Abstract
The Affinis Inverse was developed to reduce implant-specific complications and problems of the Grammont prosthesis such as humeral and glenoid loosening, component disconnections, and periprosthetic humeral fractures. The main problem—the glenoid component fixation and positioning in combination with the notching phenomenon—was the initial challenge for the development. The neck-shaft inclination, the center of rotation at the glenoid bone–prosthesis interface, and the inlay cup depth were assessed as sensitive concerning instabilities and glenoid loosening. Therefore, these design features were kept according to Grammont’s concept. The main modifications are a new 2-peg baseplate fixation without an inferior screw and the inversion of the bearing materials. In a prospective multicenter study in six European centers (88 cases, mean follow-up time 49.0 months), the concept has proven an optimized fixation, no component disassembly, and a new type of a simple mechanical notching on the scapular neck. No progressive notching caused by polyethylene abrasion was observed at this stage. A considerably reduced complication rate of 4.5 %, revision rate of 3.4 %, and a clinical outcome comparable to common RTSA systems confirm these optimizations in the early course. The placement of the baseplate, the three glenosphere sizes (36; 39; 42) for better soft tissue balancing, and the resulting inferior overhang of the glenosphere were confirmed as efficient to reduce scapular notching. The introduction of optimized bearing materials (HXLPE and ceramic) will reduce the gravimetric wear significant. The clinical relevance has to be proven in the long-term.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ASTM F2028-08. Standard test methods for dynamic evaluation of glenoid loosening or disassociation. West Conshohocken, PA: American Societiy for Testing and Materials; 2008.
ASTM F1839-97. Standard specification for rigid polyurethane foam for use as a standard material for testing orthopaedic devices and materials. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials; 2001.
Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. Neer Award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(5):527–40.
Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Suppl S):147S-161S.
Cazeneuve JF, Cristofari DJ. Delta III reverse shoulder arthroplasty: radiological outcome for acute complex fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95(5):325–9. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2009.03.018.
Data on file—TDE001241 Oct 2012.
Data on file—TDE001242 Oct 2012.
Data on file—TDE001216 August 2011.
Data on file—20140127_Report_Affinis Inverse.
De Wilde L, Defoort S, Verstraeten TR, Speeckaert W, Debeer P. A 3D-CT scan study of the humeral and glenoid planes in 150 normal shoulders. Surg Radiolg Anat. 2012;34(8):743–50.
De Wilde LF, Poncet D, Middernacht B, Ekelund A. Prosthetic overhang is the most effective way to prevent scapular conflict in a reverse total shoulder prosthesis. Acta Orthop. 2010;81(6):719-26. doi:10.3109/17453674.2010.538354.
De Wilde LF, Audenaert EA, Berghs BM. Shoulder prostheses treating cuff tear arthropathy: a comparative biomechanical study. J Orthop Res. 2004;22(6):1222–230.
Frankle M, Siegal S, Pupello D, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M. The Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1697-705. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02813.
Groh GI, Groh MG. Complications rates, reoperation rates, and the learning curve in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(3):388–94. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.002.
Jasty M, Bragdon C, Burke D, O’Connor D, Lowenstein J, Harris WH. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(5):707–14.
Kohut G, Dallmann F, Irlenbusch U. Wear-induced loss of mass in reversed total shoulder arthroplasty with conventional and inverted bearing materials. J Biomech. 2012;45(3):469–73. doi:10.10.16/j.jbiomech.2011.11.055.
Middernacht B, De Wilde L, Molé D, Favard L, Debeer P. Glenosphere disengagement: a potentially serious default in reverse shoulder surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(4):892–8. doi:10.1007/s11999-007-0090-6.
Molé D, Favard L. Omarthose excentrée: symposium. Rev Chir Orthop. 2007;93:3S37–94.
Reuther F, Kohut G, Nijs S. Modulare Inverse Frakturendoprothese bei nicht rekonstruierbarer Humeruskopffraktur des alten Menschen. Oper Orthop Traumatol. Forthcoming; 2014.
Reuther F, Irlenbusch U, Kääb M, Joudet T, Proust J, Kohut G. Conversion from hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder. Can the humeral head be left in place? Paper presented at 12th international congress of shoulder and elbow surgery (ICSES), Nagoya, Japan. SPO-8-31; 10–12 April 2013.
Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Molé D. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(3):388–95.
Thienpont E, Berger Y. No allergic reaction after TKA in a chrome-cobalt-nickel-sensitive patient: case report and review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(3):636–40. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2000-z.
Thomas P, Braathen LR, Dörig M, Auböck J, Nestle F, Werfel T, Willert HG. Increased metal allergy in patients with failed metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty and peri-implant T-lymphocytic inflammation. Allergy. 2009;64(8):1157–65. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.01966.x.
Werner BS, Boehm D, Gohlke F. Revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty with retention of the humeral component. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(5):473–8. doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.842433.
Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):146–57. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.001.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dallmann, F., Egger, M., Joudet, T. (2016). Mathys Affinis® Inverse. In: Frankle, M., Marberry, S., Pupello, D. (eds) Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20840-4_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20840-4_42
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20839-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20840-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)