Next Article in Journal
Premature Ventricular Complex-Induced Cardiomyopathy, a Review: Current Insights, Diagnostic Challenges, and Therapeutic Strategies
Previous Article in Journal
Data-Driven Analysis of Systemic Indicators Linking Stroke-Associated Pneumonia, Delayed Cerebral Ischemia, and Outcome After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Previous Article in Special Issue
Wearable Sensors for the Assessment of Functional Outcome Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Scoping Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm15041361
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Refining Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: From Implant Design to Patient-Specific Strategy

by
Stefan Bauer
1,2,*,
William G. Blakeney
2,3 and
Allan W. Wang
2,4
1
Centre de l’Épaule, du Coude et du Membre Supérieur, Service d’Orthopédie, Ensemble Hospitalier de la Côte, 1110 Morges, Switzerland
2
Division of Surgery, Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
3
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA 6000, Australia
4
Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, St John of God Hospital, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(4), 1361; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041361
Submission received: 26 January 2026 / Accepted: 3 February 2026 / Published: 9 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances, New Technologies and Optimization of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty)
Versions Notes
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has evolved from a reliable solution for cuff-deficient shoulders into a broadly utilized reconstructive replacement procedure [1,2,3,4] used in more than 80% of shoulder arthroplasty cases according to recent reports by the Australian registry [5]. With this growth has come increasing recognition of its inherent challenges, including limitations in postoperative external and internal rotation [6,7], the impact of scapular posture and motion [8,9,10,11,12], and the complex interplay between moment arms and muscle tensioning that influences both passive and active shoulder function [13,14,15,16,17].
These factors—alongside well-recognized complications such as instability [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26], scapular notching [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35], acromial and scapular spine stress fractures [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45], and concerns about implant longevity [46,47,48] and functional performance [49,50]—underscore the need for patient-specific decision-making to reduce complications and optimize treatment [51,52,53,54]. Objective assessment of muscle quality [55,56,57] and imaging-based predictive modeling extend the patient-specific approach highlighted by Roche and colleagues in this Special Issue [58]. Collectively, the contributions to this Special Issue span infection revision, implant philosophy, fixation geometry, soft-tissue management, navigation technologies, biomechanics of instability, and outcome measurement.
A major practice-shaping contribution is provided by Collin, Lädermann, and colleagues [59], who evaluated outcomes following two-stage revision RSA for periprosthetic joint infection. By demonstrating functional results approaching those of primary RSA, this work reframes revision RSA as a restorative rather than salvage procedure. This constitutes an important shift for counseling and decision-making as revision burden rises [60,61,62].
Conceptual advancement is further driven by Frankle’s group [63], whose design journey in more anatomic RSA integrates biomechanical principles with clinical outcomes [64,65,66,67,68,69,70]. Their work challenges traditional assumptions regarding deltoid dependence and medialization, offering a coherent framework for understanding emerging implant philosophies rather than simply introducing another design iteration.
Moroder and colleagues [71] report five-year outcomes of a rectangular humeral stem with a 135° neck–shaft angle (NSA). These data underscore the importance of stem geometry and alignment, providing clinically meaningful guidance for implant selection.
Soft-tissue considerations are rigorously examined by Collin, Lädermann, and colleagues [72] in their comparison of onlay versus inlay RSA designs. By correlating implant configuration with subscapularis repair, healing, and functional outcomes, this work directly informs surgical technique in an area of longstanding debate [73,74,75,76,77,78,79].
Technological innovation is critically assessed by Kriechling, Wieser, and co-authors [80], who present a systematic review on augmented reality applications in RSA. Their analysis demonstrates improved accuracy and reproducibility of glenoid component placement while appropriately emphasizing the need for further clinical outcome validation before widespread adoption.
A mechanistically novel and clinically relevant phenomenon is described by Bauer et al. [81] in their investigation into instability patterns in short-stem RSA. They identify a distinct superior–lateral instability pattern associated with a 135° NSA, introduce the two-hand lever test (2HLT) as an intraoperative assessment, and highlight the importance of an effective NSA.Their findings suggest that lower angles, particularly 135°, may require increased liner constraint to maintain stability because of the direction of the deltoid force vector, especially in the presence of varus stem alignment and a more vertical joint line. Established concavity compression mechanics [82] gain a practical new dimension here: effective NSA as a modifiable parameter that can be optimized through multiple strategies [83].
Complementing these high-impact studies, works by Berhouet [84], Clauss [85], Gupta [86,87], Edwards [88], and colleagues add biomechanical insights, contemporary perspectives on infection and implant evolution, advanced glenoid and humeral reconstruction, and objective outcome assessment. In this context, advances with novel patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are promising in terms of capturing more relevant data on RSA performance beyond generalized pain and function [89].
In the past, researchers in this field aimed to achieve the best design. In the future, we may instead focus on identifying the best individual strategy, selecting from an expanding surgical armamentarium.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.B.; validation, W.G.B. and A.W.W.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B.; writing—review and editing, W.G.B. and A.W.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Franceschi, F.; Giovannetti de Sanctis, E.; Gupta, A.; Athwal, G.S.; Di Giacomo, G. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: State-of-the-Art. J. ISAKOS 2023, 8, 306–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mayfield, C.K.; Wier, J.; Liu, K.C.; Lin, E.H.; Feingold, C.L.; Weber, A.E.; Gamradt, S.C.; Liu, J.N.; Petrigliano, F.A. Increasing Use of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Younger Adults despite Higher Complication Rates. JSES Int. 2025, 9, 1693–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rajaee, S.S.; Yalamanchili, D.; Noori, N.; Debbi, E.; Mirocha, J.; Lin, C.A.; Moon, C.N. Increasing Use of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fractures in Elderly Patients. Orthopedics 2017, 40, e982–e989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Best, M.J.; Aziz, K.T.; Wilckens, J.H.; McFarland, E.G.; Srikumaran, U. Increasing Incidence of Primary Reverse and Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2021, 30, 1159–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lewis, P.L.; Gill, D.R.; McAuliffe, M.J.; McDougall, C.; Stoney, J.D.; Vertullo, C.J.; Wall, C.J.; Corfield, S.; Du, P.; Holder, C. Hip, Knee and Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2024 Annual Report; Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry; Australian Orthopaedic Association: Sydney, Australia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sirveaux, F.; Favard, L.; Oudet, D.; Huquet, D.; Walch, G.; Molé, D. Grammont Inverted Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis with Massive Rupture of the Cuff. Results of a Multicentre Study of 80 Shoulders. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. Vol. 2004, 86, 388–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boileau, P.; Watkinson, D.J.; Hatzidakis, A.M.; Balg, F. Grammont Reverse Prosthesis: Design, Rationale, and Biomechanics. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2005, 14, S147–S161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moroder, P.; Poltaretskyi, S.; Raiss, P.; Denard, P.J.; Werner, B.C.; Erickson, B.J.; Griffin, J.W.; Metcalfe, N.; Siegert, P. SECEC Grammont Award 2024: The Critical Role of Posture Adjustment for Range of Motion Simulation in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Preoperative Planning. Bone Jt. J. 2024, 106, 1284–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Moroder, P.; Siegert, P.; Coifman, I.; Rüttershoff, K.; Spagna, G.; Scaini, A.; Weber, B.; Schneller, T.; Scheibel, M.; Audigé, L. Scapulothoracic Orientation Has a Significant Influence on the Clinical Outcome after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2024, 33, 2159–2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Siegert, P.; Meraner, D.; Pokorny-Olsen, A.; Akgün, D.; Korn, G.; Albrecht, C.; Hofstaetter, J.G.; Moroder, P. Practical Considerations for Determination of Scapular Internal Rotation and Its Relevance in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Planning. J. Orthop. Surg. 2023, 18, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kriechling, P.; Neopoulos, G.; Berger, A.; Stein, P.; Götschi, T.; Grubhofer, F.; Wieser, K. Patients Posture Affects Clinical Outcomes and Range of Motion after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Clinical Study. JSES Int. 2024, 9, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moroder, P.; Urvoy, M.; Raiss, P.; Werthel, J.-D.; Akgün, D.; Chaoui, J.; Siegert, P. Patient Posture Affects Simulated ROM in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Modeling Study Using Preoperative Planning Software. Clin. Orthop. 2022, 480, 619–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bauer, S.; Blakeney, W.G.; Wang, A.W.; Ernstbrunner, L.; Corbaz, J.; Werthel, J.-D. Challenges for Optimization of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Part II: Subacromial Space, Scapular Posture, Moment Arms and Muscle Tensioning. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bauer, S.; Blakeney, W.G.; Wang, A.W.; Ernstbrunner, L.; Werthel, J.-D.; Corbaz, J. Challenges for Optimization of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Part I: External Rotation, Extension and Internal Rotation. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cogan, C.J.; Ho, J.C.; Entezari, V.; Iannotti, J.P.; Ricchetti, E.T. The Influence of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Implant Design on Biomechanics. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 2023, 16, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Nelson, R.; Lowe, J.T.; Lawler, S.M.; Fitzgerald, M.; Mantell, M.T.; Jawa, A. 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, 41, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Lopiz, Y.; Rodriguez-Gonzalez, A.; Martín-Albarrán, S.; Ponz-Lueza, V.; García-Fernández, C.; Marco, F. Effect of Arm Lengthening on Functional Outcomes and Nerve Injury after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Prospective Electrodiagnostic Study. J. Orthop. 2025, 70, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Trappey, G.J.; O’Connor, D.P.; Edwards, T.B. What Are the Instability and Infection Rates after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty? Clin. Orthop. 2011, 469, 2505–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oeding, J.F.; Lu, Y.; Pareek, A.; Marigi, E.M.; Okoroha, K.R.; Barlow, J.D.; Camp, C.L.; Sanchez-Sotelo, J. Understanding Risk for Early Dislocation Resulting in Reoperation within 90 Days of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Extreme Rare Event Detection through Cost-Sensitive Machine Learning. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2023, 32, e437–e450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guarrella, V.; Chelli, M.; Domos, P.; Ascione, F.; Boileau, P.; Walch, G. Risk Factors for Instability after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Shoulder Elb. 2021, 13, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Loucas, M.; Borbas, P.; Vetter, M.; Loucas, R.; Ernstbrunner, L.; Wieser, K. Risk Factors for Dislocation After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Orthopedics 2022, 45, e303–e308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gutiérrez, S.; Keller, T.S.; Levy, J.C.; Lee, W.E.; Luo, Z.-P. Hierarchy of Stability Factors in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. 2008, 466, 670–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chalmers, P.N.; Rahman, Z.; Romeo, A.A.; Nicholson, G.P. Early Dislocation after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2014, 23, 737–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kohan, E.M.; Chalmers, P.N.; Salazar, D.; Keener, J.D.; Yamaguchi, K.; Chamberlain, A.M. Dislocation Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2017, 26, 1238–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Garcia-Fernandez, C.; Lopiz, Y.; Arvinius, C.; Ponz, V.; Alcobía-Diaz, B.; Checa, P.; Galán-Olleros, M.; Marco, F. Dislocation after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Using Contemporary Medialized Modular Systems. Can We Still Consider It Such a Frequent Complication? Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2022, 32, 1525–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abdelfattah, A.; Otto, R.J.; Simon, P.; Christmas, K.N.; Tanner, G.; LaMartina, J.; Levy, J.C.; Cuff, D.J.; Mighell, M.A.; Frankle, M.A. Classification of Instability after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Guides Surgical Management and Outcomes. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2018, 27, e107–e118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Spiry, C.; Berhouet, J.; Agout, C.; Bacle, G.; Favard, L. Long-Term Impact of Scapular Notching after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Int. Orthop. 2021, 45, 1559–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Simovitch, R.; Flurin, P.-H.; Wright, T.W.; Zuckerman, J.D.; Roche, C. Impact of Scapular Notching on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Midterm Outcomes: 5-Year Minimum Follow-Up. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2019, 28, 2301–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Athwal, G.S.; MacDermid, J.C.; Reddy, K.M.; Marsh, J.P.; Faber, K.J.; Drosdowech, D. Does Bony Increased-Offset Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Decrease Scapular Notching? J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2015, 24, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Boileau, P.; Morin-Salvo, N.; Bessière, C.; Chelli, M.; Gauci, M.-O.; Lemmex, D.B. Bony Increased-Offset-Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: 5 to 10 Years’ Follow-Up. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2020, 29, 2111–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Boileau, P.; Morin-Salvo, N.; Gauci, M.-O.; Seeto, B.L.; Chalmers, P.N.; Holzer, N.; Walch, G. Angled BIO-RSA (Bony-Increased Offset-Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty): A Solution for the Management of Glenoid Bone Loss and Erosion. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2017, 26, 2133–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Middernacht, B.; De Roo, P.-J.; Van Maele, G.; De Wilde, L.F. Consequences of Scapular Anatomy for Reversed Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. 2008, 466, 1410–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. de Wilde, L.F.; Poncet, D.; Middernacht, B.; Ekelund, A. Prosthetic Overhang Is the Most Effective Way to Prevent Scapular Conflict in a Reverse Total Shoulder Prosthesis. Acta Orthop. 2010, 81, 719–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Van Tongel, A.; Levy, O.; Atoun, E.; De Wilde, L. Bony Increased-Offset Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty: Minimizing Scapular Impingement While Maximizing Glenoid Fixation. Clin. Orthop. 2011, 469, 2389–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  35. Bauer, S.; Blakeney, W.G.; Goyal, N.; Flayac, H.; Wang, A.; Corbaz, J. Posteroinferior Relevant Scapular Neck Offset in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Key Player for Motion and Friction-Type Impingement in a Computer Model. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2022, 31, 2638–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bauer, S.; Levy, J.C.; Athwal, G.S. Acute Open Reduction and Internal Fixation versus Nonoperative Treatment of Scapular Spine Fractures after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Study. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2025, 34, 2146–2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boltuch, A.; Grewal, G.; Cannon, D.; Polisetty, T.; Levy, J.C. Nonoperative Treatment of Acromial Fractures Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2022, 31, S44–S56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ascione, F.; Kilian, C.M.; Laughlin, M.S.; Bugelli, G.; Domos, P.; Neyton, L.; Godeneche, A.; Edwards, T.B.; Walch, G. Increased Scapular Spine Fractures after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with a Humeral Onlay Short Stem: An Analysis of 485 Consecutive Cases. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2018, 27, 2183–2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kriechling, P.; Hodel, S.; Paszicsnyek, A.; Schwihla, I.; Borbas, P.; Wieser, K. Incidence, Radiographic Predictors, and Clinical Outcome of Acromial Stress Reaction and Acromial Fractures in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2022, 31, 1143–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cassidy, J.T.; Paszicsnyek, A.; Ernstbrunner, L.; Ek, E.T. Acromial and Scapular Spine Fractures Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty—A Systematic Review of Fixation Constructs and Techniques. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 7025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bauer, S.; Traverso, A.; Walch, G. Case Report: Locked 90°-Double Plating of Scapular Spine Fracture after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with Union and Good Outcome despite Plate Adjacent Acromion Fracture. BMJ Case Rep. 2020, 13, e234727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Teusink, M.J.; Otto, R.J.; Cottrell, B.J.; Frankle, M.A. What Is the Effect of Postoperative Scapular Fracture on Outcomes of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty? J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2014, 23, 782–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sußiek, J.; Michel, P.A.; Raschke, M.J.; Schliemann, B.; Katthagen, J.C. Treatment Strategies for Scapular Spine Fractures: A Scoping Review. EFORT Open Rev. 2021, 6, 788–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kriechling, P.; Weber, F.; Karczewski, D.; Borbas, P.; Wieser, K. Predictive Factors of Acromial Fractures Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Subgroup Analysis of 860 Shoulders. JSES Int. 2023, 7, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. ASES Complications of RSA Research Group; Mahendraraj, K.A.; Abboud, J.; Armstrong, A.; Austin, L.; Brolin, T.; Entezari, V.; Friedman, L.; Garrigues, G.E.; Grawe, B.; et al. Predictors of Acromial and Scapular Stress Fracture after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Study by the ASES Complications of RSA Multicenter Research Group. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2021, 30, 2296–2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ernstbrunner, L.; Andronic, O.; Grubhofer, F.; Camenzind, R.S.; Wieser, K.; Gerber, C. Long-Term Results of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Rotator Cuff Dysfunction: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Outcomes. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2019, 28, 774–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Otto, R.J.; Clark, R.E.; Frankle, M.A. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Younger than 55 Years: 2- to 12-Year Follow-Up. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2017, 26, 792–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schoch, B.S.; Vigan, M.; Roche, C.P.; Parsons, M.; Wright, T.W.; King, J.J.; Werthel, J.D. Deltoid Fatigue: A Longitudinal Assessment of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty over Time. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2021, 30, 1375–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Werner, B.C.; Chang, B.; Nguyen, J.T.; Dines, D.M.; Gulotta, L.V. What Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score Represents a Clinically Important Change After Shoulder Arthroplasty? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2016, 474, 2672–2681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Jackson, G.R.; Lack, B.T.; Childers, J.T.; Mowers, C.C.; Javier, A.M.; Smith, M.J.; Kenter, K. Variable Return-to-Sport Rates Despite Improved Shoulder Function and Outcomes Scores After Primary Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Active Patients: A Systematic Review. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2026, 14, 23259671251405280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bauer, S.; Blakeney, W.G.; Meylan, A.; Mahlouly, J.; Wang, A.W.; Walch, A.; Tolosano, L. Humeral Head Size Predicts Baseplate Lateralization in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Comparative Computer Model Study. JSES Int. 2024, 8, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bauer, S.; Meylan, A.; Mahlouly, J.; Shao, W.; Blakeney, W.G. Dialing the Glenosphere Eccentricity Posteriorly to Optimize Range of Motion in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. JSES Int. 2025, 9, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Blakeney, W.G.; Shao, W.; Werthel, J.-D.; Wang, A.; Bauer, S. Normalized Preoperative Muscle Volume Correlates with Shoulder Strength at Minimum 2 Years after Lateralized rTSA. JSES Int. 2025, 9, 1660–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Shao, W.; Shekhbihi, A.; Blakeney, W.G.; Werthel, J.-D.; Bauer, S. Translating Humeral Posture into Prosthetic Planning: BMI, Humeral Abduction Resting Angle, and Simulated Range of Motion in an Altivate 135° Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Model. JSES Int. 2025, 9, 1636–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Werthel, J.-D.; Boux de Casson, F.; Walch, G.; Gaudin, P.; Moroder, P.; Sanchez-Sotelo, J.; Chaoui, J.; Burdin, V. Three-Dimensional Muscle Loss Assessment: A Novel Computed Tomography-Based Quantitative Method to Evaluate Rotator Cuff Muscle Fatty Infiltration. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2022, 31, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yoon, J.P.; Seo, A.; Kim, J.J.; Lee, C.-H.; Baek, S.-H.; Kim, S.Y.; Jeong, E.T.; Oh, K.-S.; Chung, S.W. Deltoid Muscle Volume Affects Clinical Outcome of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients with Cuff Tear Arthropathy or Irreparable Cuff Tears. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Werthel, J.-D.; Boux de Casson, F.; Burdin, V.; Athwal, G.S.; Favard, L.; Chaoui, J.; Walch, G. CT-Based Volumetric Assessment of Rotator Cuff Muscle in Shoulder Arthroplasty Preoperative Planning. Bone Jt. Open 2021, 2, 552–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rajabzadeh-Oghaz, H.; Kumar, V.; Berry, D.B.; Singh, A.; Schoch, B.S.; Aibinder, W.R.; Gobbato, B.; Polakovic, S.; Elwell, J.; Roche, C.P. Impact of Deltoid Computer Tomography Image Data on the Accuracy of Machine Learning Predictions of Clinical Outcomes after Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Saccomanno, M.F.; Lädermann, A.; Collin, P. Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Infection Provides Comparable Functional Outcomes to Primary Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kolakowski, L.; Stadecker, M.; Kucharik, M.; Layuno-Matos, J.G.; Jones, C.A.; Hunt, A.; Plummer, O.R.; Christmas, K.N.; Simon, P.; Frankle, M.A. Trends in 1030 Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty Cases: Changing Rates, Indications, and Treatments. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2025. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kubota, N.; Nakazawa, K.; Manaka, T.; Ito, Y.; Hirakawa, Y.; Ogura, A.; Terai, H. Periprosthetic Humeral Fractures After Short-Stem Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Treatment Patterns, Classification, and Clinical Outcomes. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 15, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hao, K.A.; Boschert, E.N.; O’Keefe, D.S.; Saengchote, S.A.; Schoch, B.S.; Wright, J.O.; Wright, T.W.; Farmer, K.W.; Struk, A.M.; King, J.J. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Failed Primary Anatomic vs. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. JSES Int. 2023, 7, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sanchez-Urgelles, P.; Kolakowski, L.; Levin, J.M.; Frankle, M.A. Development, Evolution, and Outcomes of More Anatomical Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 6513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Frankle, M.; Siegal, S.; Pupello, D.; Saleem, A.; Mighell, M.; Vasey, M. The Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis for Glenohumeral Arthritis Associated with Severe Rotator Cuff Deficiency. A Minimum Two-Year Follow-up Study of Sixty Patients. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2005, 87, 1697–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cuff, D.J.; Pupello, D.R.; Santoni, B.G.; Clark, R.E.; Frankle, M.A. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Deficiency: A Concise Follow-up, at a Minimum of 10 Years, of Previous Reports. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2017, 99, 1895–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Mulieri, P.; Dunning, P.; Klein, S.; Pupello, D.; Frankle, M. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tear without Glenohumeral Arthritis. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 2010, 92, 2544–2556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Steen, B.M.; Cabezas, A.F.; Santoni, B.G.; Hussey, M.M.; Cusick, M.C.; Kumar, A.G.; Frankle, M.A. Outcome and Value of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Treatment of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: A Matched Cohort. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2015, 24, 1433–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Levin, J.M.; Pugliese, M.; Gobbi, F.; Pandy, M.G.; Giacomo, G.D.; Frankle, M.A. Impact of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Design and Patient Shoulder Size on Moment Arms and Muscle Fiber Lengths in Shoulder Abductors. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2023, 32, 2550–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Frankle, M.A.; Teramoto, A.; Luo, Z.-P.; Levy, J.C.; Pupello, D. Glenoid Morphology in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Classification and Surgical Implications. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2009, 18, 874–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Gutiérrez, S.; Greiwe, R.M.; Frankle, M.A.; Siegal, S.; Lee, W.E. Biomechanical Comparison of Component Position and Hardware Failure in the Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2007, 16, S9–S12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ameziane, Y.; Audigé, L.; Schoch, C.; Flury, M.; Schwyzer, H.-K.; Scaini, A.; Maggini, E.; Moroder, P. 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, 14, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kapilan, S.; Nabergoj, M.; Lädermann, A.; Collin, P. Comparing Repaired Subscapularis Tendon Integrity Using Ultrasound in Onlay Versus Inlay Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Franceschetti, E.; de Sanctis, E.G.; Ranieri, R.; Palumbo, A.; Paciotti, M.; Franceschi, F. The Role of the Subscapularis Tendon in a Lateralized Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Repair versus Nonrepair. Int. Orthop. 2019, 43, 2579–2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. De Fine, M.; Sartori, M.; Giavaresi, G.; De Filippis, R.; Agrò, G.; Cialdella, S.; Fini, M.; Pignatti, G. The Role of Subscapularis Repair Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2022, 142, 2147–2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. de Boer, F.A.; van Kampen, P.M.; Huijsmans, P.E. The Influence of Subscapularis Tendon Reattachment on Range of Motion in Reversed Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Clinical Study. Musculoskelet. Surg. 2016, 100, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Matthewson, G.; Kooner, S.; Kwapisz, A.; Leiter, J.; Old, J.; MacDonald, P. The Effect of Subscapularis Repair on Dislocation Rates in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 2019, 28, 989–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Mocini, F.; Cerciello, S.; Corona, K.; Morris, B.J.; Saturnino, L.; Giordano, M.C. The Effect of Subscapularis Repair in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Depends on the Design of the Implant: A Comparative Study with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up. Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. 2023, 144, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lachance, A.D.; Peebles, A.M.; McBride, T.; Eble, S.K.; Provencher, M.T. Subscapularis Repair Techniques for Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J. ISAKOS 2022, 7, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Roberson, T.A.; Shanley, E.; Griscom, J.T.; Granade, M.; Hunt, Q.; Adams, K.J.; Momaya, A.M.; Kwapisz, A.; Kissenberth, M.J.; Lonergan, K.T.; et al. Subscapularis Repair Is Unnecessary After Lateralized Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Open Access 2018, 3, e0056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Orlewski, J.; Hochreiter, B.; Wieser, K.; Kriechling, P. Application of Augmented Reality in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 5533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Bauer, S.; Mahlouly, J.; Tolosano, L.; Moroder, P.; Blakeney, W.G.; Shao, W. From Grammont to a New 135° Short-Stem Design: Two-Hand Lever Test and Early Superior–Lateral Dislocations Reveal Critical Role of Liner Stability Ratio and Stem Alignment. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lippitt, S.; Matsen, F. Mechanisms of Glenohumeral Joint Stability. Clin. Orthop. 1993, 291, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bauer, S.; Blakeney, W.G.; Lannes, X.; Wang, A.W.; Shao, W. Optimizing Stability and Motion in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with a 135° Neck-Shaft-Angle: A Computer Model Study of Standard versus Retentive Humeral Inserts. JSES Int. 2024, 8, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Besnard, M.; Samargandi, R.; Abualross, O.; Berhouet, J. The Influence of the Joint Volume on the Prevention of Impingement and Elbow-at-Side Rotations: Could the 36 Mm Sphere with an Inferior Offset of 2 Mm Be the New Gold Standard? J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Frank, F.A.; Müller, A.M.; Morgenstern, M.; Kuehl, R.; Clauss, M. Current Concepts in Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infections—Are Shoulders the Same as Hips and Knees? J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kang, H.W.; Child, C.; Italia, K.; Karel, M.; Gilliland, L.; Ingoe, H.; Maharaj, J.; Whitehouse, S.; Cutbush, K.; Gupta, A. Allograft Prosthetic Composite (APC) for Proximal Humeral Bone Deficiency in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Technical Note and Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 6290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ingoe, H.; Italia, K.; Gilliland, L.; Kang, H.W.; Karel, M.; Maharaj, J.; Cutbush, K.; Gupta, A. The Use of Glenoid Structural Allografts for Glenoid Bone Defects in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Edwards, P.K.; Ebert, J.R.; Blakeney, W.G.; Bauer, S.; Wang, A.W. Wearable Sensors for the Assessment of Functional Outcome Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Scoping Review. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 6401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bauer, S.; Blakeney, W.G.; Mellal, A.; Lannes, X.; Moroder, P.; Walch, G. Forgotten Shoulder ASAP-22: A Scapula-Inclusive Shoulder Ecosystem PROM—Pilot Study in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Related Pathologies. JSES Int. 2025, 9, 2112–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bauer, S.; Blakeney, W.G.; Wang, A.W. Refining Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: From Implant Design to Patient-Specific Strategy. J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15, 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041361

AMA Style

Bauer S, Blakeney WG, Wang AW. Refining Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: From Implant Design to Patient-Specific Strategy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2026; 15(4):1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041361

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bauer, Stefan, William G. Blakeney, and Allan W. Wang. 2026. "Refining Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: From Implant Design to Patient-Specific Strategy" Journal of Clinical Medicine 15, no. 4: 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041361

APA Style

Bauer, S., Blakeney, W. G., & Wang, A. W. (2026). Refining Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: From Implant Design to Patient-Specific Strategy. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 15(4), 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15041361

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop