What Reverse Total Shoulder Geometry Will Give My Patient the Best Function and Lowest Complication Risk?

While we know that many patient (osteoporosis, steroid use, inflammatory arthropathy, female sex) and shoulder factors (cuff status, prior surgery, coracoacromial arch integrity, humeral and glenoid deformity) drive the outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, I was curious to see what the literature has to say about the surgeon-controlled variables related to the geometry of the reconstruction. I've tried to focus on the position, rather than the design, of the components. Here's what I think I learned - as always - your comments are welcome.

Avoiding Complications

Minimizing risk of inferior impingement, scapular notching, and baseplate loosening

Place the baseplate flush with the inferior glenoid rim

  Select and place humeral component to achieve a 135° liner-shaft angle

Target 4–10 mm of lateralization of the glenosphere center of rotation (CO): defined as the distance from the glenosphere center of rotation (COR) to the glenoid bone surface (includes the thickness of the baseplate, bone graft and/or augment). Know your glenospheres and don't rely on the numbers on the box: for example, in one implant system the 3mm baseplate plus a "32-4" glenosphere lateralizes the center of rotation by 9mm.

Place baseplate in 0 - 10 degrees of inferior tilt: central screw parallel to floor of supraspinous fossa so that the humeral force on the glenosphere is perpendicular to the screw fixation.

Minimizing risk of neurologic injury and pain.

Avoid excess humeral distalization: acromiohumeral interval (AHI) <30mm, humeral lengthening (pre to postoperative change in AHI) <20mm.

Minimizing risk of acromial and scapular spine fracture

The distance from the glenosphere center (COR) to the most lateral point on the acromial undersurface (DA) should exceed the distance from the glenosphere center (COR) to the lateral tip of the greater tuberosity (DGT). DA ≥ DGT. 

Minimize humeral-sided contribution to global lateralization. Humeral sided lateralization directly increases the distance from the glenosphere center (COR) to the lateral tip of the greater tuberosity (DGT) while leaving the distance from the glenosphere center (COR) to the most lateral point on the acromial undersurface (DA) unchanged, worsening the DA - DGT difference. By contrast glenoid-sided lateralization (increasing lateralization of the glenosphere center of rotation (CO), changes both the DA and DGT simultaneously, preserving more control over the DA - DGT difference.

 

Minimizing instability risk

Strive for humeral retroversion 0°–20° and glenoid retroversion 0°–20° (Recall that soft tissue tension, humero-scapular impingement, liner geometry, and other factors play major roles in rTSA stability).

Optimizing Function

Deltoid efficiency

Position the glenosphere center of rotation inferiorly and posteriorly to maximize the deltoid's mechanical advantage during abduction and flexion

Motion

4–10 mm glenoid-sided lateralization improves internal rotation by displacing the humeral cup away from the scapular neck, reducing the impingement that limits motion.

Glenoid retroversion 0°–20° optimizes external rotation

A 135° liner-shaft angle increases adduction and rotational range

Avoid excess humeral distalization: Keeping acromiohumeral interval (AHI) <30mm, humeral lengthening (change in AHI) <20mm facilitates flexion and external rotation.

"Glenosphere Lateralization" - Resolving the Nomenclature Confusion

The geometry of reverse shoulder arthroplasty reconstruction is frequently discussed in terms of a single number ("glenoid lateralization” , "metallic offset", "lateralization shoulder angle (LSA)), yet none of these numbers captures the important surgeon-controlled variables and their use results in contradictory results in the rTSA literature. 

Three distinct measurements describe different aspects of glenosphere construct geometry. 

Global Lateralization (GL): distance from the glenoid bone surface to the lateral tip of the greater tuberosity (= GT + humeral component contribution). Includes the baseplate and augments. This is the distance that the tuberosity is lateralized from the native glenoid bone. Increases in GL tighten the shoulder - increasing stability, but may also increase the risk of contact between the tuberosity and the acromion when the arm is elevated.

Effective Glenosphere Thickness (GT): distance from the glenoid bone surface to the lateral edge of the glenosphere (= CO + glenosphere radius). Includes the baseplate and augments. This is the glenosphere contribution to global lateralization

.

Center of Rotation Offset (CO): distance from the glenoid bone surface to the glenosphere center of rotation (COR). Includes the baseplate and augments. The COR is the pivot point around which the tuberosity rotates. The position of the COR defines the moment arm for deltoid action. 

All three are measured from the same landmark (glenoid bone surface) but to different endpoints. Each can vary independently of the others through implant selection and surgical technique. Reporting all three measures on postoperative radiographs would resolve most of the apparent conflicts.

A clear-eyed view

Peregrine Falcon

Union Bay Natural Area

2019

Follow on twitter/X: https://x.com/RickMatsen

Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/shoulder.arthritis

Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rickmatsenmd

References

1. Arenas-Miquelez A, Murphy RJ, Rosa A, Caironi D, Zumstein MA. Impact of Humeral and Glenoid Component Variations on Range of Motion in Reverse Geometry Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Standardized Computer Model Study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021.

2. Dean EW, Dean NE, Wright TW, et al. Clinical Outcomes Related to Glenosphere Overhang in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Lateralized Humeral Design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022. [Note: “overhang” is measured as glenosphere-to-baseplate offset on 2D Grashey radiograph, not glenosphere-to-native-bone.]

3. Pak T, Kilic AI, Ardebol J, et al. Glenoid-Sided Lateralization Decreases Scapular Notching With a 135° Humeral Component Arthrex Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2025.

4. Meisterhans M, Bouaicha S, Meyer DC. Posterior and Inferior Glenosphere Position in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Supports Deltoid Efficiency for Shoulder Flexion and Elevation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019.

5. Rai AA, LeVasseur CM, Kane GE, et al. Glenosphere Tilt and Size Predict Shoulder Kinematics During the Hand-to-Back Motion After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2025.

6. Berton A, Longo UG, Gulotta LV, et al. Humeral and Glenoid Version in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2022.

7. Keener JD, Patterson BM, Orvets N, Aleem AW, Chamberlain AM. Optimizing Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Component Position in the Setting of Advanced Arthritis With Posterior Glenoid Erosion: A Computer-Enhanced Range of Motion Analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018.

8. Lee HH, Park SE, Ji JH, Jun HS. Mid-Term Comparative Study Between the Glenoid and Humerus Lateralization Designs for Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023.

9. Wright MA, Murthi AM. Offset in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Where, When, and How Much. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021.

10. Wolf GJ, Reid JJ, Rabinowitz JR, et al. Does Glenohumeral Offset Affect Clinical Outcomes in a Lateralized Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022.

11. Nunes B, Linhares D, Costa F, et al. Lateralized Versus Nonlateralized Glenospheres in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021.

12. Neyton L, Nigues A, McBride AP, Giovannetti de Sanctis E. Neck Shaft Angle in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: 135 vs. 145 Degrees at Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023.

13. Baumgarten KM, Max C. Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Using Lateralized Glenoid Baseplates Has Superior Patient-Determined Outcome Scores at Short-Term Follow-Up. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024.

14. Kawashima I, King JJ, Wright JO, et al. Shoulder Geometry After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With a Medialized Glenoid and a Lateralized Humerus Predicts Subacromial Notching and Acromial or Scapular Spine Fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2025.

15. Burden EG, Batten TJ, Smith CD, Evans JP. Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2021.

16. Nelson R, Lowe JT, Lawler SM, et al. Lateralized Center of Rotation and Lower Neck-Shaft Angle Are Associated With Lower Rates of Scapular Notching and Heterotopic Ossification and Improved Pain for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty at 1 Year. Orthopedics. 2018.

17. Ameziane Y, Audigé L, Schoch C, et al. Mid-Term Outcomes of a Rectangular Stem Design With Metadiaphyseal Fixation and a 135° Neck-Shaft Angle in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Clin Med. 2025.

18. Jang YH, Lee JH, Kim SH. Effect of Scapular Notching on Clinical Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2020.

19. Mollon B, Mahure SA, Roche CP, Zuckerman JD. Impact of Scapular Notching on Clinical Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 476 Shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017.

20. Simovitch R, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Roche C. Impact of Scapular Notching on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Midterm Outcomes: 5-Year Minimum Follow-Up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019.

21. Spiry C, Berhouet J, Agout C, Bacle G, Favard L. Long-Term Impact of Scapular Notching After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2021.

22. Erickson BJ, Werner BC, Griffin JW, et al. A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Association of Radiographic Measures of Lateralization on Clinical Outcomes Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022;31:963–970. [Multiple authors report financial relationships with Arthrex, Inc., manufacturer of the implant system used in this study.]

23. Werner BC, Lederman E, Gobezie R, Denard PJ. Glenoid Lateralization Influences Active Internal Rotation After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30:2498–2505.

24. Southam BR, Bedeir YH, Johnson BM, et al. Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Lateralized Versus Nonlateralized and Distalized Glenospheres in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Randomized Control Trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023.

25. Longo UG, Gulotta LV, De Salvatore S, et al. The Role of Humeral Neck-Shaft Angle in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: 155° Versus <155° — A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2022.

Complications and revisions following reverse total shoulder: doing the math.

Summary: Three takeaway points

(1) The commonly used and easy to measure "revision rate" is an inadequate endpoint for evaluating rTSA outcomes. The 8–20 percentage point gap that exists between the complication rate and the revision rate includes a substantial number of patients with failed but unrevised reverse shoulder arthroplasties. These patients are not considered in determining the failure rate when measured by the percentage having revision. Complication-free survival or patient-reported outcome measures should supplement or replace revision rate or "implant survival" as the primary outcome measure for rTSA.

(2) The most common complications of rTSA, acromial and scapular spine fractures, are unique and difficult to solve problems for patients having reverse arthroplasty. In contrast, the most common complications from aTSA - glenoid component loosening and rotator cuff tear - can be effectively managed by revision to a rTSA

(3) The salvage pathway for patients with rTSA failure is poor. Revision rTSA carries a 31% complication rate and 27% re-revision rate, with outcomes that are significantly worse than those for primary rTSA. This contrasts sharply with aTSA-to-rTSA conversion, the outcome of which approaches the outcomes for primary rTSA. 

The details

Complications vs revisions

Meta-analytic evidence reports that anatomic total shoulder (aTSA) has a higher rate of revision compared to reverse total shoulder (rTSA). This observation may have driven much of the shift toward rTSA for patients with cuff-intact arthritis.  However, it may neglect the fact that surgeons and patients can decide against revision of a failed rTSA because of the low rate of success. Thus, the absence of a revision does not indicate a good outcome.

Consider the references below

Complications and further surgery after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty : report of 854 primary cases reported an overall complication rate of 18–22%, yet a revision rate of only ~10%. That 8–12 percentage point gap likely represents patients who are living with a failing implant — either because revision was technically not feasible, or because expected outcomes were too poor to justify reoperation

Incidence, radiographic predictors, and clinical outcome of acromial stress reaction and acromial fractures in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty found 46 acromial stress fractures (5.4%) in 44 patients and 44 acromial stress reactions (5.2%) in 43 patients. The overall union rate was 55% but was significantly higher following operative treatment compared with nonoperative treatment. However, facture consolidation did not result in better clinical outcomes compared with nonunion; this may question the value of attempted fixation.

Comparison of complication types and rates associated with anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty found that the top 3 complications for rTSA were acromial/scapular fracture/pain ( complication rate 2.5%, revision rate 0.0%), instability (complication rate 1.4%, revision rate 1.0%), pain (1.2%, revision rate 0.2%). Compare the relationship of complications to revisions for rTSA to that for aTSA in the two charts below constructed from the data in this article. Note that a high percentage of the rTSA complications were not associated with surgical revision. Absence of revision ≠ absence of complication,

The Gap Between Revision-Free and Complication-Free Survival 

Long-Term Outcomes of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
A Follow-up of a Previous Study The 93% ten-year revision-free survival rate for rTSA did not capture the 29% of patients who experienced complications.

Long term clinical and radiological outcomes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 15 years: Norwegian registry data showed 10-year complication-free rates of only 76–80%, despite revision-free survival of 91–95%. That 15–20 percentage point gap represents patients living with failed implants who are invisible in the revision statistics. Again, this gap exists because many rTSA complications—particularly acromial fractures, low-grade infection, and baseplate loosening with severe bone loss—either cannot be addressed surgically or carry such poor expected revision outcomes that conservative management is chosen.

Revision rates alone remain an inadequate measure of rTSA performance; complication-free survival is the more appropriate endpoint.

Outcomes of Revision rTSA

Revision of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a scoping review of indications for revision, and revision outcomes, complications, and rerevisions and Revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty: epidemiology, etiology, and surgical options found the most common indications for revision to be instability/dislocation (28–30%), baseplate or glenoid complications (20–25%), and infection (15–23%). Notably low on the list is revision for the most common complication: acromial/spine fractures.

Outcomes After Revision

Revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and radiographic outcomes compared to primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty found a 31% complication rate and 27% re-revision rate of a failed rTSA: over five times these rates after primary rTSA. The most common complications after revision are recurrent instability (22%), fractures (18%), and baseplate issues (12%). Patients requiring revision rTSA experience markedly worse comfort and function in comparison to primary rTSA

The Salvage Pathway Asymmetry:  revision for aTSA Failure compared to revision for rTSA Failure

Conversion of failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty yields similar pain and functional outcomes to primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty but has a higher baseplate failure rate: a matched cohort study. In contrast to the often grim outcomes for revision of a failed rTSA, revision of a failed aTSA to a rTSA yields outcomes approaching those of primary rTSA. 

Summary: Three takeaway points (again)

(1) The commonly used and easy to measure "revision rate" is an inadequate endpoint for evaluating rTSA outcomes. The 8–20 percentage point gap that exists between the complication rate and the revision rate includes a substantial number of patients with failed but unrevised reverse shoulder arthroplasties. These patients are not considered in determining the failure rate when measured by the percentage having revision. Complication-free survival or patient-reported outcome measures should supplement or replace revision rate or "implant survival" as the primary outcome measure for rTSA.

(2) The most common complications of rTSA, acromial and scapular spine fractures, are unique and difficult to solve problems for patients having reverse arthroplasty. In contrast, the most common complications from aTSA - glenoid component loosening and rotator cuff tear - can be effectively managed by revision to a rTSA

(3) The salvage pathway for patients with rTSA failure is poor. Revision rTSA carries a 31% complication rate and 27% re-revision rate, with outcomes that are significantly worse than those for primary rTSA. This contrasts sharply with aTSA-to-rTSA conversion, the outcome of which approaches the outcomes for primary rTSA. 

Swans reversing course

Trumpeter Swans

Union Bay Natural Area

Seattle

Follow on twitter/X: https://x.com/RickMatsen

Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/shoulder.arthritis

Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rickmatsenmd

Surgeon and industry views on digital technology

Digital technology in shoulder arthroplasty: what do surgeons want? What will industry offer? This well-done survey by Warner and colleagues asked 192 shoulder arthroplasty surgeons from three international organizations (ASES, SECEC, and the Codman Shoulder Society) what digital technologies they use and want, and asked six industry leaders about their development priorities. 

The survey found that 

(1)  Ninety-six percent of respondents perform preoperative planning, 82% use digital tools for this, and about a quarter use navigation or mixed reality intraoperatively. Seventy-six percent of respondents perform more than 40 arthroplasties per year; the study did not reflect the usage or views of the low shoulder arthroplasty volume surgeons who perform the majority of these procedures. The technology adoption question looks very different for a surgeon doing 15 arthroplasties a year versus 100. Industry's implicit pitch is often that technology can compensate for lower surgical volume, but that claim is itself unproven and worth calling out directly.

(2) When asked what they wanted from industry, surgeons prioritized artificial intelligence / machine learning, navigation, and improved virtual reality planning. Industry respondents matched these preferences, ranking AI/ML and navigation as their top development priorities. Both groups felt that AI could reduce errors, generate data for best practices, and improve efficiency.

(3) Surgeons emphasized reliability and patient outcome tracking as priorities, which industry did not consider a key focus. In other words, surgeons want to know if their interventions are working for patients, but industry is more interested in the tools themselves than in measuring whether those tools make a difference.

Significantly, the survey did not ask whether surgeons have observed improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when using these technologies: “Has your adoption of digital technology resulted in measurably better patient outcomes?” See Navigation, where are we going?

The Discussion section states that preliminary literature shows improved accuracy of glenoid component positioning with navigation, patient-specific instrumentation, and augmented reality versus freehand techniques. The critical question is whether positioning precision within a narrow range translates into better function, less pain, greater durability, or fewer complications for patients. See: How much precision do we need to pay for in shoulder arthroplasty?

The cost question nobody wants to answer

One of the most revealing findings is that industry respondents could not, or would not, articulate a revenue model for these digital technologies. The paper notes that “no consistent business model for AI/ML emerged” and that companies “were not able, or not willing, to clarify revenue models for most digital technologies.”

This is significant. If companies cannot explain how these tools will be paid for, the cost will inevitably be bundled into implant pricing, passed to hospitals, and ultimately borne by patients and the healthcare system. For technologies without demonstrated clinical benefit, this raises serious questions about value. 

There are other costs of which the surgeon needs to be aware: increased preoperative and OR time, increased space requirements for a robot, time for training in the use of the technology, learning how to detect when the technology is pointing toward a suboptimal procedure, knowing when and how to abort the use of the technology, and the influence the vendor of the technology may have over the choice of implants.

Warner and colleagues have provided a useful snapshot of surgeon and industry attitudes toward digital technology in shoulder arthroplasty. The data on current usage patterns and preferences are informative. They conclude that “further adoption of these technologies will likely be contingent on well done scientific study which demonstrates value.”  Until we have rigorous evidence that these expensive digital tools produce measurably better patient outcomes, we should be cautious about the assumption that more technology equals better care.

The bottom line is that robotics, navigation, and virtual/augmented reality are all methods of transferring a plan made from a preoperative set of images to the patient, without knowing such key characteristics as condition of the soft tissues (that control mobility and stability) and the condition of the bone (that determines quality of fixation).  Such factors loom large in the outcome realized by the patient and often require substantial modifications of the preoperative plan.

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder wrote: “Kein Operationsplan reicht mit einiger Sicherheit über das erste Zusammentreffen mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht hinaus.” i.e., “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.”

This is not an argument against planning. It’s an argument for: Flexibility over rigidity. Preparation over prediction. Adaptation over perfection. Once real-world complexity hits (fog of war, friction, shoulder variability), reality diverges from the preconceived plan.

The goal isn’t to be precise/accurate to the preoperative plan.
The goal is to be ready to modify it.

See How to make good decisions in shoulder (and other) surgery : Bayesian Thinking - adjusting a prior plan in consideration of new information.

Not infrequently, plans need to be modified,

Cactus Wren

Tucson

2020

Follow on twitter/X: https://x.com/RickMatsen

Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/shoulder.arthritis
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rickmatsenmd

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link)
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).

Are we asking the right questions about failed total shoulder arthroplasty?

A recent publication The Rising Incidence and Future Trends of Revision Total Shoulder Arthroplasty sought to determine the epidemiology of revision TSA using a national database. The authors found that the incidence of revision TSA increased from 223 to 1247 cases per 100,000 person-years between 2015 to 2024, a 5.6-fold increase.

These data point to the steadily increasing number of patients having revision for arthroplasty failure, the economic burden of these revisions, and the need for an increasing number of surgeons who are equipped to manage these failures. Of importance is that these data reflect the incidence of revision per 100,000 people (not the rate of revisions for patients having shoulder arthroplasty). In that the number of shoulder arthroplasties performed per 100,000 people is steadily increasing each year, it is intuitive that the number of revisions per 100,000 people would also increase each year. 

It seems that the questions of greatest importance are not addressed in this study:

1. Are patients undergoing TSA today at greater risk for complications than patients a decade ago? If so, is this a consequence of applying shoulder arthroplasty to younger patients, patients with more complex diagnoses, and patients with poorer overall health? Or is this a consequence of less experienced surgeons performing an increasing number of these procedures?

2. What are the specific failure modes driving revisions, and are those modes changing over time? For anatomic TSA, are the rates of glenoid component loosening, instability, rotator cuff failure, and infection getting higher, lower or staying the same? For reverse TSA how are the rates of instability and dislocation, acromial and scapular spine fracture, infection, notching with component loosening, and periprosthetic fracture changing with time?

3. Which patient and surgical factors are associated with each distinct failure mode? Risk factors differ by failure mode; we need to understand these associations as we strive to reduce the risk of each type of failure.  Aggregating across all causes of revision in a single regression model — as most administrative database studies must do — destroys the signal. The predictors of infection-related revision are nutritional status, glycemic control, obesity, prior surgery, and prophylaxis adequacy. The predictors of instability-related revision in rTSA involve the surgeon's choices of component design, version and inclination and approaches to soft tissue tensioning. The predictors of acromial fracture involve bone mineral density, scapular morphology, type of arthritis, prior surgery, rotator cuff status, component lateralization, and deltoid tensioning. 

In that the surgeon is the method, surgeon knowledge, training, and experience deserve special study across all failure modes. These may be the most important modifiable risk factors — yet they receives minimal attention in a literature preoccupied with implant selection and surgical technology.

4. What might be done differently to prevent each type of failure? This is the most important question and the hardest to study, because it requires honest counterfactual analysis rather than statistical association. It asks not merely which factors correlate with failure, but which specific decisions — patient selection, perioperative optimization, surgical technique, rehabilitation protocol — were modifiable and, if modified, would plausibly have prevented the need for revision.

Answering this question at scale will be difficult, requiring mandatory registries with standardized failure mode coding and linkage between primary and revision procedures.

Recognizing that failure modes differ by surgeon and practice, an immediately applicable and practical approach is analogous to aviation crash analysis. Each surgeon analyzes their failures by comparing each revision to matched non-revised controls from their practice. (See How a surgeon can learn from their own adverse outcomes - an example of intrapractice analysis in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.)

A final question: is the most cost-effective approach to reducing the risk of arthroplasty complications and revisions (A) more expensive technology or (B) better surgeon training (see How much precision do we need to pay for in shoulder arthroplasty?)

A risk factor for small bird adverse outcomes in my backyard.

Cooper's Hawk

2021

Follow on twitter/X: https://x.com/RickMatsen
Follow on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/shoulder.arthritis
Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rick-matsen-88b1a8133/

Here are some videos that are of shoulder interest
Shoulder arthritis - what you need to know (see this link).
How to x-ray the shoulder (see this link).
The ream and run procedure (see this link).
The total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty (see this link).
The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (see this link).
The smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears (see this link)
Shoulder rehabilitation exercises (see this link).