0
    609
    views

    Management of the B2 Glenoid with Anatomic TSA: Ream, Step, or Wedge?

    The authors review a historical treatment of posterior bone loss in advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis – reaming the high side to correct pathologic version – and then discuss the more recent introduction of augmented glenoid components used to correct moderate to severe pathologic glenoid deformity and the B2 glenoid in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

     

    Authors

    Jason C. Ho, MD; Joseph P. Iannotti, MD, PhD; and Eric T. Ricchetti, MD

    Introduction

    Posterior bone loss in advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) causes increased retroversion and often a biconcave (B2) glenoid, presenting a particularly difficult scenario for treating glenohumeral OA with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The goals for treatment of these patients include:

    • Correction of glenoid bony deformity to restore the patient’s native anatomy, particularly native version
    • Restoration of the patient’s native joint line
    • Balancing of the soft tissues
    • Centering of the humeral head

    RELATED: Key Points and Surgical Pearls for Managing B2 Glenoids

    Implant selection and design can significantly influence the achievement of these goals.  Historically, B2 glenoid pathology has been addressed with use of a standard glenoid component and either asymmetric reaming for correction of version and the biconcavity or a posterior glenoid bone graft.

    More recently, however, use of an augmented glenoid component – stepped, full wedge, or posterior half-wedge –has provided another surgical treatment option for the B2 glenoid.

    Preoperative Imaging

    In patients with moderate to severe asymmetric posterior glenoid bone loss and a B2 glenoid, it is difficult to: [1,2]

    • Determine the patient’s pre-morbid or native glenoid version
    • Effectively correct the pathologic deformity

    Determining the native or pre-morbid glenoid version can be done with the use of 3-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) modeling and the vault model. The vault model was developed by defining the shape of the glenoid vault in the non-arthritic shoulder and then virtually placing the model into the pathologic glenoid. [1,3-5] Once positioned, the vault model defines the area of posterior glenoid bone loss and has been shown to be predictive of the location of the native glenoid joint line, version, and inclination (Figure 1). [1,3-6] Therefore, this tool can be used  to define patient-specific correction of the pathologic glenoid to its pre-morbid condition. [7,8]

    Figure 1. Axial cut of 3D reconstructed CT scan depicting the vault model (blue) and the posterior bone loss in a patient with a B2 glenoid.

    The authors currently use 3D CT imaging for preoperative planning in B2 glenoids. This allows more precise determination of the optimal implant choice based on the degree of pathologic correction and the joint line restoration that is possible with augmented or standard glenoid components. Prior studies have shown that using 3D CT preoperative planning can help predict the amount of correction achievable using standard and augmented glenoids, which can improve glenoid implant positioning postoperatively. [7,9,10]

    The B2 glenoid is the most common pattern of moderate to severe bone loss in which the authors utilize an augmented glenoid component. However, there may be limitations to the use of augmented glenoids if bone loss is very severe or if the glenoid is dysplastic (B3 or C glenoids). In these cases, reverse TSA with or without bone grafting may be a more reliable option for implant stability and longevity.

    The Evidence on Reaming

    Before modern imaging techniques and augmented implants were available, the preferred method to manage mild to moderate glenoid retroversion was reaming the high side to correct pathologic version. [11-15] Yet reaming the high side to match native version as retroversion increases can cause significant medialization of the joint line, narrow the anteroposterior dimensions of the glenoid, and/or lead to possible peg perforation with standard glenoid components in anatomic TSA. Cadaveric and clinical studies have shown that these problems commonly occur when asymmetric reaming is used to correct 15° to 20° or more of retroversion. [2,16-18]

    Residual glenoid retroversion of 15° or more in anatomic TSA can lead to increased rates of osteolysis of a pegged polyethylene glenoid component. [19] However, in a recent study with a minimum 2 years of follow-up, 15° or more of retroversion did not affect clinical outcomes when offsetting the humeral head to create a more concentric glenohumeral relationship; B2 glenoids were not specifically evaluated. [20] Walch et al [21] reviewed outcomes of B2 glenoids treated with standard glenoid components and primarily corrective reaming (85 cases of corrective reaming, 7 cases with posterior bone graft). They noted a 12% revision rate for glenoid loosening or posterior instability and a 20% radiographic loosening rate. [21]

    It is likely that early osteolysis in standard pegged components will result in glenoid component loosening, as demonstrated in keeled glenoid designs in which there was a relationship between radiolucencies and pain. [22] Early radiolucent lines around keeled glenoids have been shown to be predictive of progressive radiolucent lines and worse patient-reported outcomes. [23] In addition to clinical studies using standard glenoid components, biomechanical and cadaveric studies have shown an increased risk of glenoid component loosening when the component is placed in more than 15° of retroversion. [13, 16, 24-31]

    The Evidence on Stepped and Wedge Augments

    As described above, reaming the high side allows for limited pathologic correction. In addition, the long-term durability of a retroverted glenoid implant for moderate to severe glenoid bone loss or a standard glenoid component for a B2 glenoid is worrisome. More recently the augmented glenoid component has been introduced as an alternative for correcting moderate to severe pathologic glenoid deformity and the B2 glenoid in anatomic TSA.

    Prior to introduction of these augmented components, a posterior glenoid bone graft was the only technique available to correct glenoid version while also maintaining or correcting the joint line. However, mixed results with only small case series have been reported in the literature. [32-37] In addition, the procedure for using posterior glenoid bone graft is technically challenging, and the size and quality of the bone graft can be variable.     

    Numerous augmented polyethylene glenoid designs have been evaluated biomechanically in the recent literature; 3 are commercially available in the US in a variety of augmented sizes:

    • Stepped design (Steptech; Depuy Synthes, Warsaw, Indiana; Figure 2a)
    • Wedge-shaped design (Equinoxe Posterior Augment; Exactech, Gainesville, Florida; Figure 2b)
    • Posterior wedge-shaped design (Aequalis Perform+, Wright Medical Group N.V., Memphis, Tennessee) (Figure 2c)

    The stepped design has been in use the longest, since 2010. 

    Figures 2a-c. Steptech +7, +5 and +3 mm augmented stepped glenoids from Depuy Synthes (Figure 2a). Equinoxe Posterior Augmented all polyethylene wedge glenoid (left) and with metal-coated pegs (right) from Exactech (Figure 2b) Aequalis Perform+ posterior step wedged augmented glenoid from Wright Medical Group (Figure 2c).

    Biomechanical and modeling studies have been conducted to determine which augmented glenoid design is the most biomechanically advantageous in glenoids with severe posterior wear or retroversion. One study compared the commercially available wedge augmented glenoid to a stepped augmented glenoid, standard glenoid placed in neutral version after reaming the high side, and standard glenoid placed in retroversion using finite element analysis (FEA). [38] The researchers found that the wedge design had more backside contact and less volume of bone at risk for strain damage compared with the standard glenoid after reaming the high side; however, they did not find differences when the wedge design was compared with the stepped design. [38]

    Another study compared the wedged augment with a standard component in retroversion and found that the wedged augment required a smaller cement mantle and had greater bone fatigue life [39]

    In a biomechanical study modeling early and late fixation states, the stepped augmented component was compared with 4 other augment designs – spherical asymmetric, spherical symmetric, flat angled, standard pegged – for resistance to anterior lift-off when posteriorly loaded. This study demonstrated that the stepped augmented component had decreased anterior glenoid liftoff compared with the other designs, which may lead to improved long-term durability. [40]

    Another study tested a non-commercial version of a stepped augmented glenoid in cadaveric specimens modeling a B2 glenoid. [41] This study demonstrated that strains were not significantly different with a stepped component in a B2 glenoid versus a standard component in a normal glenoid. These strains were tested in a variety of arm positions in their cadaveric model, with all arm positions showing similar strains. [41]

    The stepped augmented glenoid has also been compared with standard glenoids in a virtual simulation study using 3D CT scans of patients with posterior glenoid bone loss. [10] The results showed that compared with standard glenoid components, the +3mm, +5mm, and +7mm stepped augmented glenoids were able to correct larger amounts of pathologic retroversion – an average of 9.5°, 17.5°, and 27.9° of retroversion, respectively – to 0° and 6° of retroversion with significantly less joint line medialization. [10]

    Finally, a computational modeling study compared the commercially available wedge, stepped, and posterior wedge components placed in B2 glenoids to assess the amount of bone removal and bone quality remaining. This study demonstrated that when correcting to neutral version, the posterior wedge design resulted in less bone removal compared with the wedge and stepped designs, and that the remaining posterior bone was of  higher density when compared with the stepped design. [42,43]

    Only a few clinical studies have evaluated augmented glenoid components; no clinical data are available on the posterior wedge augment. The wedge augmented glenoid was studied in patients with posterior glenoid wear and compared with standard glenoids without wear in an age- and sex-matched cohort study of 48 total patients (24 per group) with an average of 29.4 months of follow-up. This study showed significant improvement in pain and functional outcome scores in all patients, with no difference between groups in patient-reported outcomes at final follow-up. There were no complications in either group. No quantitative assessments of preoperative bone loss, retroversion, or degree of postoperative pathologic correction were reported. Seventeen of 20 augmented glenoids had a centered humeral head at final follow-up, 3 had an anteriorly translated humeral head, and none had a posteriorly translated humeral head. [44]

    In a short-term clinical series with 6 to 15 months of follow-up, the stepped augmented glenoid was used in 24 patients; all showed significant improvement in range of motion and patient-reported outcomes. Eight patients had postoperative CT scans that showed stepped glenoids improved retroversion (16.7° vs. 11.3° of correction) and joint line correction (within 0.45mm vs. 3.56mm) compared with standard glenoids in patients with similar retroversion. [45]

    Favorito et al [46] reported on 22 shoulders (20 B2 glenoids, 2 C glenoids) that underwent TSA with a stepped augmented glenoid at an average of 36 months of follow-up. This study demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, WOOS, SF-36, and range of motion postoperatively. The researchers also showed low rates of glenoid radiolucency, with Lazarus scores of 0 to 2; 18 of 22 shoulders had a score of 0 or 1. Only 1 glenoid demonstrated central peg osteolysis, and there were 2 cases of implant instability (1 anterior, 1 posterior). [46]

    Stephens et al [47] also showed significant improvements in ASES score, SST, range of motion, pain, glenoid version, and humeral head alignment in 21 patients (19 B2 glenoids, 2 C glenoids) at an average of 35 months of follow-up with a stepped augment. Only 1 of 21 patients did not have central peg ingrowth, and no failures were reported. [47]

    At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons in 2016, we reported on our group’s study using CT scans (preoperative and with 3 months of surgery) to evaluate 80 patients with advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis and Walch B2 or B3 glenoids who underwent TSA with a standard (n=32) or stepped augmented (n=48) glenoid component (unpublished data). All patients underwent preoperative planning with 3D CT imaging software prior to surgery. We found the following:

    • Glenoid version correction (pre- to postoperative improvement in retroversion) was significantly greater with stepped than with standard implants (11.1±6.7° vs. 9±4.8°; P<0.001).
    • Correction of pathologic joint line was significantly greater with stepped than with standard implants (1.8±2.4 mm vs. 0.7±1.6 mm lateralization from the preoperative joint line; P=0.02).
    • Correction of postoperative humeral head subluxation relative to the scapular plane was significantly greater with stepped than with standard implants (9.5±7.3% vs. 5.0±4.1%; P<0.001).

    Our group also reviewed 71 patients with B2 and B3 glenoids and a minimum 2-year follow-up who were treated with a posterior augmented step glenoid (unpublished data). We found significant clinical improvement and correction of the preoperative deformity:

    • The Penn shoulder score improved from 30±17 (range 0 to 66) to a median of 94 (IQR 88-98, range 51 to 100; P<0.0001).
    • Glenoid version improved from -24°±7° (range -42° to -9°) to -11°±6° (range -28° to 1°).
    • Posterior humeral head subluxation was present in 60 of 71 shoulders (85%) preoperatively and the prosthetic humeral head was centered in 60 of 71 shoulders (85%) (P<0.0001).
    • Sixty-four of 71 shoulders (90%) had a Penn shoulder score of 80 or more, 52 of 71 (73%) had a postoperative glenoid retroversion less than 15°, and only 11 of 71 glenoids (15%) had center peg osteolysis.
    • Range of motion also improved from a median forward elevation of 110° (IQR 90° to 140°, range 60° to 170°) to a median of 160° (IQR 150° to 170°, range 90° to 180°) and median external rotation of 20° (IQR 10° to 30°, range 0° to 60°) to an average of 51°±13° (range 10° to 80°; P<0.0001).

    In a case series, 5 patients with anterior glenoid deficiencies who were treated with the stepped augmented glenoid for posterior wear. [48] At an average of 33.2 months of follow-up (range 21.9 to 43.2 months), no patient had undergone revision surgery, and the average postoperative Penn shoulder score was 84.4 (range 58-100). [48]

    Conclusion

    Biomechanical and computational data support the use of wedge and stepped augmented polyethylene glenoid components when addressing significant glenoid wear and deformity, including the B2 glenoid, although information on clinical outcomes is still sparse in the literature. The stepped design may be more biomechanically stable; the wedge and posterior half wedge may preserve more bone.

    Prior literature has shown a high revision rate (16%) in biconcave B2 glenoids treated with standard glenoid components. Recent literature with augmented glenoids shows much lower rates. [21]

    We believe, therefore, that an augmented glenoid component is a reliable option for joint line restoration, version correction, and centering of the humeral head for B2 glenoids, and there is early literature supporting this conclusion (Figure 3). [44-47,48] Longer-term clinical follow-up will be needed to assess the longevity of the augmented glenoids, including maintenance of the pathologic glenoid correction and centering of the humeral head, patient-reported outcomes, component failure rates, and variables associated with these failures.

    Figure 3. Preoperative Grashey view radiograph (a), axillary radiograph (b), and 2D CT scan of a B2 glenoid (c). Postoperative Grashey radiograph showing a centered head with bone ingrowth within the flanges of the central anchor peg (d). Axillary radiograph showing centering of the humeral head and correction of pathologic version with an augmented glenoid (e).

    Author Information

    Jason C. Ho, MD, is a resident in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Orthopaedic & Rheumatologic Institute, at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Joseph P. Iannotti, MD, PhD, is chairman of the Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Eric T. Ricchetti, MD, is director of the Shoulder Service of the Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic Cleveland, Ohio

    Disclosures

    Dr. Ho has no disclosures relevant to this article. Dr. Iannotti has disclosed that he receives royalties from Depuy Synthes and has stock or stock options in Custom Orthopaedic Solutions. Dr. Ricchetti has no disclosures relevant to this article.

    References

    1. Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Iannotti JP. The three-dimensional glenoid vault model can estimate normal glenoid version in osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2008;17(3):487-491. Clinical relevance: Validates the glenoid vault model in predicting premorbid glenoid pathology.
    2. Iannotti JP, Greeson C, Downing D, Sabesan V, Bryan JA. Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2012;21(1):48-55. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.02.011.
    3. Ganapathi A, McCarron JA, Chen X, Iannotti JP. Predicting normal glenoid version from the pathologic scapula: a comparison of 4 methods in 2- and 3-dimensional models. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2011;20(2):234-244. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.05.024. Clinical relevance: Validates the glenoid vault model in predicting premorbid glenoid pathology.
    4. Codsi MJ, Bennetts C, Gordiev K, et al. Normal glenoid vault anatomy and validation of a novel glenoid implant shape. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2008;17(3):471-478. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.08.010. Clinical relevance: Validates the glenoid vault model in predicting premorbid glenoid pathology.
    5. Scalise JJ, Bryan J, Polster J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. Quantitative analysis of glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis using three-dimensional computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2008;17(2):328-335.
    6. Ricchetti ET, Hendel MD, Collins DN, Iannotti JP. Is premorbid glenoid anatomy altered in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis? Clin Orthop. 2013;471(9):2932-2939. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3069-5.
    7. Hendel MD, Bryan JA, Barsoum WK, et al. Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(23):2167-2175. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01209.
    8. Iannotti JP, Ricchetti ET, Rodriguez EJ, Bryan JA. Development and validation of a new method of 3-dimensional assessment of glenoid and humeral component position after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2013;22(10):1413-1422. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.005.
    9. JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E, et al. Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(8):651-658. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.00493. Clinical relevance: Demonstrates the value of 3D CT scans in component positioning for anatomic TSA, including how it has improved component accuracy when compared with the preoperative plan.
    10. Sabesan V, Callanan M, Sharma V, Iannotti JP. Correction of acquired glenoid bone loss in osteoarthritis with a standard versus an augmented glenoid component. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2014;23(7):964-973. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.019. Clinical relevance: Virtual study using 3D reconstructive software demonstrating corrective limitations of standard vs. augmented glenoid components.
    11. Habermeyer P, Magosch P, Lichtenberg S. Recentering the humeral head for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2007;457:124-132.
    12. Bell RH, Noble JS. The management of significant glenoid deficiency in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2000;9(3):248-256.
    13. Farron A, Terrier A, Büchler P. Risks of loosening of a prosthetic glenoid implanted in retroversion. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2006;15(4):521-526. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.10.003.
    14. Kelly JD, Norris TR. Decision making in glenohumeral arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(1):75-82. doi:10.1054/arth.2003.50005.
    15. Clinton J, Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Matsen FA. Nonprosthetic glenoid arthroplasty with humeral hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty yield similar self-assessed outcomes in the management of comparable patients with glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2007;16(5):534-538. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.11.003.
    16. Clavert P, Millett PJ, Warner JJP. Glenoid resurfacing: what are the limits to asymmetric reaming for posterior erosion? J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2007;16(6):843-848. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.03.015. Clinical relevance: Describes the limitations of eccentric reaming of the glenoid in how much correction can be achieved and at what cost (eg, bone loss, joint line medialization).
    17. Gillespie R, Lyons R, Lazarus M. Eccentric reaming in total shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. Orthopedics. 2009;32(1):21. Clinical relevance: Describes the limitations of eccentric reaming of the glenoid in how much correction can be achieved and at what cost (eg, bone loss, joint line medialization).
    18. Nowak DD, Bahu MJ, Gardner TR, et al. Simulation of surgical glenoid resurfacing using three-dimensional computed tomography of the arthritic glenohumeral joint: the amount of glenoid retroversion that can be corrected. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2009;18(5):680-688. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.019.
    19. Ho JC, Sabesan VJ, Iannotti JP. Glenoid component retroversion is associated with osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(12):e82. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00336. Clinical relevance: Clinical study that demonstrates standard glenoid components with residual glenoid retroversion of 15° or more in anatomic TSA are at risk of early radiolucency.
    20. Service BC, Hsu JE, Somerson JS, Russ SM, Matsen FA. Does postoperative glenoid retroversion affect the 2-year clinical and radiographic outcomes for total shoulder arthroplasty? Clin Orthop. July 2017. doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5433-3.
    21. Walch G, Moraga C, Young A, Castellanos-Rosas J. Results of anatomic nonconstrained prosthesis in primary osteoarthritis with biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2012;21(11):1526-1533. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.030.
    22. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 1997;6(6):495-505.
    23. ollin P, Tay AKL, Melis B, Boileau P, Walch G. A ten-year radiologic comparison of two-all polyethylene glenoid component designs: a prospective trial. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2011;20(8):1217-1223. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.06.012.
    24. Mansat P, Briot J, Mansat M, Swider P. Evaluation of the glenoid implant survival using a biomechanical finite element analysis: influence of the implant design, bone properties, and loading location. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S79-83. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.11.010.
    25. Nuttall D, Haines JF, Trail II. A study of the micromovement of pegged and keeled glenoid components compared using radiostereometric analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S65-70. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.015.
    26. Lacroix D, Murphy LA, Prendergast PJ. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of glenoid replacement prostheses: a comparison of keeled and pegged anchorage systems. J Biomech Eng. 2000;122(4):430-436.
    27. Schamblin M, Gupta R, Yang BY, McGarry MH, McMaster WC, Lee TQ. In vitro quantitative assessment of total and bipolar shoulder arthroplasties: a biomechanical study using human cadaver shoulders. Clin Biomech Bristol Avon. 2009;24(8):626-631. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.05.007. Clinical relevance: Biomechanical study that demonstrates the risks of component loosening when placed in excessive retroversion.
    28. Shapiro TA, McGarry MH, Gupta R, Lee YS, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of glenoid retroversion in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S90-95. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.07.010. Clinical relevance: Biomechanical study that demonstrates the risks of component loosening when placed in excessive retroversion.
    29. Hopkins AR, Hansen UN, Amis AA, Emery R. The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2004;13(6):668-675. doi:10.1016/S1058274604001399. Clinical relevance: Biomechanical study that demonstrates the risks of component loosening when placed in excessive retroversion.
    30. Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Atkinson TS, Jacob HAC, Favre P, Gerber C. Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2006;15(5):625-629. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.016. Clinical relevance: Biomechanical study that demonstrates the risks of component loosening when placed in excessive retroversion.
    31. Terrier A, Büchler P, Farron A. Influence of glenohumeral conformity on glenoid stresses after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2006;15(4):515-520. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.021.
    32. Sabesan V, Callanan M, Ho J, Iannotti JP. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty with bone graft for osteoarthritis with severe glenoid bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(14):1290-1296. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00097.
    33. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder replacement. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2000;9(5):361-367. doi:10.1067/mse.2000.106921.
    34. Neer CS, Morrison DS. Glenoid bone-grafting in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(8):1154-1162.
    35. Klika BJ, Wooten CW, Sperling JW, et al. Structural bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in primary total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2014;23(7):1066-1072. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.017.
    36. Norris TR, Iannotti JP. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2002;11(2):130-135.
    37. Nicholson GP, Cvetanovich GL, Rao AJ, O’Donnell P. Posterior glenoid bone grafting in total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe posterior glenoid wear. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. May 2017. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.03.016.
    38. Allred JJ, Flores-Hernandez C, Hoenecke HR, D’Lima DD. Posterior augmented glenoid implants require less bone removal and generate lower stresses: a finite element analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2016;25(5):823-830. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.10.003. Clinical relevance: FEA study demonstrating ability of a wedged augment to correct pathologic version and less bone removal compared with other designs.
    39. Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, Hoenecke HR, D’Lima DD. Augmented wedge-shaped glenoid component for the correction of glenoid retroversion: a finite element analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2014;23(3):347-354. Clinical relevance: FEA study demonstrating ability of a wedged augment to correct pathologic version and less bone removal compared with other designs.doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.008.
    40. Iannotti JP, Lappin KE, Klotz CL, Reber EW, Swope SW. Liftoff resistance of augmented glenoid components during cyclic fatigue loading in the posterior-superior direction. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2013;22(11):1530-1536. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.018. Clinical relevance: Biomechanical study demonstrating superior biomechanical properties of the stepped agument compared with other designs.
    41. Kirane YM, Lewis GS, Sharkey NA, Armstrong AD. Mechanical characteristics of a novel posterior-step prosthesis for biconcave glenoid defects. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2012;21(1):105-115. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.12.008.
    42. Knowles NK, Ferreira LM, Athwal GS. Augmented glenoid component designs for type B2 erosions: a computational comparison by volume of bone removal and quality of remaining bone. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2015;24(8):1218-1226. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.018. Clinical relevance: Computational study demonstrating amount of bone removed and bone quality is superior when using a posterior wedge component compared to other commercially available implants.
    43. Knowles NK, Ferreira LM, Athwal GS. The arthritic glenoid: anatomy and arthroplasty designs. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(1):23-29. doi:10.1007/s12178-016-9314-2. Clinical relevance: Computational study demonstrating amount of bone removed and bone quality is superior when using a posterior wedge component compared to other commercially available implants.
    44. Wright TW, Grey SG, Roche CP, Wright L, Flurin P-H, Zuckerman JD. Preliminary Results of a Posterior Augmented Glenoid Compared to an all Polyethylene Standard Glenoid in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2013. 2015;73 Suppl 1:S79-85. Clinical relevance: Minimum 2 years of follow-up using the full wedge augment.
    45. Youderian AR, Napolitano LAJM, Davidson IUM, Iannotti JP. Management of Glenoid Bone Loss With the Use of a New Augmented All-Polyethylene Glenoid Component. Tech Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;13(4):163-169. doi:10.1097/BTE.0b013e318265354d. Clinical relevance: Short term follow-up of the posterior stepped augment with postoperative CT scan demonstrating significant correction of pathology.
    46. Favorito PJ, Freed RJ, Passanise AM, Brown MJ. Total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis associated with posterior glenoid bone loss: results of an all-polyethylene, posteriorly augmented glenoid component. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. May 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.020. Clinical relevance: Minimum 2 years of clinical follow-up of posterior stepped augment component.
    47. Stephens SP, Spencer EE, Wirth MA. Radiographic results of augmented all-polyethylene glenoids in the presence of posterior glenoid bone loss during total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(5):798-803. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.053. Clinical relevance: Minimum 2 years of clinical follow-up of posterior stepped augment component.
    48. Lenart BA, Namdari S, Williams GR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with an augmented component for anterior glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elb Surg Am Shoulder Elb Surg Al. 2016;25(3):398-405. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.08.012. Clinical relevance: Clinical article suggesting high failure rates of anatomic TSA in B2 glenoids when using keeled components.