Friday, February 20, 2026

Is "correction" of acromial morphology clinically effective in treating posterior shoulder instability?

The Summary

Posterior shoulder instability is being increasingly recognized as an important clinical problem - both in terms of the resulting compromise in the patient's shoulder comfort and function as well as a prelude to shoulder arthritis. In the Walch glenoid classification system, B0 is a pre-arthritic glenoid with posterior humeral instability that precedes the biconcave morphology and bone loss that defines the B2 glenoid. It is not known whether surgical intervention (and what type of surgical intervention) can mitigate the progression to arthritis. 

B0 Glenoid


Acromial morphology — specifically a high, flat posterior acromion with PAH >23mm — is  consistently associated with posterior shoulder instability across multiple independent cohorts and imaging modalities. A high, flat acromion predicts posterior shoulder instability better than almost any other imaging finding. 


Extraordinary association is not causation, and strong association does not automatically justify operative intervention. The acromion shares its embryonic developmental origins with every other tissue involved in posterior shoulder stability. The most parsimonious explanation for its remarkable predictive value is that a high, flat acromion is the most visible and measurable expression of a multi-tissue developmental syndrome — a marker, not the mechanism. 

Evidence supporting acromial correction in posterior shoulder instability is lacking: it includes no prospective clinical trials. The only clinical data rests on a single unreplicated 10-patient case series. The biomechanical studies, while mechanistically interesting, were performed under conditions (e.g. normal glenoid anatomy) that do not reflect typical clinical patients.


The clinical problem

Posterior shoulder instability is defined as dynamic, recurrent, and symptomatic partial or total loss of posterior glenohumeral joint contact. Multiple anatomic factors — labral tears, glenoid morphology, capsular laxity, bone loss, and acromial morphology — may contribute in varying combinations.

Relation of acromial morphology to posterior instability

The morphology of the acromion has long been implicated in shoulder pathology, particularly in relation to subacromial impingement and rotator cuff disease. More recently, interest has shifted toward the posterior acromion, with studies examining its potential role in posterior instability

Reproducibility and Relevance of Acromial Morphology Measurements in Shoulder Pathologies: A Critical Review of the Literature reviewed nine studies assessing sagittal acromial tilt, posterior coverage, and acromial height. In posterior instability the acromion is generally described as more horizontally oriented, less covering posteriorly, and positioned higher. Although these trends suggest a possible biomechanical role for the acromion, reported values vary widely between studies, and significant overlap exists between pathological and control groups. Such variability is compounded by differences in imaging modality and definitions of anatomical landmarks.These methodological inconsistencies undermine reproducibility and limit the clinical applicability of posterior acromial parameters. The reduction of a complex three-dimensional structure like the acromion into two-dimensional projections inevitably loses information about the spatial relationship between the acromion and the posterior humeral head. Acromial parameters identify groups at elevated risk, but do not provide the individual-level diagnostic precision needed to justify surgical targeting of the acromion in a specific patient.


Posterior Acromial Morphology Is Significantly Associated With Posterior Shoulder Instability carried out a study of 41 patients with unidirectional posterior instability and a control group of 53 patients with no instability in which the authors compared measurements of acromial morphology. Significantly, concurrent measures of glenoid morphology were not reported. (The article also presented an analysis of patients with anterior instability, but those are not relevant to our interest in comparing patients with posterior instability to controls).

Radiographic acromial characteristics included posterior acromial tilt,  posterior acromial coverage (PAC), and posterior acromial height (PAH).



Posterior acromial tilt is determined by measuring the angle formed by the reference line (connecting the inferior angle of the scapula with the center of the intersection of the small arms of the “Y”) and a line connecting the most posterior point of the inferior aspect of the acromion to the most anterior point of the inferior aspect (white area).



The posterior acromial coverage (PAC) refers to an angle formed by the reference line (connecting the inferior angle of the scapula with the center of the intersection of the small arms of the “Y”) and a line drawn from the intersection of the small arms of the “Y” to the most posterior point of the inferior aspect of the acromion (red area).

To measure the posterior acromial height (PAH), a perpendicular line is drawn from the reference line (connecting the inferior angle of the scapula with the center of the intersection of the small arms of the “Y”) to the most posterior point of the inferior aspect of the acromion. The PAH (green bracket) is then measured as the distance from the center of the intersection of the small arms of the “Y” to the perpendicular line.


Patients with posterior instability had greater mean posterior acromial height (30.9 versus 20.4 mm) and posterior acromial tilt (63.6° versus 55.9°) compared with the control group. Posterior acromial coverage (48.8° versus 61.6°) was lower in the posterior instability group than in the control group. The authors concluded that in shoulders with posterior instability, the acromion is situated higher and is oriented more horizontally in the sagittal plane than in normal shoulders; and suggested that this acromial position may provide less osseous restraint against posterior humeral head translation.

Correlation of Acromial Morphology With Risk and Direction of Shoulder Instability: An MRI Study posterior instability patients had significantly less posterior acromial coverage than in the control group (68.3° vs. 81.7°) and greater posterior acromial height  (11.0mm vs. 0.7 mm). Crucially, this study excluded patients with multidirectional instability, glenoid bone loss >13.5%, or retroversion >10° — thereby studying the "cleanest" possible posterior instability cases, without the most severe osseous co-pathology. This exclusion criterion is worth noting: by removing patients with the most significant glenoid abnormalities, the study actually enhanced the apparent signal from acromial parameters in isolation. Real clinical populations are rarely this clean.


The glenoid co-develops embryonically with the acromion and other parts of scapular anatomy. What role does it plan in posterior stability?

It is worth noting that the acromion, glenoid, scapular body, humerus, posterior labrum, posterior capsule, and rotator cuff all arise from the same embryonic mesenchymal condensation during upper limb development. A single disruption to this shared developmental program could plausibly produce co-occurring abnormalities across all of these structures simultaneously. Perhaps acromial morphology is not the primary cause of posterior instability but instead is the most radiographically accessible expression of the scapular morphotype that is visible on a scapular Y-view.

Consideration of posterior instability requires consideration of the critical role the glenoid plays in glenohumeral stability through the concavity compression mechanism.  Glenohumeral stability from concavity-compression: A quantitative analysis found the effective glenoid depth and stability ratios were lowest with loading of the humeral head in the posterior direction, meaning that the glenohumeral joint is constitutively most vulnerable posteriorly, especially since the great majority of shoulder functions are in forward flexion, a position that challenges posterior stability.


Glenoid retroversion is a well-established contributor to posterior instability. Glenoid Retroversion Is an Important Factor for Humeral Head Centration and the Biomechanics of Posterior Shoulder Stability found that every 5° increment produces approximately 2.0mm of additional humeral decentralization; retroversion >10-15° significantly affects joint centralization.

Posterior Shoulder Instability but Not Anterior Shoulder Instability Is Related to Glenoid Version found PSI patients averaged vault retroversion of −21° versus controls (−17.8°). Using chondrolabral version, the retroversion of PSI patients averaged −16.6° versus controls ( −9.2°).


The Influence of Glenoid Retroversion on Posterior Shoulder Instability: A Cadaveric Study each 1° increase in retroversion correlated with a 3.5% decrease in resistance to posterior translation; spontaneous dislocation with an intact labrum occurred at a mean of 22.7° of retroversion. A 4–7° difference in retroversion translates to roughly a 14–25% reduction in posterior restraint from osseous anatomy alone, before any soft tissue or acromial contribution is considered.

Acromion Morphology Is Associated With Glenoid Bone Loss in Posterior Glenohumeral Instability demonstrated that acromial morphology is associated with the severity of glenoid bone loss in posterior instability. Patients without glenoid bone loss had a steeper acromial tilt (58.5°) versus those with ≥13.5% bone loss (67.7°). A flatter acromion tracks with more severe glenoid pathology — consistent with both being expressions of the same underlying developmental abnormality of the scapula.

Thinking outside the glenohumeral box: Hierarchical shape variation of the periarticular anatomy of the scapula using statistical shape modeling demonstrated that glenoid inclination and acromial anatomy represented distinct but related components of overall scapular morphology.

Association of the Posterior Acromion Extension with Glenoid Retroversion: A CT Study in Normal and Osteoarthritic Shoulders  In this 3D morphometric study of 31 normal scapulae, glenoid retroversion correlated significantly with posterior acromial extension, characterized by the acromion posterior angle (APA).  Combining the APA with the acromion length angle (ALA) and acromion tilt angle (ATA) helped improve the correlation. 



Anatomical description of the scapular coordinate system (OXYZ), acromion landmarks (AA, AC), trigonum spinae (TS), angulus inferior (AI), posterior extension of the acromion (AAx), acromion posterior angle (APA), acromion tilt angle (ATA), acromion length angle (ALA), and glenoid retroversion angle (GRA). The three axes (x, y, and z) correspond to postero-anterior, infero-superior, and medio-lateral, respectively.


Can modification of the acromion improve posterior stability in cadavers?

The biomechanical evidence that posterior acromial bone grafting can restore stability was generated in cadavers with normal glenoid anatomy — a condition that does not describe typical patients.


Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were biomechanically tested in a shoulder simulator in the load-and-shift and Jerk test positions.  





The force needed to displace the humeral head by 50% of the glenoid width decreased between 23% and 60% in moderate to severe acromial malalignment (high and flat acromion) and increased up to 122% following surgical correction of acromial alignment (low and steep acromion) when compared to the native condition. 


A Posterior Acromial Bone Block Augmentation Is Biomechanically Effective at Restoring the Force Required To Translate the Humeral Head Posteriorly in a Cadaveric, Posterior Glenohumeral Instability Model in ten fresh-frozen cadaveric specimens, a posterior acromial bone block (PABB) increased resistance force to humeral head translation compared to the instability state.



Posterior Shoulder Stability Can Be Restored by Posterior Acromial Bone Grafting (Scapinelli) in a Cadaveric Biomechanical Model With Normal Glenoid Anatomy assessed the stabilizing effect of a posterior acromial bone graft (PABG) in moderate and severe acromial malalignment (high and flat).

At 30° of flexion, the force needed to displace the humeral head 50% increased by 659% when a PABG was added to a moderately malaligned acromion and by 1249% when a PABG was added to a severely malaligned acromion.  Experimentally, a PABG provided comparable or superior stability to that achieved with surgical acromial reorientation while representing a technically simpler and potentially less invasive approach. While these biomechanical results for acromial correction in cadavers with normal glenoid anatomy and without soft tissue contribution are striking, they may not translate to clinical application where the glenoid and soft tissues are likely to be abnormal.  

Can modification of the acromion improve posterior stability in patients?

The entire published clinical evidence base for isolated acromial correction in posterior shoulder instability consists of a single case series by Roberto Scapinelli, an Italian surgeon who first performed the procedure in 1970 and published results in 2006. This single series has never been independently replicated in over 50 years. Posterior addition acromioplasty in the treatment of recurrent posterior instability of the shoulder reported an extraarticular surgical procedure for the treatment of recurrent posterior instability of the shoulder by grafting an inverted segment of the scapular spine to the posterior border of the acromion so that it exerts a slight pressure over the infraspinatus muscle pressing the humerus forward. 


The Scapinelli series in plain terms: n=10 patients. One surgeon. 1970-2006. No controls. No validated outcome instruments. No independent replication. No imaging follow-up for glenoid version or labral integrity. This is the weakest possible form of clinical evidence — and it is all we have. I could find no other reports of isolated acromial surgeries in patients. 

A series of biomechanical studies suggested that posterior instability is associated with both glenoid and acromial malalignment and that neither isolated glenoid correction nor isolated acromial correction fully restored normal kinematics — only combined correction of both did. Posterior Stability of the Shoulder Depends on Acromial Anatomy: A Biomechanical Study of 3D Surface ModelsScapular Morphology and Posterior Shoulder Stability: Biomechanical Evidence From an Advanced Cadaveric Shoulder SimulatorEven with both acromial and glenoid correction, these studies showed approximately 20% residual posterior translation compared to intact shoulders. Residual instability may reflect the soft tissue components (labrum, capsule, rotator cuff) that cannot be addressed by osseous correction alone.

I found one preliminary study that combined acromial osteotomy with glenoid osteotomy. Presumably the two procedues were combined because the authors were not satisfied with the acromial osteotomy alone. Scapular (glenoid and acromion) osteotomies for the treatment of posterior shoulder instability: technique and preliminary results reported the outcome after a “scapular (acromion and glenoid) corrective osteotomy" for posterior escape in 9 consecutive patients. One case had persistent subluxation, and osteoarthritis progression. The other 8 patients had improved clinical scores. In 5 patients the humeral head was recentered.


Current thinking regarding the role of acromial surgery in the management of posterior instability may be reflected in Acromion Morphology Is Associated With Failure of Arthroscopic Posterior Capsulolabral Repair finding that while failure of arthroscopic posterior shoulder capsulolabral repair was associated with a higher acromion the authors did not recommend surgical intervention (posterior acromial bone graft or posterior acromial osteotomy) to change acromial anatomy in the treatment of posterior shoulder instability. This direct statement from proponents of the acromial association with posterior instability should help inform clinical decision-making.

Going forward

The strongest clinical application of acromial morphology data may lie in diagnosis and risk stratification, not operative planning. A high, flat posterior acromion on imaging should prompt the clinician to think more broadly about the shoulder's developmental anatomy — to look carefully at glenoid version, labral quality on MRI, posterior capsular volume, and rotator cuff muscle belly cross-section. It is a signal that the whole posterior stabilizing complex may be developmentally underprogrammed, not just the acromion. 

The recognition of the B0 glenoid as a precursor to shoulder arthritis raises the question of whether identifying this developmental syndrome early — high acromion, glenoid retroversion, and posterior subluxation together — should inform decisions about some type of surgical intervention before the shoulder progresses to the arthritic B2. Answering that question will require thoughtful clinical research.


Trying to figure this out.

 Acorn Woodpecker
Tucson
2020


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). 

Wednesday, February 18, 2026

Does component malposition lead to revision of shoulder arthroplasty?

Humeral and glenoid component malposition in patients requiring revision shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective, cross-sectional study lists instability: 32% (most common in RSA cases (40%). rotator cuff tear: 32% — predominantly in TSA (45%), loosening: 25% (highest in RSA (34%), infection: 11%, periprosthetic fracture: 5%. 

This commercially-funded investigation concluded: "The data from this study suggest that component malposition is frequently present among patients requiring revision arthroplasty." and "Improved component positioning is needed, including the development of more effective intra-operative techniques to ensure proper humeral and glenoid component position to minimize the risk of revision surgery." However, this study did not demonstrate that the rate of malposition was more frequent in revised than in unrevised shoulders. To conclude that malposition causes revision, we need to know how often well-functioning, unrevised shoulders also exceed defined thresholds.

Here are some details: component position was measured on pre-revision radiographs. "Thresholds for Malposition" were based on values found in prior publications.



From the above and the figure below it can be seen that the definition of acceptable component position is quite narrow.


The authors note that using narrower thresholds dramatically increases "malposition" rates. For example, lowering the threshold for the change in humeral center of rotation from >5mm to  >3mm increased the rate of "malpositioned" components from 45% to 58% of TSA cases. It seems likely that there are many unrevised shoulder arthroplasties with a change in humeral center of rotation exceeding the 5mm or the 3mm thresholds.

This is akin to having the distance between field goal uprights being 3 feet (below right) rather than the regulation 18.5 feet (below left).  Narrowing the goal posts does not change the quality of the kicker.




To understand the nature of thresholds, we need scatter plots including both revised and unrevised shoulders that show the relationship between component position and outcomes across the full spectrum of both variables. Such plots would reveal the true clinical significance of positioning variations. These data are not included in this study.

The value of scatter plots is shown by four hypothetical examples illustrating different possible relationships between component positioning and outcomes. Each represents a fundamentally different clinical reality with different implications for the value of precision positioning technology.

Figure 1. Scenario A: Hard Threshold Pattern





This pattern shows a clear inflection point at 5 mm deviation. Below this threshold, outcomes remain excellent with minimal variation. Above it, outcomes deteriorate sharply.  The blue dots represent cases without revision, while red dots indicate cases that required revision surgery.

Figure 2. Scenario B: Soft Threshold Pattern (Gradual Decline)



This pattern demonstrates a linear relationship where each degree of deviation causes proportional outcome deterioration. There is no sharp inflection point. Note the increasing concentration of revisions (red dots) as deviation increases, but many poorly-positioned components still function adequately.

Figure 3. Scenario C: No Clear Relationship (Zone of Indifference)




This pattern shows outcomes scattered across the full range regardless of positioning. The flat trend line suggests that within the measured range, this particular positioning parameter has minimal impact on outcomes. Other factors (soft tissue management, patient selection, surgical technique) dominate. The random distribution of revisions (red dots) across all positioning values supports this interpretation.


Figure 4. Scenario D: Inverted U-Shaped Relationship (Optimal Zone)




This pattern demonstrates that extremes in either direction cause poor outcomes, with an optimal zone in the middle. This could represent parameters like humeral version where both excessive anteversion and retroversion are problematic. The concentration of revisions (red dots) at both extremes supports the concept of an optimal middle zone.

Scatter plots such as these reveal (1) the percentage of "well-positioned" implants failed and (2) the percentage of "malpositioned" implants that function successfully and (3) whether it is likely that deviations caused failure, or whether failures have occurred for other reasons, such as instability from poor soft tissue balancing, poor bone quality, infection, or periprosthetic fracture.

Conclusion

The modes of shoulder arthroplasty failure and revision are well established.

Why do primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties fail today? A systematic review and meta-analysis  identified implant loosening (26.1%), particularly of the glenoid component, as the most common cause of contemporary aTSA failure, followed by rotator cuff insufficiency (17.3%), instability (10.4%), and infection (10.2%)


Revision of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a scoping review of indications for revision, and revision outcomes, complications, and rerevisions found the primary reasons for revision were dislocation or instability (30%), baseplate complications (25%), infection (23%),  acromial/scapular fractures and humeral component issues (10%).

 Notice that the leading causes of failure — loosening, instability, infection — are not primarily positioning problems. Precision technology addresses none of them.

The critical unanswered question is the dose-response relationship between positioning deviation and clinical outcome - four possible patterns are shown by the hypothetical examples above. 

Each surgeon needs to ask, "are the complications experienced by my patients likely to be addressed by component positioning between tight goal posts or are they more likely to be addressed by better patient selection, better component seating, better soft tissue balancing, better prophylaxis against infection, or different component selection?".


Keeping Cool

Dark Eyed Junco
Matsen Backyard
2020


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). 



Monday, February 16, 2026

Humeral and glenoid component malposition in revised shoulder arthroplasty - Part I - what might have been done differently?

The authors of Humeral and glenoid component malposition in patients requiring revision shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective, cross-sectional study explored 234 cases of revised shoulder arthroplasty and reported "quantitative analysis demonstrated that the majority of glenoid components in these revision cases were malpositioned in both TSA (51%) and RSA (93%) when all measures were considered. Similarly, there was humeral component malposition in 57% of TSA cases, 62% of RSA cases, and 54% of hemiarthroplasty cases when all measures were considered. When asked if there was glenoid component malposition, the independent reviewer considered 17% of glenoid components to be malpositioned in TSA cases and 54% in RSA cases. The investigative institutions reported similar rates. For the humeral side, the independent reviewer felt that 71% of TSA cases, 24% of RSA cases, and 74% of hemiarthroplasty implants were malpositioned in some direction. The investigative institutions reported similar rates."

This article is very thought provoking: it merits two posts. Here's the first.

The authors conclude:  "Improved component positioning is needed, including the development of more effective intra-operative techniques to ensure proper humeral and glenoid component position to minimize the risk of revision surgery." 

The authors' examples of malposition are shown below, providing an opportunity to consider what might have been done differently in each case to avoid the malpostion (see Of successful mammoth hunting and glenoid component failure - modeling causation).

Knowing full well that many of this blog's readers would consider a high-tech approach (e.g.robotics, navigation systems, patient specific instrumentation), here's how we'd try to avoid these malpositions in my practice.

A. Humeral head too high








The "head high" problem may be avoided by assuring that the humeral head is placed just below the berm. 


Note also in both of these cases the diaphysis of the humeral component was too large, causing stem incarceration, preventing full seating of the component. Stem incarceration may be prevented by using a smaller diameter humeral component with impaction grafting, 



using a short stem, or using a stemless component.




B. Insufficient humeral resection



The "long neck" problem may be avoided by full exposure of the anatomic neck for the cut.


C. Too high baseplate


The "Baseplate High" problem may be avoided by making preoperative measurements on a plain preoperative Grashey view. Below left, a line segment equal to half the baseplate diameter is drawn from the inferior glenoid to the articular surface perpendicular to the supraspinatus fossa line. A second line segment is drawn from the inferior glenoid lip to the intersection of the first line segment with the articular surface. This distance can me measured at surgery. This intersection indicates the starting point for the drill.



D. Superior tilt of baseplate. 


The "baseplate looking up" problem may be avoided by making preoperative measurements on a plain preoperative Grashey view. Below left a line (yellow) is drawn from the drill insertion point (see "C" above) parallel to the supraspinatus fossa line. This is the drill trajectory. Below right the angle between the drill trajectory and the superior face of the glenoid is noted and used to define the tilt of the drill for insertion of the baseplate.




Looking forward to your comments!


Northern Flicker
Matsen Backyard
2022



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).