Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Optimizing stability and motion in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° neck-shaft-angle: a computer model study
Stefan Bauer1,2, William G Blakeney2,3, Xavier Lannes1
1Centre de l'épaule et du membre supérieur de la Côte, Ensemble Hospitalier de la Côte, Morges, Switzerland.
Background:
There has been a trend to shift from a 155° and 145° neck-shaft-angle (NSA) to a more "anatomical" reverse shoulder arthroplasty with less distalization and a 135° NSA. Multiple studies have shown that a 135° NSA is beneficial for motion. There are some concerns about primary implant stability with a 135° NSA. When instability is detected, increasing the tension with thicker inlays or changing the NSA to 145° are possible solutions. A retentive 135° (Ret135) inlay may be an alternative to avoiding increased distalization; however, retentive liners are widely regarded as salvage options reducing range of motion (ROM) and avoided by most surgeons. The hypothesis of this study was that a retentive 135° insert of the tested implant system may not have drawbacks for impingement-free ROM compared to a standard 145° insert (Sta145).
Methods:
In this computer model study, 22 computed tomographic scans (11 males/11 females) were used to create models with a constant humeral stem (Perform/Stryker) and +3 mm lateralized baseplate +36 mm glenosphere for females and +6 mm lateralized baseplate +39 mm glenosphere for males using Blueprint software (Imascap, Brest, France). A Ret135, standard 135° (Sta135), and Sta145 (+10°) insert were compared for adduction (ADD), extension (EXT), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR) all with the arm at the side as well as for combined IR (CIR = EXT + IR) and combined notching relevant (CNR) ROM (EXT + ER + IR + ADD).
Results:
Sta135 showed significantly better ROM for ER, IR, ADD, EXT, CNR ROM, and CIR compared to Ret135 (P < .05) and significantly better EXT and ADD compared to Sta145 (P < .0001). Comparison of Ret135 and Sta145 showed equivalent ROM performance, which was slightly better but nonsignificant for ADD (P = .16), EXT (P = .31), CNR ROM (P = .7), and CIR (P = .54) in favor of Ret135. Isolated IR (P = .39) and ER (P = .32) were slightly better but nonsignificant in favor of a Sta145.
Conclusion:
For this implant system tested in a computer model, a 135° standard liner offers the best ROM. A 135° retentive liner maintains at least equivalent CIR and motion to prevent notching compared to a standard 145° liner. 135° retentive liners are more than salvage options and may help to prevent distalization and overtensioning by increased liner thickness.
