Joseph P. Iannotti. The Effect of Humeral Component Anteversion on Shoulder Stability with Glenoid Component Retroversion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:808-814.

    2. Committee on publication ethics. Guidelines on good publication practice: COPE report 2003.London. http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/ guidelines/reports/2003/2003pdf15.pdf (accessed 01/04/2005).

    3. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;14(1 Suppl S):111S-121S.

    4. Brand RA, Heckman JD, Scott J.Changing ethical standards in scientific publication. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Sep;86-A(9):1855-6.

    5. Lowry S, Smith J. Duplicate publication. BMJ. 1992 Apr 18;304(6833):999-1000.

    6. Tramer MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 1997 13;315(7109):635-40.

    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Effects of Arm Position on Maximizing Intra-Articular Visualization of the Biceps Tendon: A Cadaveric Study.
    Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association: Issue date- 2012 Jan 18
    Guidelines
    Results provided by:
    PubMed
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/22/2011
    ME - Central Maine Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    VA - Charleston Area Medical Center