Does forearm referencing using a retroversion guide achieve the targeted retroversion of the humeral component in reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Background: Component positioning affects clinical outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty, which necessitates an implantation technique that is reproducible, consistent, and reliable. This study aims to assess the accuracy and precision of positioning the humeral component in planned retroversion using a forearm referencing guide. Methods: Computed tomography scans of 54 patients (27 males and 27 females) who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis or cuff tear arthropathy were evaluated. A standardized surgical technique was used to place the humeral stem in 15° of retroversion. Version was assessed intraoperatively visualizing the retroversion guide from above and referencing the forearm axis. Metal subtraction techniques from postoperative computed tomography images allowed for the generation of 3D models of the humerus and for evaluation of the humeral component position. Anatomical humeral plane and implant planes were defined and the retroversion 3D angle between identified planes was recorded for each patient. Accuracy and precision were assessed. A subgroup analysis evaluated differences between male and female patients. Results: The humeral retroversion angle ranged from 0.9° to 22.8°. The majority (81%) of the measurements were less than 15°. Mean retroversion angle (±SD) was 9.9° ± 5.8° (95% CI 8.4°-11.5°) with a mean percent error with respect to 15° of −34% ± 38 (95% CI –23 to −44). In the male subgroup (n = 27, range 3.8°-22.5°), the mean retroversion angle was 11.9° ± 5.4° (95% CI 9.8°-14.1°) with a mean percent error with respect to 15° of −21% ± 36 (95% CI –6 to −35). In the female subgroup (n = 27, range 0.9°-22.8°), mean retroversion angle was 8.0° ± 5.5° (95% CI 5.8°-10.1°) and the mean percent error with respect to 15° was −47% ± 36 (95% CI –32 to −61). The differences between the 2 gender groups were statistically significant (P = .006). Conclusion: Referencing the forearm using an extramedullary forearm referencing system to position the humeral stem in a desired retroversion is neither accurate nor precise. There is a nonnegligible tendency to achieve a lower retroversion than planned, and the error is more marked in females.