Rakauskas, Taylor R.

While anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is a successful procedure that provides reliable pain relief and restoration of function in most patients, its success has been limited by glenoid component loosening. While series reporting the outcomes of inlay glenoid components have demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes with low rates of component loosening and need for revision, surgeons have been hesitant to adopt these implants due to concerns of inadequate pain relief secondary to the remaining glenoid rim contacting the humeral head implant. The inset glenoid component, a variant of the traditional inlay components, has gained interest because its design aims to achieve similar stability to traditional inlay components through implantation within strong subchondral bone, reduce the amount of glenoid vault removed compared to inlay components, and has a glenoid face designed to limit the rocking-horse phenomenon. In limited series, the inset glenoid component has demonstrated superior biomechanical and clinical performance compared to traditional onlay glenoid components. Although there have been minimal clinical studies investigating the inset glenoid in comparison to onlay and inlay components to date, a subset of case series with short-term follow-up have demonstrated favorable outcomes. The purpose of this article was to review the design rationale, biomechanical evidence, and clinical performance of the inset glenoid component.

Background: Latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) has been purported to restore motion in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) who have preoperative combined loss of forward elevation (FE) and external rotation (ER). This systematic review summarizes the available evidence for the functional outcomes and complications after RSA with LDT. Furthermore, the effect of implant design and whether a concomitant teres major transfer (TMT) was performed were studied. Methods: A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting on LDT with RSA to restore ER. Our primary outcomes were ER, FE, Constant score, and complication incidence. Secondarily, we reported postoperative internal rotation (IR) and compared ER, FE, and Constant score based on lateralized versus medialized global implant design and whether concomitant TMT was performed. Results: Nineteen studies were evaluated; functional outcomes were assessed in 16 articles reporting on 258 RSAs (123 LDT, 135 LDT-TMT). Surgical indication was most commonly cuff tear arthropathy and massive irreparable cuff tear. Mean ER was −12° preoperatively and 25° postoperatively, FE was 72° preoperatively and 141° postoperatively. Mean postoperative Constant score was 65. Of 138 patients (8 studies) describing IR, only 25% reported a mean postoperative IR ≥L3. Subanalysis comparing lateralized versus medialized implants and whether TMT was concomitantly performed demonstrated no significant difference in postoperative ER, FE, and Constant score, nor preoperative to postoperative improvement in ER and FE. The complication rate was 14.1% (of 291 shoulders from 16 studies), including tear in the tendon transfer (n = 3), revision tendon repair (n = 1), nerve-related complication (n = 9), and dislocation (n = 9). Conclusions: RSA with LDT is a reliable option to restore motion, with a comparable complication rate with standard RSA. The use of medialized versus lateralized implants and whether the TM was concomitantly transferred may not influence clinical outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.