Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2026
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Inconsistencies in terminology used to describe reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review
Jean-David Werthel1, Jules Descamps2, Elyette Lugo3
1Orthopedic Department, Hôpital Ambroise Paré, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Background:
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) implant design has evolved substantially over the past decades, with numerous modifications affecting medialization, lateralization, and center of rotation (COR) geometry. Although these parameters are frequently discussed in the literature, the terminology used to describe rTSA design and configuration remains heterogeneous and inconsistently defined, limiting comparability across studies.
Materials And Methods:
A systematic review was performed to analyze how rTSA implant design and configuration are reported in the peer-reviewed literature. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched for English- and French-language studies published after 2015. Eligible studies included clinical, biomechanical, cadaveric, computational, and review studies reporting technical data related to medialization or lateralization. Data extraction focused on implant identification, reporting of COR position, glenoid and humeral offset parameters, and overall design classification. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize reporting patterns.
Results:
A total of 799 studies met inclusion criteria. Although the position of the COR was mentioned in 72.8% of studies, it was clearly defined in only 19.4%. Glenoid and humeral lateral offsets were explicitly described in 39.3% and 46.6% of studies, respectively. Overall implant design was classified as lateralized in 17.6%, medialized in 15.6%, and mixed in 34.0% of studies, while 32.7% lacked a clear design classification. In more than half of studies (53%), the anatomical origin of lateralization (glenoid, humeral, or combined) was not specified.
Conclusion:
This systematic review demonstrates substantial inconsistency in the terminology used to describe rTSA implant design and configuration. Key biomechanical parameters are frequently reported without clear, quantitative, or reproducible definitions, which may hinder interpretation and comparison of published findings. Future expert-based consensus work may help establish clearer and more reproducible descriptive terminology for reporting rTSA design and configuration.
