Augmented Glenoids are Here Now Wake Up Young Guys!!! Thomas W. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

augmented glenoids are here now wake up young guys
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Augmented Glenoids are Here Now Wake Up Young Guys!!! Thomas W. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Augmented Glenoids are Here Now Wake Up Young Guys!!! Thomas W. Wright MD University of Florida Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Gainesville, Fl. Disclosure Design surgeon - Exactech Institutional Research support -


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Augmented Glenoids are Here Now – Wake Up Young Guys!!!

Thomas W. Wright MD University of Florida Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Gainesville, Fl.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Disclosure

  • Design surgeon - Exactech
  • Institutional Research support -

Exactech

slide-3
SLIDE 3

The Problem – B2 Glenoid!

  • TSA - Posterior worn B2 glenoid

–Worse functional results –Increased rate glenoid loosening –Increased failure rate –Many now recommend giving up TSA - for RTSA

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Posterior Glenoid Wear

  • Technically difficult to treat
  • glenoid faces away from

surgeon – deltopectoral approach

  • Worse clinical results
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Posterior Glenoid Wear

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Treatment Options

  • Eccentric reaming
  • Bone grafting
  • Leaving glenoid retroverted
  • Augmented glenoids
  • RTSA
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Eccentric Reaming

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Literature conclusion for posterior wear:

  • Farron article = 10° limit
  • Gillespie article = 10° limit
  • Clavet article = 15° limit
  • Nowak article = 12°to 18° limit

Avg Consensus: ~12° posterior wear limit correct by eccentric reaming

  • Worn > 12° then different method/solution required

How much can I correct it?

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • Posterior wear humeral head translates posteriorly

Increased contact pressure

– Increased stresses in bone and cement – Increased implant micromotion – And potentially aseptic glenoid loosening…

What happens if I don’t correct it?

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Can we do Better?

  • Posterior augmented glenoid

–Decrease reaming saving valuable bone –Eliminate need bone graft –Rebalance joint

  • Direct forces down glenoid neck
  • Change shear forces to compressive

forces

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Posterior Augmented Glenoid

  • Wedge – Equinoxe Exactech
  • 8 and 16 degree augmentation

–Correction on non articular side

  • Pegs directed down axis glenoid
  • Joint is rebalanced
  • Step – Depuy
  • Half Wedge – Tornier/Wright
slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • Posterior Augmented design – full wedge
  • Minimize removal of anterior cortical bone – removing

ridge only

Posterior Augment Glenoid

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Posterior Augmented Wedge - Composite

slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • Due to central peg being off-axis from the backside curvature, the

reaming axis and the peg axis are different.

  • Off-axis cannulated reaming conserves bone by removing less than

would occur ordinarily during eccentric reaming to correct for the defect.

Bone Conservation

Glenoid Defect Off Axis Reaming w/ Augmented Implant Eccentric Reaming

slide-15
SLIDE 15

The Question?

  • Full wedge posterior

augmented glenoid - OA B2 glenoids

  • TSA non-

augmented concentric non boney deficient glenoids

VS

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Posterior Augment Glenoid Demographics

  • > 100 shoulders to date

performed at University of Florida

–First prototype - 2010

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Posterior Augment 2 Yr min F/U – Consortium Data Base

  • 47 patients – Posterior Augmented Glenoid

(PAG)

– 31 male shoulders – 16 female shoulders

  • Age – 66
  • 47 control shoulders – Non augmented

glenoids (NAG) – Age, Diagnosis, Sex, and f/u matched

– NAG – standard all poly glenoid

slide-18
SLIDE 18

SST UCLA ASES

Constant SPADI

Active Abduction Active Forward Flexion Internal Rotation Score Active External Rotation

Post Aug Avg ± St Dev 11.3 ± 1.2 32.3 ± 2.7 92.5 ± 10.2 76.7 ± 8.7 8.9 ± 13.4 138.9 ± 27.1 144.4 ± 18.8 5.4 ± 1.4 54.7 ± 21.1 Poly Peg Avg ± St Dev 10.8 ± 2.3 31.6 ± 4.6 87.5 ± 18.1 75.8 ± 13.6 13.1 ± 19.7 135.4 ± 28.3 152.7 ± 27.7 5.5 ± 1.2 48.6 ± 16.3 P value

0.1836 0.4312 0.1836 0.7394 0.2354 0.5492 0.1049 0.9855 0.1313

Comparison of Average and Post-op, Posterior Augmented Peg vs UHMWPE Peg aTSA Patients

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Radiographic Lucent Lines

  • PAG –

–Lucent line – 59% –Lucent line score (Lazarus) – 1.1

  • NAG –

–Lucent line – 38% –Lucent line Score – 0.74

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Radiographic Lines

  • Composite/cage glenoids

have 1/3 lucent line incidence as all poly

– Now using mostly composite/cage posterior augmented glenoids – Too early to say if PAG lucent line issue will be solved

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Shoulder Arthroplasty Subluxation Index (SASI)

  • PAG Grashey –

–38 centered –2 superior subluxated –7 AWOL

  • PAG Axillary –

–37 centered –3 anterior subluxated

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Complications

  • 2 – loose glenoids –

– Patient 1 happy – head centered in both planes – AEL 125 – AER 35 – Constant 72 – SPADI 11 – Patient 2 MVA - revised

  • Stay tuned not sure we know the final story
slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • 1 reoperations to date – short term

f/u

  • Improved ROM
  • Improved Functional Outcomes
  • No repeat posterior subluxation of

humeral head to date

Conclusion Short Term Results

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Conclusion – Posterior Augmented

  • Posterior

Augmented Glenoid

–Balances joint short term –Saves bone –Makes procedure

easier

slide-25
SLIDE 25