Functional internal rotation (fIR) of the shoulder is frequently limited after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The objective of this study was to study a cohort of satisfied patients after RTSA who had comparable active mobility except for fIR and to identify factors associated with selective loss of fIR. A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare 2 patient groups with either poor (≤ 2 points in the Constant-Murley score [CS]) or excellent (≥8 points in CS) fIR after RTSA at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Influencing factors (demographic, surgical or implant related, radiographic parameters) and clinical outcome were analyzed. Fifty-two patients with a mean age of 72.8 (±9.3) and a mean follow-up of 41 months were included in the IR≤2 group and 63 patients with a mean age of 72.1 (±8.0) and a mean follow-up of 59 months in the IR≥8 group. All patients had undergone RTSA with the same implant type and only 2 different glenosphere sizes (36 and 40) for comparable indications. A multivariate analysis identified the following significant risk factors for poor postoperative fIR: poor preoperative fIR (pts in CS: 3 [range: 2-6] vs. 6 [range: 4-8], P<.0001), smoking (17.3% vs. 6.5%, P = .004), male gender (59.6% vs. 31.7%, P = .002), less preoperative to postoperative distalization of the greater tuberosity (Δ 19.4 mm vs. 22.2 mm, P = .026), a thin humeral insert (≤3 mm: 23.1% vs. 54.8%, P = .039), and a high American Society of Anesthesiologists score (≤ III: 30.8% vs. 14.3%, P = .043). Subscapularis repair status and glenosphere size had no influence on fIR. Clinical outcome scores improved in both groups from preoperatively to last follow-up. The IR≥8 group had overall significantly better outcome scores compared to the IR≤2 group (Δ 9.3% SSV and Δ 9.5% relative CS, P < .0001). There was no difference in CS between the cohorts when the score for fIR was discarded. Independent risk factors for poor postoperative fIR after RTSA are poor preoperative fIR, smoking, male gender, less preoperative to postoperative distalization of the greater tuberosity, a thin humeral insert height, and a high American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Except for male gender, these factors are modifiable. These findings may be a valuable addition to patient counselling as well as preoperative planning and preoperative and intraoperative decision-making. The relevance of fIR for overall satisfaction is substantiated by this study.

There is evidence that specific variants of scapular morphology are associated with dynamic and static posterior shoulder instability. To this date, observations regarding glenoid and/or acromial variants were analyzed independently, with two-dimensional imaging or without comparison with a healthy control group. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze and describe the three-dimensional (3D) shape of the scapula in healthy and in shoulders with static or dynamic posterior instability using 3D surface models and 3D measurement methods. In this study, 30 patients with unidirectional posterior instability and 20 patients with static posterior humeral head subluxation (static posterior instability, Walch B1) were analyzed. Both cohorts were compared with a control group of 40 patients with stable, centered shoulders and without any clinical symptoms. 3D surface models were obtained through segmentation of computed tomography images and 3D measurements were performed for glenoid (version and inclination) and acromion (tilt, coverage, height). Overall, the scapulae of patients with dynamic and static instability differed only marginally among themselves. Compared with the control group, the glenoid was 2.5° (P = .032), respectively, 5.7° (P = .001) more retroverted and 2.9° (P = .025), respectively, 3.7° (P = .014) more downward tilted in dynamic, respectively, static instability. The acromial roof of dynamic instability was significantly higher and on average 6.2° (P = .007) less posterior covering with an increased posterior acromial height of +4.8mm (P = .001). The acromial roof of static instability was on average 4.8° (P = .041) more externally rotated (axial tilt), 7.3° (P = .004) flatter (sagittal tilt), 8.3° (P = .001) less posterior covered with an increased posterior acromial height of +5.8 mm (0.001). The scapula of shoulders with dynamic and static posterior instability is characterized by an increased glenoid retroversion and an acromion that is shorter posterolaterally, higher, and more horizontal in the sagittal plane. All these deviations from the normal scapula values were more pronounced in static posterior instability.

Case: A 40-year-old man presented with progressive shoulder pain, associated with static posterior subluxation and mild eccentric glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Compared with a mean statistical shape model of a normal shoulder, the patient's acromion was abnormally high and horizontal, and the glenoid abnormally inclined inferiorly and minimally retroverted. Restoration of normal scapular anatomy using 3-dimensional planned acromial and glenoid osteotomies led to recentering of the joint and full shoulder function up to 24 months postoperatively. Conclusion: The correction of associated acromial and glenoid malformation can revert early static posterior subluxation of the shoulder. Whether successful recentering prevents progression of osteoarthritis remains to be established.

Purpose: Primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis is commonly associated with static posterior subluxation of the humeral head. Scapulae with static/dynamic posterior instability feature a superiorly and horizontally oriented acromion. We investigated whether the acromion acts as a restraint to posterior humeral translation.Methods: Five three‐dimensional (3D) printed scapula models were biomechanically tested. A statistical shape mean model (SSMM) of the normal scapula of 40 asymptomatic shoulders was fabricated. Next, a SSMM of scapular anatomy associated with posterior subluxation was generated using data of 20 scapulae (“B1”). This model was then used to generate three models of surgical correction: glenoid version, acromial orientation, and acromial and glenoid orientation. With the joint axially loaded (100N) and the humerus stabilized, an anterior translation force was applied to the scapula in 35°, 60° and 75° of glenohumeral flexion. Translation (mm) was measured.Results: In the normal scapula, the humerus translates significantly less to contact with the acromion compared to all other configurations (p < .000 for all comparisons; i.e. 35°: “normal” 8,1 mm (± 0,0) versus “B1” 11,9 mm (± 0,0) versus “B1 Acromion Correction” 12,2 mm (± 0,2) versus “B1 Glenoid Correction” 13,3 mm (± 0,1)). Restoration of normal translation was only achieved with correction of glenoid and acromial anatomy (i.e. 75°: “normal” 11 mm (± 0,8) versus “B1 Acromion Correction” 17,5 mm (± 0,1) versus “B1 Glenoid Correction” 19,7 mm (± 1,3) versus “B1 Glenoid + Acromion Correction” 11,5 mm (± 1,1)).Conclusions: Persistence or recurrence of static/dynamic posterior instability after correction of glenoid version alone may be related to incomplete restoration of the intrinsic stability that is conferred by a normal acromial anatomy.Level of Evidence V: biomechanical study

Disabling loss of functional internal rotation (fIR) after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is frequent but not well understood. This study tested the hypothesis that limitation of fIR after RTSA is not primarily related to a deficit in internal rotation. Fifty patients (mean age at RTSA, 74 ± 11.7 years) who were consecutively seen at a yearly follow-up visit at 1-10 years (median, 4 years) after RTSA were prospectively examined with special attention to fIR. Patients with axillary nerve or deltoid dysfunction were excluded. Relative (age- and sex-adjusted) Constant-Murley scores (CSs) and Subjective Shoulder Values were assessed preoperatively and at final follow-up. In addition, active extension and 4 postoperative activities of daily living (ADLs) requiring fIR were tested at follow-up. Rotator cuff fatty infiltration and notching were evaluated radiographically. For analysis, patients were divided into a group with poor fIR (fIR-, n = 19), defined as ≤2 internal-rotation points in the CS, and a group with good fIR (fIR+, n = 31), defined as ≥4 internal-rotation points in the CS. Active extension of the contralateral shoulders was comparable in the fIR- group (mean, 60.3° [standard deviation (SD), 11.2°]) and fIR+ group (66.1° [SD, 14.2°]). Postoperatively, a difference in active extension between the unaffected and operated sides was present in both groups and averaged 16° (55° [SD, 14.3°] in fIR+ group and 39.1° [SD, 10.8°] in fIR- group; P < .001). No patient in the fIR+ group had active extension < 40° (range, 40°-85°). Shoulders with extension ≥ 40° but unsatisfactory fIR had restricted passive internal rotation in extension. The ability to perform ADLs behind the back correlated better with shoulder extension than with so-called fIR measurements in the CS. Functional internal rotation after RTSA requires at least 40° of shoulder extension. If fIR is unsatisfactory despite 40° of extension, passive restriction of internal rotation in full extension is the limiting factor. It is crucial to preserve or restore active shoulder extension to allow ADLs involving internal rotation.