Mechanics of Glenohumeral Arthroplasty.
Last updated Thursday, January 27, 2005
Figure 11 - Effect of joint stuffing on glenohumeral translation Figure 12 - Tightness of the anterior capsule can force the humeral head out of the back of the joint on external rotation Figure 13 - Tightness of the posterior capsule can force the humeral head out of the front of the joint on elevation in anterior scapular planes Figure 14 - Polyethylene wear and cold flow Figure 15 - "Rocking horse" mechanism Figure 16 - The humeral head can be translated in the direction where contact is lacking Figure 17 - Centering point of the subscapularis fossa Figure 18 - Glenoid center line Figure 19 - Depth of the glenoid concavity Figure 20 - Effective depth of glenoid concavity Figure 21 - Glenoidgram "U" - Some degree of shock absorption can be provided by a slight mismatch between the humeral and glenoid diameters of curvature Figure 22 - Effect of diameter mismatch on glenohumeral contact area Figure 23 - Effect of diameter mismatch on stress in glenoid component Figure 24 - Spherical reaming dramatically diminishes both the wobble and the warp of the glenoid component with eccentric loading StabilityFactors affecting stability The stability of a shoulder arthroplasty is dependent on reestablishing:
- Capsular ligaments that are neither too short
(in which case obligate translation may occur at the limits of motion)
nor too long (in which case the joint may over rotate beyond the
positions in which the muscles can stabilize the head in the socket).
- Compression by repairing, balancing, and rehabilitating the cuff muscles.
- Full surface contact through the useful range of the joint.
- Balance
of the net humeral joint reaction force by assuring that the glenoid
component is properly oriented with respect to the scapula.
- The
glenoid concavity with a glenoid prosthesis if the biological glenoid
is destroyed. The glenoid component needs to be firmly supported by the
subjacent bone.
As discussed under the topic of shoulder stability, laxity
(translation on examination of the joint) is not the same as
instability (the inability to hold the head centered in the glenoid).
Translation in the midranges of motion where most functions are carried
out is an important property of normal glenohumeral joints. As a rule
of thumb during arthroplasty, we strive for translation of 15 mm on the
posterior drawer test to help assure that the joint has not been
overstuffed. The effect of overstuffing on translation in our cadaveric
study of shoulder arthroplasty can be seen in the graph. It is of
interest that the average translations on all three laxity tests
(anterior drawer, posterior drawer, and sulcus) were 15 to 16 mm in the
anatomic preparations for these eight shoulders where no capsular
release was performed. Increased degrees of stuffing progressively
compromised this normal joint laxity. Overstuffing of 9 mm reduced the
normal laxity in all directions by about 50 percent. Instability caused by arthroplasty If normal capsular laxity is not present, instability may result
from obligate translation. This may appear counterintuitive: a
too-tight joint can be unstable. Yet as was demonstrated in the section
on shoulder stiffness, tightness of the anterior capsule can force the
humeral head out of the back of the joint on external rotation, and
tightness of the posterior capsule can force the humeral head out of
the front of the joint on elevation in anterior scapular planes. In our
cadaver study we found that only half as much motion could be achieved
before obligate translation occurred in the overstuffed shoulder in
comparison to the anatomic shoulder.
When the humeral and glenoid prosthetic joint surfaces are
conforming (identical radii of curvature), any amount of translation
will result in rim loading, causing extremely high contact pressures
with resulting polyethylene wear and cold flow. Prosthetic glenoid rim
destruction is a frequent feature of the glenoid components we have
retrieved from failed shoulder arthroplasties. Rim contact from
unwanted translation also predisposes to glenoid component loosening by
the "rocking horse" mechanism. Thus it appears that normal ligamentous
laxity is a desired characteristic after shoulder arthroplasty; the
surgeon must strive to provide this laxity through capsular releases
and by avoiding excessively large prosthetic components which would
overstuff the joint. Ensuring stability Stability of the arthroplasty is also related to strong muscle
forces, which are balanced so that the net humeral joint reaction force
passes through the glenoid fossa. Loss of the coordinated strength of
the cuff muscles through disuse, denervation, tendon failure,
iatrogenic damage, tuberosity nonunion, or tuberosity malunion can
render a shoulder unstable in spite of appropriate position and
orientation of the joint surfaces. In cuff tear arthropathy, chronic
massive cuff deficiency deprives the joint of normal compression,
allowing upward instability of the humerus in relation to the glenoid.
In this situation, the cuff is frequently not reconstructable. If the
humerus has been chronically subluxated in a superior direction with
loss of the superior glenoid concavity, it is unlikely that cuff
reconstruction can restore normal stability through compression. Under
these circumstances, insertion of a glenoid component risks problems
related to the abnormal humeral position: glenoid rim contact, rim
wear, and rocking horse loosening.
Stability of the arthroplasty is further related to the ability of
the articulation to offer full surface contact through a wide range of
motion. Humeral components that subtend a small surface angle allow
only a small range of full surface contact. When the joint is
positioned out of the range of full surface contact, the humeral head
can be translated in the direction where contact is lacking.
Activity:
Holding a humeral and glenoid component in your hands, verify that
the components are stable while they are in full surface contact.
However, when the humerus is rotated so that the edge of the humeral
articular surface lies within the glenoid fossa, the humerus can be
translated toward the empty part of the glenoid. Balancing the net humeral joint reaction force Balancing the net humeral joint reaction force is one of the major
mechanisms by which the prosthetic arthroplasty is stabilized. Proper
balance requires that the glenoid be properly oriented with respect to
the scapula. Excessive posterior inclination of the prosthetic joint
surface is an important cause of postoperative posterior instability.
When a portion of the glenoid cartilage remains intact, the subchondral
bone beneath it may be used as a guide to the normal orientation of the
glenoid face. This feature is useful in capsulorrhaphy arthropathy and
in degenerative joint disease, in which glenoid wear may be confined to
the posterior half of the fossa. In rheumatoid arthritis, the glenoid
version is usually unchanged because the erosion takes place
symmetrically in a medial direction.
A simple cadaver study demonstrated a practical method for
normalizing the glenoid orientation in the general case. We took a
group of ten normal cadaveric scapulae and located the center of the
face of the glenoid. We then inserted a drill perpendicular to the face
starting at the glenoid center. In each case, the drill emerged from
the anterior glenoid neck at the lateral aspect of the subscapularis
fossa at a point midway between the upper and lower crus of the
scapula. We refer to this spot in the subscapularis fossa as the
centering point. This point is easily palpated at arthroplasty surgery
after an anterior capsular release has been performed. It is unaffected
by arthritis. The line connecting it to the center of the glenoid face
is the normalized glenoid center line. Orienting the prosthetic glenoid
to this normalized glenoid center line enables the surgeon to correct
pathologic glenoid version, which is frequently encountered in
degenerative joint disease and other conditions requiring shoulder
arthroplasty.
Activity:
Take a group of normal cadaveric scapulae and drill holes
perpendicular to the center of the glenoid articular surface, observing
the spot where the drill exits the anterior glenoid neck. Concavity compression Concavity compression is another major mechanism by which shoulder
arthroplasties are stabilized in functional positions. A humeral
hemiarthroplasty can be stabilized by muscular compression if the
glenoid concavity is intact. In degenerative joint disease and in
capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, however, the posterior half of the glenoid
concavity is usually eroded away, depriving the shoulder of the
concavity necessary for stability. Thus, even if excellent articular
cartilage exists on the anterior half of the glenoid, a humeral
hemiarthroplasty cannot be stable without this posterior glenoid lip.
Humeral hemiarthroplasty may be stabilized in cuff tear arthropathy,
even though the superior lip of the glenoid is eroded away by superior
humeral subluxation. In this situation, the prosthetic humeral head is
captured by an acetabular-like socket consisting of the acromion, the
coracoacromial ligament, the coracoid, and the eroded upper glenoid. In
performing a special hemiarthroplasty under these circumstances, it is
vital that the surgeon not compromise this socket by sacrificing the
anterior acromion or the coracoacromial ligament; otherwise the humeral
head is likely to be destablized in an anterosuperior direction.
Glenohumeral arthroplasty provides the surgeon the opportunity to
control the depth of the prosthetic glenoid concavity. The depth of the
glenoid concavity is related to dimensions of the face of the glenoid
(superior-inferior and anterior-posterior breadth) and to the radius of
curvature. For a given radius of joint surface curvature, larger
components are deeper than smaller ones. For a given glenoid size,
components with a smaller radius of curvature are deeper than those
with larger radii of joint surface curvature. Stabilizing with concavity compression If the glenoid and humeral radii of curvature are equal, the head
will be held precisely in the center by concavity compression; no
translation can occur unless the humeral head is allowed to lift out of
the fossa (the glenoidogram would show a tight "V". While this tight
conformity provides excellent stability, it has the potential
disadvantage that displacing loads applied to the humerus will be
transmitted fully to the glenoid and thence to the glenoid-bone
interface. In the biological glenoid, the compliance of the articular
cartilage and glenoid labrum provide shock absorption for transverse
displacing loads. Because polyethylene is much stiffer than cartilage
and labrum, this shock absorption is not present in prosthetic glenoid
arthroplasty. Thus glenoid fixation is at risk for substantial peak
loads when the glenoid and humeral joint surfaces are totally
conforming.
Some degree of shock absorption can be provided by a slight mismatch
between the humeral and glenoid diameters of curvature, that of the
glenoid being slightly larger. This allows some translation before the
humeral head must lift out of the fossa (the glenoidogram becomes more
a "U" than a tight "V." This too is a compromise, however, in that the
degree of mismatch decreases the contact area and increases the contact
pressures with potential risk of polyethylene failure. In a finite
element model using conventional polyethylene, we predicted the surface
area of contact with a load of typical body weight 625 Newtons (140
lb). There is a dramatic drop in contact area with increasing degrees
of diameter mismatch. This drop in contact area has a corresponding
effect on the contact stresses. For loads of 625 Newtons, the contact
stress exceeds the predicted yield stress for conventional polyethylene
when the diameter mismatch is greater than 6.0 mm. Diminishing wobble and warp In order for the glenoid to stabilize the humeral head against
transverse loads, it must be well supported by the bone beneath it. Our
clinical observations suggest that a primary mechanism of glenoid
loosening is via the rocking horse mechanism when eccentric loads are
applied. In a series of 10 cadaver glenoids we studied the effect of
glenoid bone preparation on the stability of a 3 mm thick, nonclinical,
glenoid component with a diameter of curvature of 60 mm. To emphasize
the effect of glenoid surface preparation, the component was secured to
the bony glenoid with only a single, flexible, uncemented central peg.
The component was loaded with an eccentric force of 200 Newtons applied
at an angle of 14 degrees with the glenoid center line. While the
component was loaded, we measured the wobble of the component with
respect to the bone and the warp or deformation of the component using
displacement transducers. The stability of the component was measured
sequentially after three different glenoid preparations:
- curettage of the articular cartilage,
- meticulous burring of the bone by hand to fit the back of the
component, and preparation using a reamer with a diameter of curvature
of 60 mm centered in a hole along the glenoid center line.
We found that spherical reaming dramatically diminished both the
wobble and the warp of the glenoid component with eccentric loading, in
comparison with the other two methods of bone preparation. We presume
that an even greater increment in stability would accrue with the use
of careful reaming in a deformed bony glenoid, such as that found in
degenerative joint disease. This study demonstrates that precise
contouring of the bone to fit the back of the glenoid component
provides excellent support of the prosthesis, even without fixation
using multiple pegs, keels, cement, screws, or tissue ingrowth. We
conclude that spherical reaming along the anatomic glenoid center line
has two important advantages: (1) it normalizes glenoid version, and
(2) it provides "bone back" support of the glenoid component with the
opportunity for optimal stability and load transfer without the need
for metal-backing.
How useful was this page or article?
|
|