Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 29, 2025
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
The Real Post-Operative Range of Motion Differs from the Virtual Pre-Operative Planned Range of Motion in Reverse
Julien Berhouet1,2, Ramy Samargandi1,3, Luc Favard1
1CHRU Trousseau Service d'Orthopédie Traumatologie, Faculté de Médecine de Tours, Université de Tours, 1C Avenue de la République, 37170 Tours, France.
Introduction:
The purpose of this study was to analyze the real range of motion (RoM) measured in patients operated on for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and compare it to the virtual RoM provided by the preoperative planning software.
Hypothesis:
There was a difference between virtual and real RoM, which can be explained by different factors, specifically the scapula-thoracic (ST) joint.
Methods:
Twenty patients with RSA were assessed at a minimum follow-up of 18 months. Passive RoM in forward elevation abduction, without and with manually locking the ST joint, and in external rotation with arm at side were recorded. The humerus, scapula, and implants were manually segmented on post-operative CTs. Post-operative bony structures were registered to preoperative bony elements. From this registration, a post-operative plan corresponding to the real post-operative implant positioning was generated and the corresponding virtual RoM analysis was recorded. On the post-operative anteroposterior X-rays and 2D-CT coronal planning view, the glenoid horizontal line angle (GH), the metaphyseal horizontal line angle (MH), and the gleno-metaphyseal angle (GMA) were measured to assess the extrinsic glenoid inclination, as well as the relative position of the humeral and glenoid components.
Results:
There were some significant differences between virtual and post-operative passive abduction and forward elevation, with (55° and 50°, p < 0.0001) or without ST joint participation (15° and 27°, p < 0.002). For external rotation with arm at side, there was no significant difference between planning (24° ± 26°) and post-operative clinical observation (19° ± 12°) (p = 0.38). For the angle measurements, the GMA was significantly higher (42.8° ± 15.2° vs. 29.1°± 18.2°, p < 0.0001), and the GH angle, significantly lower on the virtual planning (85.2° ± 8.8° vs. 99.5° ± 12.5°, p < 0.0001), while the MH was not different (p = 0.33).
Conclusions:
The virtual RoM given by the planning software used in this study differs from the real post-operative passive RoM, except for external rotation. This can be explained by the lack of ST joint and soft tissues simulation. However, in focusing on the virtual GH participation, the simulation looks informative. Some modifications between the glenoid and humerus starting positions before running the motion analysis could be provided for making it more realistic and predictive of the RSA functional results.
Level Of Evidence:
III.
