User login
Take-Home Points
- With more shoulder arthroplasties being performed on younger patients, we can expect more revisions in the future.
- Many of these revision cases will have profound glenoid bone loss.
- Bone grafting the glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty has been less successful especially with significant vault defects.
- Based on the CAD-CAM success in total hip and knee replacement surgery, a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system has been developed by Zimmer Biomet to deal with profound glenoid bone loss and cuff insufficiency.
- Early results of this vault reconstruction system have been promising in these most difficult clinical situations.
Early results of this vault reconstruction system have been promising in these most difficult clinical situations. Complex glenoid deformities present the most difficult challenges in shoulder arthroplasty (SA). These deformities may be caused by severe degenerative or congenital deformity, posttraumatic anatomy, tumor, or, in most cases, bone loss after glenoid failure in anatomical total SA.
Walch and colleagues1 described the pathologic glenoid lesions seen in progressive degenerative arthritis and some congenital defects. The most severe were initially characterized as Walch B2 and Walch C deformities. These lesions have been further classified to include Walch B3 posteroinferior glenoid deformities.2,3 Each of these deformities can result in severe glenoid vault deficiency.
In some revision cases and in severe rheumatoid cases, these deformities can present as cavitary lesions with or without failure of the glenoid rim or wall resulting in significant compromise of glenoid vault lesions.4,5 In these cases, the degree of “medialization” of the native glenohumeral joint line and the amount of peripheral bone loss can have profound effects on the amount of bone available for fixation and on the ability to allow component positioning for best surgical and biomechanical outcomes.
Other bone loss deformities, which have been described by Antuna and colleagues6 and Seebauer and colleagues,7 often accompany disease processes with severe cuff deficiency. These deformities historically have been treated with intercalary-type bone grafts in 1- or 2-stage revision of reverse SA or in salvage to hemiarthroplasty. Treatment of these pathologies with the technique described produced only fair results in short-term to midterm follow-up. The most commonly reported complications have been component loosening, bone graft failure, infection, and instability.8-11Borrowing from hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons’ experience in using CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) patient-specific implants to fill significant bony defects, Dr. D. M. Dines and Dr. Craig developed a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system (VRS) in conjunction with the Comprehensive Shoulder Arthroplasty System (Zimmer Biomet). For a number of years, the Food and Drug Administration allowed this patient-specific glenoid VRS component to be made available only as a custom implant. Recently, however, full 510K clearance was granted to use the VRS in reverse SA patients with severe soft-tissue deficiency and significant glenoid bone loss.
In this article, we describe the implant and its indications, technical aspects of production, and surgical technique.
Vault Reconstruction System
Severe glenoid bone loss often requires an implant that specifically matches the patient’s anatomy. The patient-specific glenoid VRS (Figure 1) is made from a 3-dimensional reconstruction of a 2-dimensional computed tomography image. 
In some cases in which the bone is sufficient to enhance fixation in the deficient glenoid vault, a custom boss may be added to the implant, as well as a custom guide matching the implant. 
Glenoid Exposure
In most cases of severe glenoid bone loss, the associated soft-tissue deficiency allows for easier glenoid exposure. In this implant system, however, maximal peripheral en face exposure of the glenoid is required. In addition, it is mandatory to avoid disturbing the remaining glenoid bone surfaces, which often are thin or fragile, because the patient-specific implant is referenced to this anatomy. Bone that is not maintained changes the orientation of the patient-specific guide and ultimately the fixation of the component. Using the correct retractors and meticulously excising soft-tissue scar tissue are crucial for success.
Implant Positioning
With the glenoid surface properly exposed, the removable inserter handle and the built-in lip on the implant are used to position the patient-specific guide. Next, a central guide pin is placed through the inserter for temporary fixation and further instrumentation. If enough bone is present, a boss reamer can be used over the guide pin to prepare and increase the fixation surface. 
The central 6.5-mm nonlocking compression screw is placed to provide strong initial compressive fixation in best bone. 
With the patient-specific glenoid VRS implant now rigidly fixed in the glenoid, the sized and offset glenosphere is properly positioned, and the reverse SA is completed in routine fashion.
Case Examples
A 49-year-old man underwent hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis. The procedure failed and, 3 years later, was revised to conventional total SA. Unfortunately, the cemented all-polyethylene glenoid loosened secondary to active Propionibacterium acnes infection, which required excisional arthroplasty with antibiotic spacer. Significant cavitary bone loss was found with anterior glenoid wall bone loss compromising the glenoid vault. Given the history of bone loss and infection, patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction was performed after infection eradication. Within 4 years after this surgery, the patient had resumed all activities. At age 57 years, he had restricted active forward elevation and abduction to 120° but was satisfied with the outcome. 
A 71-year-old man underwent reverse SA for rotator cuff-deficient osteoarthritis. After implant excision and spacer placement, he was left with severe soft-tissue deficiency and glenoid bone loss, which caused substantial disability. After treatment for infection, a work-up was performed for glenoid bone deficiency and insertion of a patient-specific glenoid VRS implant. 
Discussion
Glenoid bone deformity and deficiency are among the most difficult challenges in SA—a particularly compelling fact given the increasing number of SAs being performed in younger, more active patients. SA surgeons can now expect to be performing even more revisions with concomitant bone defects, which may be severe in some cases.
In addition to these causes of extreme bone loss, recent awareness of the importance of recognizing and treating bone deficits in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, trauma, and instability has led to the development of patient-specific guides, instrumentation, and implants. Concepts from the use of CAD/CAM acetabular implants in total hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bony defects were applied to the use of patient-specific glenoid reconstruction implants without bone graft augmentation.12 In different form, this idea was reported by Chammaa and colleagues13 in 30 cases, and clinical and durable results were very promising.
We have described use of this technique in 2 extreme cases of glenoid vault deficiency. In each case, short-term results were quite satisfactory. However, both patients were relatively young, and long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up is needed.
Many of the severe cases of glenoid bone loss require an implant that specifically matches the patient’s anatomy. The glenoid VRS implant described here may be of great benefit in these difficult reconstructions and is a valuable addition to the armamentarium of treatments for distorted glenoid anatomy. Eventually, the idea may become useful in treating other, less significant defects by re-creating more-normal biomechanics in SA without bone graft.
Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
1. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
2. Chan K, Knowles NK, Chaoui J, et al. Characterization of the Walch B3 glenoid in primary osteoarthritis [published online January 11, 2017]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.003.
3. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1601-1606.
4. Sears BW, Johnston PS, Ramsay ML, Williams GR. Glenoid bone loss in primary total shoulder arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(9):604-613.
5. Kocsis G, Thyagarajan DS, Fairbairn KJ, Wallace WA. A new classification of glenoid bone loss to help plan the implantation of a glenoid component before revision arthroplasty of the shoulder. Bone Joint J. 2016;98(3):374-380.
6. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224.
7. Seebauer L, Walter W, Keyl W. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of defect arthropathy [in English, German]. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2005;17(1):1-24.
8. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012:21(6):765-771.
9. Hill JM, Norris TR. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(6):877-883.
10. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(5):361-367.
11. Hsu JE, Ricchetti ET, Huffman GR, Iannotti JP, Glaser DL. Addressing glenoid bone deficiency and asymptomatic posterior erosion in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1298-1308.
12. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684.
13. Chammaa R, Uri O, Lambert S. Primary shoulder arthroplasty using a custom-made hip-inspired implant for the treatment of advanced glenohumeral arthritis in the presence of severe glenoid bone loss. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):101-107.
Take-Home Points
- With more shoulder arthroplasties being performed on younger patients, we can expect more revisions in the future.
- Many of these revision cases will have profound glenoid bone loss.
- Bone grafting the glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty has been less successful especially with significant vault defects.
- Based on the CAD-CAM success in total hip and knee replacement surgery, a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system has been developed by Zimmer Biomet to deal with profound glenoid bone loss and cuff insufficiency.
- Early results of this vault reconstruction system have been promising in these most difficult clinical situations.
Early results of this vault reconstruction system have been promising in these most difficult clinical situations. Complex glenoid deformities present the most difficult challenges in shoulder arthroplasty (SA). These deformities may be caused by severe degenerative or congenital deformity, posttraumatic anatomy, tumor, or, in most cases, bone loss after glenoid failure in anatomical total SA.
Walch and colleagues1 described the pathologic glenoid lesions seen in progressive degenerative arthritis and some congenital defects. The most severe were initially characterized as Walch B2 and Walch C deformities. These lesions have been further classified to include Walch B3 posteroinferior glenoid deformities.2,3 Each of these deformities can result in severe glenoid vault deficiency.
In some revision cases and in severe rheumatoid cases, these deformities can present as cavitary lesions with or without failure of the glenoid rim or wall resulting in significant compromise of glenoid vault lesions.4,5 In these cases, the degree of “medialization” of the native glenohumeral joint line and the amount of peripheral bone loss can have profound effects on the amount of bone available for fixation and on the ability to allow component positioning for best surgical and biomechanical outcomes.
Other bone loss deformities, which have been described by Antuna and colleagues6 and Seebauer and colleagues,7 often accompany disease processes with severe cuff deficiency. These deformities historically have been treated with intercalary-type bone grafts in 1- or 2-stage revision of reverse SA or in salvage to hemiarthroplasty. Treatment of these pathologies with the technique described produced only fair results in short-term to midterm follow-up. The most commonly reported complications have been component loosening, bone graft failure, infection, and instability.8-11Borrowing from hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons’ experience in using CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) patient-specific implants to fill significant bony defects, Dr. D. M. Dines and Dr. Craig developed a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system (VRS) in conjunction with the Comprehensive Shoulder Arthroplasty System (Zimmer Biomet). For a number of years, the Food and Drug Administration allowed this patient-specific glenoid VRS component to be made available only as a custom implant. Recently, however, full 510K clearance was granted to use the VRS in reverse SA patients with severe soft-tissue deficiency and significant glenoid bone loss.
In this article, we describe the implant and its indications, technical aspects of production, and surgical technique.
Vault Reconstruction System
Severe glenoid bone loss often requires an implant that specifically matches the patient’s anatomy. The patient-specific glenoid VRS (Figure 1) is made from a 3-dimensional reconstruction of a 2-dimensional computed tomography image.
In some cases in which the bone is sufficient to enhance fixation in the deficient glenoid vault, a custom boss may be added to the implant, as well as a custom guide matching the implant.
Glenoid Exposure
In most cases of severe glenoid bone loss, the associated soft-tissue deficiency allows for easier glenoid exposure. In this implant system, however, maximal peripheral en face exposure of the glenoid is required. In addition, it is mandatory to avoid disturbing the remaining glenoid bone surfaces, which often are thin or fragile, because the patient-specific implant is referenced to this anatomy. Bone that is not maintained changes the orientation of the patient-specific guide and ultimately the fixation of the component. Using the correct retractors and meticulously excising soft-tissue scar tissue are crucial for success.
Implant Positioning
With the glenoid surface properly exposed, the removable inserter handle and the built-in lip on the implant are used to position the patient-specific guide. Next, a central guide pin is placed through the inserter for temporary fixation and further instrumentation. If enough bone is present, a boss reamer can be used over the guide pin to prepare and increase the fixation surface.
The central 6.5-mm nonlocking compression screw is placed to provide strong initial compressive fixation in best bone.
With the patient-specific glenoid VRS implant now rigidly fixed in the glenoid, the sized and offset glenosphere is properly positioned, and the reverse SA is completed in routine fashion.
Case Examples
A 49-year-old man underwent hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis. The procedure failed and, 3 years later, was revised to conventional total SA. Unfortunately, the cemented all-polyethylene glenoid loosened secondary to active Propionibacterium acnes infection, which required excisional arthroplasty with antibiotic spacer. Significant cavitary bone loss was found with anterior glenoid wall bone loss compromising the glenoid vault. Given the history of bone loss and infection, patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction was performed after infection eradication. Within 4 years after this surgery, the patient had resumed all activities. At age 57 years, he had restricted active forward elevation and abduction to 120° but was satisfied with the outcome.
A 71-year-old man underwent reverse SA for rotator cuff-deficient osteoarthritis. After implant excision and spacer placement, he was left with severe soft-tissue deficiency and glenoid bone loss, which caused substantial disability. After treatment for infection, a work-up was performed for glenoid bone deficiency and insertion of a patient-specific glenoid VRS implant.
Discussion
Glenoid bone deformity and deficiency are among the most difficult challenges in SA—a particularly compelling fact given the increasing number of SAs being performed in younger, more active patients. SA surgeons can now expect to be performing even more revisions with concomitant bone defects, which may be severe in some cases.
In addition to these causes of extreme bone loss, recent awareness of the importance of recognizing and treating bone deficits in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, trauma, and instability has led to the development of patient-specific guides, instrumentation, and implants. Concepts from the use of CAD/CAM acetabular implants in total hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bony defects were applied to the use of patient-specific glenoid reconstruction implants without bone graft augmentation.12 In different form, this idea was reported by Chammaa and colleagues13 in 30 cases, and clinical and durable results were very promising.
We have described use of this technique in 2 extreme cases of glenoid vault deficiency. In each case, short-term results were quite satisfactory. However, both patients were relatively young, and long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up is needed.
Many of the severe cases of glenoid bone loss require an implant that specifically matches the patient’s anatomy. The glenoid VRS implant described here may be of great benefit in these difficult reconstructions and is a valuable addition to the armamentarium of treatments for distorted glenoid anatomy. Eventually, the idea may become useful in treating other, less significant defects by re-creating more-normal biomechanics in SA without bone graft.
Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
Take-Home Points
- With more shoulder arthroplasties being performed on younger patients, we can expect more revisions in the future.
- Many of these revision cases will have profound glenoid bone loss.
- Bone grafting the glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty has been less successful especially with significant vault defects.
- Based on the CAD-CAM success in total hip and knee replacement surgery, a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system has been developed by Zimmer Biomet to deal with profound glenoid bone loss and cuff insufficiency.
- Early results of this vault reconstruction system have been promising in these most difficult clinical situations.
Early results of this vault reconstruction system have been promising in these most difficult clinical situations. Complex glenoid deformities present the most difficult challenges in shoulder arthroplasty (SA). These deformities may be caused by severe degenerative or congenital deformity, posttraumatic anatomy, tumor, or, in most cases, bone loss after glenoid failure in anatomical total SA.
Walch and colleagues1 described the pathologic glenoid lesions seen in progressive degenerative arthritis and some congenital defects. The most severe were initially characterized as Walch B2 and Walch C deformities. These lesions have been further classified to include Walch B3 posteroinferior glenoid deformities.2,3 Each of these deformities can result in severe glenoid vault deficiency.
In some revision cases and in severe rheumatoid cases, these deformities can present as cavitary lesions with or without failure of the glenoid rim or wall resulting in significant compromise of glenoid vault lesions.4,5 In these cases, the degree of “medialization” of the native glenohumeral joint line and the amount of peripheral bone loss can have profound effects on the amount of bone available for fixation and on the ability to allow component positioning for best surgical and biomechanical outcomes.
Other bone loss deformities, which have been described by Antuna and colleagues6 and Seebauer and colleagues,7 often accompany disease processes with severe cuff deficiency. These deformities historically have been treated with intercalary-type bone grafts in 1- or 2-stage revision of reverse SA or in salvage to hemiarthroplasty. Treatment of these pathologies with the technique described produced only fair results in short-term to midterm follow-up. The most commonly reported complications have been component loosening, bone graft failure, infection, and instability.8-11Borrowing from hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons’ experience in using CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) patient-specific implants to fill significant bony defects, Dr. D. M. Dines and Dr. Craig developed a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system (VRS) in conjunction with the Comprehensive Shoulder Arthroplasty System (Zimmer Biomet). For a number of years, the Food and Drug Administration allowed this patient-specific glenoid VRS component to be made available only as a custom implant. Recently, however, full 510K clearance was granted to use the VRS in reverse SA patients with severe soft-tissue deficiency and significant glenoid bone loss.
In this article, we describe the implant and its indications, technical aspects of production, and surgical technique.
Vault Reconstruction System
Severe glenoid bone loss often requires an implant that specifically matches the patient’s anatomy. The patient-specific glenoid VRS (Figure 1) is made from a 3-dimensional reconstruction of a 2-dimensional computed tomography image.
In some cases in which the bone is sufficient to enhance fixation in the deficient glenoid vault, a custom boss may be added to the implant, as well as a custom guide matching the implant.
Glenoid Exposure
In most cases of severe glenoid bone loss, the associated soft-tissue deficiency allows for easier glenoid exposure. In this implant system, however, maximal peripheral en face exposure of the glenoid is required. In addition, it is mandatory to avoid disturbing the remaining glenoid bone surfaces, which often are thin or fragile, because the patient-specific implant is referenced to this anatomy. Bone that is not maintained changes the orientation of the patient-specific guide and ultimately the fixation of the component. Using the correct retractors and meticulously excising soft-tissue scar tissue are crucial for success.
Implant Positioning
With the glenoid surface properly exposed, the removable inserter handle and the built-in lip on the implant are used to position the patient-specific guide. Next, a central guide pin is placed through the inserter for temporary fixation and further instrumentation. If enough bone is present, a boss reamer can be used over the guide pin to prepare and increase the fixation surface.
The central 6.5-mm nonlocking compression screw is placed to provide strong initial compressive fixation in best bone.
With the patient-specific glenoid VRS implant now rigidly fixed in the glenoid, the sized and offset glenosphere is properly positioned, and the reverse SA is completed in routine fashion.
Case Examples
A 49-year-old man underwent hemiarthroplasty for osteoarthritis. The procedure failed and, 3 years later, was revised to conventional total SA. Unfortunately, the cemented all-polyethylene glenoid loosened secondary to active Propionibacterium acnes infection, which required excisional arthroplasty with antibiotic spacer. Significant cavitary bone loss was found with anterior glenoid wall bone loss compromising the glenoid vault. Given the history of bone loss and infection, patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction was performed after infection eradication. Within 4 years after this surgery, the patient had resumed all activities. At age 57 years, he had restricted active forward elevation and abduction to 120° but was satisfied with the outcome.
A 71-year-old man underwent reverse SA for rotator cuff-deficient osteoarthritis. After implant excision and spacer placement, he was left with severe soft-tissue deficiency and glenoid bone loss, which caused substantial disability. After treatment for infection, a work-up was performed for glenoid bone deficiency and insertion of a patient-specific glenoid VRS implant.
Discussion
Glenoid bone deformity and deficiency are among the most difficult challenges in SA—a particularly compelling fact given the increasing number of SAs being performed in younger, more active patients. SA surgeons can now expect to be performing even more revisions with concomitant bone defects, which may be severe in some cases.
In addition to these causes of extreme bone loss, recent awareness of the importance of recognizing and treating bone deficits in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, trauma, and instability has led to the development of patient-specific guides, instrumentation, and implants. Concepts from the use of CAD/CAM acetabular implants in total hip arthroplasty for severe acetabular bony defects were applied to the use of patient-specific glenoid reconstruction implants without bone graft augmentation.12 In different form, this idea was reported by Chammaa and colleagues13 in 30 cases, and clinical and durable results were very promising.
We have described use of this technique in 2 extreme cases of glenoid vault deficiency. In each case, short-term results were quite satisfactory. However, both patients were relatively young, and long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up is needed.
Many of the severe cases of glenoid bone loss require an implant that specifically matches the patient’s anatomy. The glenoid VRS implant described here may be of great benefit in these difficult reconstructions and is a valuable addition to the armamentarium of treatments for distorted glenoid anatomy. Eventually, the idea may become useful in treating other, less significant defects by re-creating more-normal biomechanics in SA without bone graft.
Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.
1. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
2. Chan K, Knowles NK, Chaoui J, et al. Characterization of the Walch B3 glenoid in primary osteoarthritis [published online January 11, 2017]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.003.
3. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1601-1606.
4. Sears BW, Johnston PS, Ramsay ML, Williams GR. Glenoid bone loss in primary total shoulder arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(9):604-613.
5. Kocsis G, Thyagarajan DS, Fairbairn KJ, Wallace WA. A new classification of glenoid bone loss to help plan the implantation of a glenoid component before revision arthroplasty of the shoulder. Bone Joint J. 2016;98(3):374-380.
6. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224.
7. Seebauer L, Walter W, Keyl W. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of defect arthropathy [in English, German]. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2005;17(1):1-24.
8. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012:21(6):765-771.
9. Hill JM, Norris TR. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(6):877-883.
10. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(5):361-367.
11. Hsu JE, Ricchetti ET, Huffman GR, Iannotti JP, Glaser DL. Addressing glenoid bone deficiency and asymptomatic posterior erosion in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1298-1308.
12. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684.
13. Chammaa R, Uri O, Lambert S. Primary shoulder arthroplasty using a custom-made hip-inspired implant for the treatment of advanced glenohumeral arthritis in the presence of severe glenoid bone loss. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):101-107.
1. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
2. Chan K, Knowles NK, Chaoui J, et al. Characterization of the Walch B3 glenoid in primary osteoarthritis [published online January 11, 2017]. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.003.
3. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1601-1606.
4. Sears BW, Johnston PS, Ramsay ML, Williams GR. Glenoid bone loss in primary total shoulder arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(9):604-613.
5. Kocsis G, Thyagarajan DS, Fairbairn KJ, Wallace WA. A new classification of glenoid bone loss to help plan the implantation of a glenoid component before revision arthroplasty of the shoulder. Bone Joint J. 2016;98(3):374-380.
6. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224.
7. Seebauer L, Walter W, Keyl W. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of defect arthropathy [in English, German]. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2005;17(1):1-24.
8. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012:21(6):765-771.
9. Hill JM, Norris TR. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(6):877-883.
10. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(5):361-367.
11. Hsu JE, Ricchetti ET, Huffman GR, Iannotti JP, Glaser DL. Addressing glenoid bone deficiency and asymptomatic posterior erosion in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1298-1308.
12. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684.
13. Chammaa R, Uri O, Lambert S. Primary shoulder arthroplasty using a custom-made hip-inspired implant for the treatment of advanced glenohumeral arthritis in the presence of severe glenoid bone loss. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):101-107.
