▼

Sunday, April 19, 2026

Component malposition and clinical outcomes in shoulder arthroplasty - are they related?

It seems intuitive that substantial malposition of shoulder arthroplasty components can lead to poor clinical outcomes.  


The assumption that malposition drives poor outcomes has become the rationale for investment in three-dimensional planning, patient-specific instrumentation, navigation, augmented reality, and robotics. However, examination of published evidence indicates that the relationship between measured component position and patient-reported outcomes is weaker than this narrative implies. For example Negligible Correlation between Radiographic Measurements and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Following Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty concluded that the relationship between measured component position and clinical outcomes is limited. Does postoperative glenoid component retroversion following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty affect clinical outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis found no clinically significant difference in patient-reported outcome scores, range of motion, or complications for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid components implanted with <15° versus ≥15° of postoperative retroversion across 15 studies and 1,190 shoulders. 

Humeral and glenoid component malposition in patients requiring revision shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective, cross-sectional study measured component positions for TSA and RSA on pre-revision radiographs of patients having revision arthroplasty and compared these measures to "ideal" values for glenoid inclination, critical shoulder angle, glenosphere overhang, change in center of rotation, humeral head height, acromio-humeral interval, and humeral stem alignment. These measurements were not made on radiographs obtained immediately after the index arthroplasty, so the extent of postoperative component shift is not known.

The article found that the majority of glenoid components in these revision cases were malpositioned in relation to the "ideal" values for both TSA (51%) and RSA (93%) when all of the measures were considered. Similarly, there was humeral component malposition in 57% of TSA cases and 62% of RSA cases when all of the measures were considered.  

The prevalence of malpositioning in unrevised arthroplasties was not presented in this study.

Data such as that shown in graph A  (showing hypothetical values for unrevised shoulders) would suggest that malposition was not an important driver of revision.



On the other hand, data such as that shown in graph B would suggest that malposition was an important driver of revision.

This article did not provide data on the relationship of the degree of malposition to the rate of revision.

Data such as that shown in hypothetical graph C would suggest that the degree of malposition was tightly related to the revision rate.

Data such as that shown in hypothetical graph D would suggest that smaller degrees of malposition did not affect revision rate, whereas substantial degrees of malposition were clinically important.

What the literature does provide is evidence against a meaningful dose-response relationship. 

Below is a Forest plot of some key published studies relating glenoid component version to patient-reported clinical outcomes for aTSA and RSA. The effect sizes near zero with confidence intervals crossing the null line suggest the lack of a clinically meaningful dose-response relationship between glenoid component version and clinical outcome.



Below is a scatterplot showing the lack of a relationship between SANE and ASES scores and glenoid component version (data from Glenoid retroversion does not impact clinical outcomes or implant survivorship after total shoulder arthroplasty with minimal, noncorrective reaming).





Conclusion: A search of the currently available literature did not show a relationship between immediate postoperative radiographic measures of component position on one hand and clinically meaningful measures (such as patient-reported outcomes and revision rates) on the other. Such data will be important in demonstrating the potential clinical value of preoperative plan transfer technologies such as robotics, patient-specific instrumentation, navigation, and virtual/augmented reality. The thought that "continued improvements in component positioning technologies for both the glenoid and humeral implants are needed" will need to be supported by these analyses.

References
1. Checketts JX, Sanchez B, Norris G, Williamson TK, Hachadorian ME, Hsu JE, Schiffman CJ, Matsen FA III. Does postoperative glenoid component retroversion following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty affect clinical outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2026;35(5):1103–1116.
2. Sperling JW, Anderson MB, Jobin CM, Verborgt O, Duquin TR. Humeral and glenoid component malposition in patients requiring revision shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective, cross-sectional study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2025;34(8):1886–1896.
3. Service BC, Hsu JE, Somerson JS, Russ SM, Matsen FA III. Does postoperative glenoid retroversion affect the 2-year clinical and radiographic outcomes for total shoulder arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(11):2726–2739.
4. Sheth MM, Mills ZD, Dasari SP, Whitson AJ, Matsen FA III, Hsu JE. Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for posteriorly eccentric and concentric osteoarthritis: a comparison at a minimum 5-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2025;34(2):473–483.
5. Matsen FA III, Whitson AJ, Somerson JS, Hsu JE. Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with all-polyethylene glenoid component for primary osteoarthritis with glenoid deficiencies. JB JS Open Access. 2020;5(4):e20.00002.
6. Grantham WJ, Dekker TJ, Lacheta L, Horan MP, Goldenberg BT, Elrick BP, et al. Total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes after noncorrective, concentric reaming of B2 glenoids. JSES Int. 2020;4(3):644–648.
7. Ma CB, Xiao W, Salesky M, Cheung E, Zhang AL, Feeley BT, et al. Do glenoid retroversion and humeral subluxation affect outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty? JSES Int. 2020;4(3):649–656.
8. Rutledge JC, Dey Hazra RO, Geissbuhler AR, Yamaura K, Dey Hazra ME, Hanson JA, et al. Does glenoid version and its correction affect outcomes in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty? A systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024;33(7):e384–e399.
9. Chalmers PN, Granger EK, Orvets ND, Patterson BM, Chamberlain AM, Keener JD, et al. Does prosthetic humeral articular surface positioning associate with outcome after total shoulder arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(5):863–870.
10. Werner BC, Creighton RA, Denard PJ, Lederman E, Romeo A, Griffin JW. Prosthetic humeral head center of rotation shift from ideal is associated with inferior clinical outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Semin Arthroplasty JSES. 2021;31(4):668–676.
11. Varady NH, Bram JT, Chow J, Taylor SA, Dines JS, Fu MC, et al. Inconsistencies in measuring glenoid version in shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2025;34(2):639–649.
12. Terrier A, Ramondetti S, Merlini F, Pioletti DD, Farron A. Biomechanical consequences of humeral component malpositioning after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1184–1190.
13. Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Neradilek B, Matsen FA III. The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):555–562.
14. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Rowland CM, Cofield RH. Instability after shoulder arthroplasty: results of surgical treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(4):622–631.
15. Burns DM, Frank T, Whyne CM, Henry PDG. Glenoid component positioning and guidance techniques in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Shoulder Elbow. 2019;11(2 Suppl):16–28.
16. Navarro RA, Chan PH, Prentice HA, Pearl M, Matsen FA III, McElvany MD. Use of preoperative CT scans and patient-specific instrumentation may not improve short-term adverse events after shoulder arthroplasty: results from a large integrated health-care system. JB JS Open Access. 2023;8(3):e22.00139.
17. Hsu JE, Hackett DJ Jr, Vo KV, Matsen FA III. What can be learned from an analysis of 215 glenoid component failures? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(3):478–486.
18. Walch G, Young AA, Boileau P, Loew M, Gazielly D, Molé D. Patterns of loosening of polyethylene keeled glenoid components after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(2):145–150.
19. Harold RE, Sweeney PT, Torchia MT, Chamberlain AM, Keener JD. Total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with a B2 glenoid addressed with corrective reaming: mean 8-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023;32(6 Suppl):S8–S16.



at