Author:

Keywords:

Science & Technology, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Orthopedics, Glenoid, Reaming, Erosion, Version, Shoulder, Prosthesis, TOTAL SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY, 3-DIMENSIONAL COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY, PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS, COMPONENT POSITION, COMPLICATIONS, RETROVERSION, MORPHOLOGY, SYSTEM, Aged, 80 and over, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Female, Glenoid Cavity, Humans, Joint Prosthesis, Models, Anatomic, Osteoarthritis, Prosthesis Design, Prosthesis Failure, Shoulder Joint, 1103 Clinical Sciences, 3202 Clinical sciences

Abstract:

Background The effect of reaming on bone volume and surface area of the glenoid is not precisely known. We hypothesize that (1) convex reamers create a larger surface area than flat reamers, (2) flat reamers cause less bone loss than convex reamers, and (3) the amount of bone loss increases with the amount of version correction. Methods Reaming procedures with different types of reamers are performed on similar-sized uniconcave and biconcave glenoids created from Sawbones foam blocks. The loss of bone volume, the size of the remaining surface area, and the reaming depth are measured and evaluated. Results Reaming with convex reamers results in a significantly larger surface area than with flat reamers for both uniconcave and biconcave glenoids (p = 0.013 and p = 0.001). Convex reamers cause more bone loss than flat reamers, but the difference is only significant for uniconcave glenoids (p = 0.007). Conclusions In biconcave glenoids, convex reamers remove a similar amount of bone as flat reamers, but offer a larger surface area while maximizing the correction of the retroversion. In pathological uniconcave glenoids, convex reamers are preferred because of the conforming shape.