Letter to the Editor regarding the Article: Glenosphere Size Does Not Matter in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Rev Bras Ortop. 2024;59(2):254–259
João Artur Bonadiman

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsShoulder Injury and Treatment · Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty · Shoulder and Clavicle Injuries
With great interest, I read the article: “Glenosphere Size Does Not Matter in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty” published by Patel et al. 1 Studies focusing on the clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are always important given the linear growth and “popularization” of this procedure. Given the conclusion of the published study (which was the basis for its title), it is necessary to scrutinize the details of the applied methodology, due to the impact and significance of its repercussions. Some details could help us understand the outcomes obtained in such research, especially regarding the surgical technique, rehabilitation, and chronology of the applied methodology.
Surgical Technique and Rehabilitation
Considering the wide range of configurations available for the design of RTSA (such as inlay versus onlay, lateralization of the glenosphere, neck-shaft angle, tilt, among others) and their respective influences on functional outcomes, 2 3 a detailed understanding of the specific type of implant used in the study under analysis is crucial. The precise identification of the prosthesis used is fundamental for replicating the results, allowing for a more accurate assessment of the efficacy of the applied technique.
The reinsertion or not of the subscapularis tendon in RTSA is a widely discussed factor that has significant impacts, especially regarding the range of motion. The elucidation of these data in the article will provide readers with a solid foundation to assess the methodologies and outcomes of the study. 4
Regarding the rehabilitation process: there is a lack of precise information about which protocol was adopted postsurgery, as well as the immobilization period with a sling, which type of sling was used, and when physiotherapeutic rehabilitation was initiated. The rehabilitation protocols after reverse arthroplasty are often discussed and have a significant impact on the final degree of mobility. 5
Chronology
The study, developed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States, mentions that patients were included who underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty since 1987. However, such a procedure was approved by the Food and Drug Administration 16 years later, in November 2003 (Delta Shoulder K021478; DePuy Inc., Raynham, MA, USA). 6 I believe that clarifying this chronological discrepancy is essential for a proper understanding of the study's methodology.
The range of motion—which is the most important aspect of the study in question—was measured by being divided, pre- and postoperatively. However, in the study, it is not clear at what point the postoperative measurement was taken. The precise determination of this interval is crucial, as it directly influences the interpretation of the results and the validity of the study.
The simple shoulder test (SST) score was applied for pre- and postoperative evaluation of patients. However, there is a methodological gap regarding the data collection of patients who underwent surgery before 1993, the year in which the SST was formally described. 7
In summary, it is imperative to emphasize that the detailed deepening of the information presented is crucial, considering the substantial relevance of the findings reported in this study and the significant potential impact of this publication in the scientific field.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Patel A V White C A Li T Parsons B O Flatow E L Cagle P J Glenosphere Size Does Not Matter in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Rev Bras Ortop 20245902 e 254e 25910.1055/s-0043-1770976 PMC 1100651738606143 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2Larose G Fisher N D Gambhir N Inlay versus onlay humeral design for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Shoulder Elbow Surg 202231112410242035671928 10.1016/j.jse.2022.05.002 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3Sheth U Saltzman M Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Implant design considerations Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2019120455456131721016 10.1007/s 12178-019-09585-z PMC 6942091 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4Ameziane Y Holschen M Engel N M Schorn D Witt K A Steinbeck J Does the subscapularis repair affect the clinical outcome after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty?J Shoulder Elbow Surg 202433091909191738759837 10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.057 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5Howard M C Trasolini N A Waterman B R Optimizing outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Rehabilitation, expected outcomes, and maximizing return to activities Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2023160414515336867393 10.1007/s 12178-023-09823-5PMC 10043097 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 6Food and drug administration Delta shoulder. De Puy 510 (k) K 021478, summary 2003. Available from:https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf 2/k 021478.pdf
- 7Lippitt S B Harryman D T Matsen F AA practical tool for evaluating function: The simple shoulder test In: The Shoulder: A Balance of Mobility and Stability; Matsen,American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery: Rosemont, IL, USA 1993501518
