How to avoid baseplate failure: the effect of compression and reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate design on implant stability.

BACKGROUND

Failure to achieve fixation of the glenoid baseplate will lead to clinical failure. The fixation of the baseplate to the scapula must be able to withstand sufficient shear forces to allow bony ingrowth. The importance of compression to neutralize the forces at the baseplate-bone interface has been assumed to be critical in limiting excessive micromotion. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of compression on implant stability with different baseplate designs.

METHODS

Various baseplate designs (1-piece monolithic central screw [1P], 2-piece locking central screw [2PL], and 2-piece nonlocking center screw [2PNL]) were investigated at 3 different compressive forces (high [810 N], medium [640 N], and low [530 N]). Synthetic bone cylinders were instrumented, and peripheral screws were used in all models. The combination of 1 locking and 3 nonlocking peripheral screw fixation was selected as worst-case scenario. Dynamic testing protocol followed the ASTM F2028-17 standard. The baseplate micromotion at high compression was compared to low compression. Additionally, the baseplate micromotion for each design was compared at baseline (first 50 cycles) and at 10,000 cycles for the 3 different compressive forces where motion above 150 μm was defined as failure.

RESULTS

Baseplate micromotion was found to negatively correlate with compression (r = -0.83, P < .0001). At baseline, all baseplate designs were considered stable, regardless of compression. With high compression, average micromotion at the glenoid baseplate-bone interface remained below the 150-μm threshold for all baseplate designs at 10,000 cycles (1P: 50 ± 10 μm; 2PL: 78 ± 32 μm; 2PNL: 79 ± 8 μm; P = .060). With medium compression, average micromotion at 10,000 cycles for all 3 designs remained below the 150-μm threshold (1P: 88 ± 22 μm; 2PL: 132 ± 26 μm; 2PNL: 107 ± 39 μm). The 2PL design had the highest amount of micromotion (P = .013). With low compression, both 2-piece designs had an average micromotion above the 150-μm threshold whereas the 1-piece design did not (1P: 133 ± 35 μm; 2PL: 183 ± 21 μm; 2PNL: 166 ± 39 μm). The 2PL design had significantly higher micromotion when compared to 1P design (P = .041).

DISCUSSION

The stability of a central screw baseplate correlates with the amount of compression obtained and is affected by implant design. For the same amount of compression, more micromotion is observed in a 2-piece design than a 1-piece design.