Boileau Pascal, Watkinson Duncan J, Hatzidakis Armodios M, Balg Frederic
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Traumatology, Hôpital de l'Archet, University of Nice, 151 Route de St. Antoine de Ginestière, 06202 Nice, France.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005 Jan-Feb;14(1 Suppl S):147S-161S. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006.
Combined destruction of the rotator cuff and the glenohumeral joint may lead to a painful and pseudo-paralyzed shoulder. In this situation a nonconstrained shoulder prosthesis yields a limited functional result or may even be contraindicated. Previous constrained prostheses (ball-and-socket or reverse ball-and-socket designs) have failed because their center of rotation remained lateral to the scapula, which limited motion and produced excessive torque on the glenoid component, leading to early loosening. The reverse prosthesis designed by Paul Grammont, unlike any previous reverse ball-and-socket design, has introduced 2 major innovations that have led to its success: (1) a large glenoid hemisphere with no neck and (2) a small humeral cup almost horizontally oriented with a nonanatomic inclination of 155 degrees, covering less than half of the glenosphere. This design medializes and stabilizes the center of rotation, minimizes torque on the glenoid component, and helps in recruiting more fibers of the anterior and posterior deltoid to act as abductors. Furthermore, the humerus is lowered relative to the acromion, restoring and even increasing deltoid tension. The Grammont reverse prosthesis imposes a new biomechanical environment for the deltoid muscle to act, thus allowing it to compensate for the deficient rotator cuff muscles. The clinical experience does live up to the biomechanical concept: the reverse prosthesis restores active elevation above 90 degrees in patients with a cuff-deficient shoulder. However, external rotation often remains limited, particularly in patients with an absent or fat-infiltrated teres minor. Internal rotation is also rarely restored after a reverse prosthesis. Failure to restore sufficient tension in the deltoid may result in prosthetic instability. The design does appear to protect against early loosening of the glenoid component, but impingement of the humeral cup on the scapular neck can lead to scapular notching and polyethylene wear. This is a cause for concern, especially as the notch is often more extensive than can be explained by impingement alone. Bony lysis of the scapula may also be related to a polyethylene granuloma. Further follow-up is required to ensure that loosening does not become a problem in the long term, and it has been recommended to limit its use to elderly patients, arguably those aged over 70 years. Despite these concerns, the reverse prosthesis, based on the biomechanical Grammont concept, offers a true surgical option in several situations where only limited possibilities were previously available: cuff tear arthrosis, persistent shoulder pseudo-paralysis due to a massive and irreparable cuff tear, severe fracture sequelae, prosthetic revision in a cuff-deficient shoulder, and tumor surgery. Finally, surgeons must be aware that results are less predictable and complication/revision rates are higher in revision surgery.
肩袖和盂肱关节的联合破坏可能导致肩部疼痛和假性麻痹。在这种情况下,非限制性肩关节假体的功能效果有限,甚至可能是禁忌的。以往的限制性假体(球窝或反向球窝设计)之所以失败,是因为其旋转中心仍位于肩胛骨外侧,这限制了活动范围,并在关节盂部件上产生过大扭矩,导致早期松动。保罗·格拉蒙设计的反向假体与以往任何反向球窝设计不同,它引入了两项重大创新并取得了成功:(1)一个无颈部的大关节盂半球;(2)一个几乎水平定向、非解剖学倾斜度为155度的小肱骨头杯,覆盖不到关节盂球的一半。这种设计将旋转中心向内侧移动并使其稳定,使关节盂部件上的扭矩最小化,并有助于募集更多的前后三角肌纤维来充当外展肌。此外,肱骨相对于肩峰降低,恢复甚至增加了三角肌的张力。格拉蒙反向假体为三角肌创造了一个新的生物力学环境,使其能够补偿肩袖肌肉的不足。临床经验确实符合生物力学概念:反向假体可使肩袖缺失的患者恢复90度以上的主动抬高。然而,外旋通常仍然受限,尤其是在小圆肌缺失或脂肪浸润的患者中。反向假体植入后内旋也很少恢复。未能在三角肌中恢复足够的张力可能导致假体不稳定。这种设计似乎确实能防止关节盂部件早期松动,但肱骨头杯撞击肩胛颈会导致肩胛切迹和聚乙烯磨损。这令人担忧,特别是因为切迹往往比仅由撞击所解释的范围更广。肩胛骨的骨质溶解也可能与聚乙烯肉芽肿有关。需要进一步随访以确保长期内不会出现松动问题,并且有人建议将其使用限制在老年患者,可说是70岁以上的患者。尽管存在这些担忧,但基于格拉蒙生物力学概念的反向假体在以前只有有限可能性的几种情况下提供了一种真正的手术选择:肩袖撕裂性关节病、由于巨大且无法修复的肩袖撕裂导致的持续性肩部假性麻痹、严重骨折后遗症、肩袖缺失肩部的假体翻修以及肿瘤手术。最后,外科医生必须意识到,翻修手术的结果更难以预测,并发症/翻修率更高。