Glenoid or not glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis.

The optimal choice for the treatment of end-stage primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis remains controversial, with alternatives including total shoulder replacement (TSR) and humeral head replacement (HHR). The objective of this review is to analyze the effect of TSR compared with HHR on rates of pain relief, range of motion, patient satisfaction and revision surgery in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Compared with HHR, TSR provided significantly greater pain relief, gain in forward elevation, and gain in external rotation and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, TSR required significantly less revision surgery glenoid component loosening than patients undergoing HHR (progression of osteoarthritis changes with subchondral sclerosis, joint space narrowing and glenoid subsidence). A convex-back pegged glenoid component with a modern instrumented cement pressurization technique achieves risk of loosening. For 10 years, a high interest regarding new designs of un-cemented metal back glenoid components has developed with promising results, because they allow glenoid bone graft in case of glenoid erosion or dysplasia and a one-stage glenoid bone reconstruction in case of revision surgery.

Classifications of glenoid dysplasia, glenoid bone loss and glenoid loosening: a review of the literature.

So far, glenoid implantation still remains a challenge and is technically demanding even for an experienced shoulder surgeon. Each shoulder pathology has its own evolution. In primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, glenoid involvement and proper morphology vary considerably. Erosion is more posterior and inferior. In rheumatoid arthritis, glenoid erosion is more medial with a very weak and soft bone. In eccentric arthritis, glenoid erosion is most of the time superior. Glenoid component loosening has been recognized as one of the common indications for revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. Scapular notching is specific to the reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Moreover, there is concern about the high frequency of glenoid components that demonstrate radiographic periprosthetic lucencies. There is little information available to guide clinical decision making regarding glenoid surgery. Placement or replacement with a standard glenoid component is usually possible. In some instances, bone graft reconstruction or the use of augmented or custom components can be an option. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the main glenoid erosion classifications.