Inlay vs. onlay humeral components in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biorobotic shoulder simulator study.

BACKGROUND:Both inlay and onlay humeral implants are available for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), but biomechanical data comparing these components remain limited. This study investigated the effects of inlay and onlay rTSA humeral components on shoulder biomechanics using a biorobotic shoulder simulator. METHODS:Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were tested before and after rTSA with either an inlay or onlay humeral implant. Comparisons were performed between the most commonly implanted configurations for each implant (baseline) and with a modification to provide equivalent neck-shaft angles (NSAs) for the inlay and onlay configurations. Specimens underwent passive range-of-motion (ROM) assessment with the scapula held static, and scapular-plane abduction was performed, driven by previously collected human-subject scapulothoracic and glenohumeral kinematics. Passive ROM glenohumeral joint angles were compared using t tests, whereas muscle force and excursion data during scapular-plane elevation were evaluated with statistical parametric mapping and t tests. RESULTS:Maximum passive elevation was reduced for the inlay vs. onlay humeral components, although both implants caused reduced passive elevation vs. the native joint. Inlay rTSA also demonstrated reduced passive internal rotation at rest and increased external rotation at 90° of humerothoracic elevation vs. the native joint. All preoperative planning estimates of ROM differed from experiments. Rotator cuff forces were elevated with an onlay vs. inlay humeral implant, but simulated muscle excursions did not differ between systems. Compared with the native joint, rotator cuff forces were increased for both inlay and onlay implants and deltoid forces were reduced for inlay implants. Muscle excursions were dramatically altered by rTSA vs. the native joint. Comparisons of inlay and onlay humeral implants with equivalent NSAs were consistent with the baseline comparisons. CONCLUSIONS:Rotator cuff forces required to perform scapular-plane abduction increase following rTSA using both inlay and onlay implants. Rotator cuff forces are lower with inlay implants compared with onlay implants, although inlay implants also result in reduced passive-elevation ROM. Deltoid forces are lower with inlay implants in comparison to the native joint but not with onlay implants. The differences between inlay and onlay components are largely unaffected by NSA, indicating that these differences are inherent to the inlay and onlay designs. In those patients with an intact rotator cuff, decreased rotator cuff forces to perform abduction with an inlay humeral implant compared with an onlay implant may promote improved long-term outcomes owing to reduced deltoid muscle fatigue when using an inlay implant.