International orthopaedics · 2024
The effect of humeral tray thickness on glenohumeral loads in a reverse shoulder 'smart' implant.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Caubère Alexandre, Rutigliano Stella, Bourdon Samuel, Erickson John, Morelli Moreno, Parsons Moby, Neyton Lionel, Gauci Marc-Olivier
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to observe the effects of changing humeral tray thickness on the resultant of intraoperative glenohumeral joint loads using a load-sensing system (LSS).
METHODS: An rTSA was performed on fresh frozen full-body cadaver shoulders by using an internal proprietary LSS on the humeral side. The glenohumeral loads (Newtons) and the direction of the resultant force applied on the implant were recorded during four standard positions (External rotation, Extension, Abduction, Flexion) and three "complex" positions of Activity Daily Life ("behind back", "overhead reach" and "across chest"). For each position, the thickness was increased from 0 to 6 mm in a continuous fashion using the adjustment feature of the humeral system. Each manoeuvre was repeated three times.
RESULTS: All shoulder positions showed a high repeatability of the glenohumeral load magnitude measured with an intra-class correlation coefficient of over 0.9. For each position, we observed a strong but no linear correlation between humeral tray thickness and joint loads. It was a cubical correlation (rs = 0,91) with a short ascending phase, then a plateau phase, and finally a phase with an exponential growth of the loads on the humeral implant. In addition, an increase in trail-poly thickness led to a recentering of force application at the interface of the two glenohumeral implants.
CONCLUSION: This study provides further insight into the effects of humeral implant thickness on rTSA glenohumeral joint loads during different positions of the arm. Data obtained using this type of device could guide surgeons in finding the proper implant balance during rTSA.
METHODS: An rTSA was performed on fresh frozen full-body cadaver shoulders by using an internal proprietary LSS on the humeral side. The glenohumeral loads (Newtons) and the direction of the resultant force applied on the implant were recorded during four standard positions (External rotation, Extension, Abduction, Flexion) and three "complex" positions of Activity Daily Life ("behind back", "overhead reach" and "across chest"). For each position, the thickness was increased from 0 to 6 mm in a continuous fashion using the adjustment feature of the humeral system. Each manoeuvre was repeated three times.
RESULTS: All shoulder positions showed a high repeatability of the glenohumeral load magnitude measured with an intra-class correlation coefficient of over 0.9. For each position, we observed a strong but no linear correlation between humeral tray thickness and joint loads. It was a cubical correlation (rs = 0,91) with a short ascending phase, then a plateau phase, and finally a phase with an exponential growth of the loads on the humeral implant. In addition, an increase in trail-poly thickness led to a recentering of force application at the interface of the two glenohumeral implants.
CONCLUSION: This study provides further insight into the effects of humeral implant thickness on rTSA glenohumeral joint loads during different positions of the arm. Data obtained using this type of device could guide surgeons in finding the proper implant balance during rTSA.