Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 9, 2025
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Does Humeral Component Version Affect Range of Motion and Clinical Outcomes in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty? A
Shivan S Jassim1, Lukas Ernstbrunner1,2,3, Eugene T Ek1,4
1Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, 33 The Avenue, Windsor, Melbourne, VIC 3181, Australia.
Background:
Prosthesis selection, design, and placement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) affect post-operative results. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the humeral stem version and prosthesis design (inlay vs. onlay) on shoulder function following RTSA.
Methods:
A systematic review of the literature on post-operative range of motion (ROM) and functional scores following RTSA with specifically known humeral stem implantations was performed using MEDLINE, Pubmed, and Embase databases, and the Cochrane Library. Functional scores included were Constant scores (CSs) and/or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. The patients were organised into three separate groups based on the implanted version of their humeral stem: (1) less than 20° of retroversion, (2) 20° of retroversion, and (3) greater than 20° of retroversion.
Results:
Data from 14 studies and a total of 1221 shoulders were eligible for analysis. Patients with a humeral stem implanted at 20° of retroversion had similar post-operative mean ASES (75.8 points) and absolute CS (68.1 points) compared to the group with humeral stems implanted at less than 20° of retroversion (76 points and 62.5 points; p = 0.956 and p = 0.153) and those implanted at more than 20° of retroversion (73.3 points; p = 0.682). Subjects with humeral stem retroversion at greater than 20° tended towards greater active forward elevation and external rotation compared with the group at 20° of retroversion (p = 0.462) and those with less than 20° of retroversion (p = 0.192). Patients with an onlay-type RTSA showed statistically significantly higher mean post-operative internal rotation compared to patients with inlay-type RTSA designs (p = 0.048). Other functional scores and forward elevation results favoured the onlay-types, but greater external rotation was seen in inlay-type RTSA designs (p = 0.382).
Conclusions:
Humeral stem implantation in RTSA at 20° of retroversion and greater appears to be associated with higher post-operative outcome scores and a greater range of motion when compared with a retroversion of less than 20°. Within these studies, onlay-type RTSA designs were associated with greater forward elevation but less external rotation when compared to inlay-type designs. However, none of the differences in outcome scores and range of motion between the humeral version groups were statistically significant.
