Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2026

08:40
Surgical Technique of the 3-Dimensional-printed Personalized Hip Implant for the Treatment of Canine Hip Dysplasia
Published on: April 19, 2024
Inset glenoid component stability and bone removal by implantation depth
Annelise Pageau1, Yusra Pervez1, Alexander Wolfe2
1Department of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty
|August 8, 2026
Summary
Optimal inset depth for total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid components balances stability and bone preservation. Insetting 25-50% minimizes micromotion while conserving bone, reducing revision surgery risks.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic surgery
- Biomechanical engineering
- Biomaterials science
Background:
- Aseptic loosening of cemented glenoid components in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is a primary driver for revision surgeries.
- The rocking-horse phenomenon may accelerate loosening, prompting the development of inset glenoid implants.
- Optimal inset depth for minimizing micromotion and preserving bone is not well-established.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the impact of different inset depths on glenoid component micromotion and bone preservation.
- To determine an optimal inset depth for TSA glenoid components.
- To compare micromotion, bone removal, and bone density at various inset depths.
Main Methods:
- Finite element models of osteoarthritic scapulae were created from CT scans.
- Circular inset glenoid components were virtually implanted at 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% depths.
- Simulated glenohumeral joint loading was applied, and micromotion, bone removal volume, and sub-component bone density were analyzed.
Main Results:
- No significant correlation was found between inset depth and tangential or normal micromotion.
- Deeper insetting (up to 100%) significantly increased bone removal compared to shallower depths (25%).
- Bone density beneath the component was highest at 25% inset depth and decreased significantly with greater depths.
Conclusions:
- Inset depth did not significantly affect glenoid component micromotion, though deeper insetting showed a trend toward reduction.
- Deeper insetting necessitates greater bone removal and results in lower bone density, potentially compromising long-term stability.
- An inset depth of approximately 25-50% is recommended to balance implant stability, bone preservation, and supporting bone density in TSA.
