TECHNIQUE

Glenoid Bone Grafting With Reverse Total Shoulder

Arthroplasty
Paul J. Cagle, Jr, MD, Dave R. Shukla, MD, and Evan L. Flatow, MD

Several techniques have been described to restore glenoid bone

Abstract: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has demonstrated
excellent results for patients with glenohumeral arthritis and a deficient
rotator cuff. Patients requiring a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
with substantial glenoid erosion pose a difficult problem. The operative
surgeon must correct the version of the glenoid while maintaining
secure glenoid fixation. Techniques demonstrating this are currently
lacking in the literature. We present a case of an elderly patient with
glenoid erosion causing a significantly abnormal glenoid version. In
this technique, the cut portion of the humeral head was utilized as bone
graft. The head was shaped to restore the glenoid version, and the graft
was held in place with glenoid insertion techniques. The patient
described recovered quickly after the surgery, and she has demon-
strated excellent results. These results are similar to those seen by the
senior author while utilizing this technique. This is currently our pre-
ferred method of addressing glenoid version abnormalities in reverse
total shoulder arthroplasty.
Key Words: glenoid bone graft, glenoid bone loss, reverse shoulder
arthroplasty, shoulder arthroplasty
(Tech Should Elb Surg 2014;15: 134–138)
stock in total shoulder arthroplasty. Options currently include
the use of impacted cancellous graft, iliac crest autograft,
femoral and humeral head bulk allografts, and femoral neck
corticocancellous hybrid grafting.
With emerging outcomes data and increased use of the
reverse prosthesis, the importance of properly addressing gle-
noid bone defects during either primary or revision reverse
shoulder arthroplasty cannot be overstated. The use of humeral
head bulk autograft obtained during the time of surgery has
been described for total shoulder arthroplasty.7–10 Although
surgeons use this technique to address glenoid bone defects
during reverse shoulder arthroplasty, the technique has not
been the focus of any publication, to our knowledge.
Our aim was to provide a technical guide on the use of
humeral head grafting in the setting of reverse shoulder
arthroplasty, with presentation of the method which is cur-
rently used by the senior author.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The patient was an 83-year-old female who presented
with shoulder pain. Her symptoms had been refractory to

R everse shoulder arthroplasty has evolved since its initial

introduction by Grammont in 1991. It is commonly used to
address degenerative arthritis in the presence of a massive,
conservative treatment including physical therapy, non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and 2 corticosteroid
injections. Her pain was preventing activities of daily living.
irreparable rotator cuff tear. The indications for its use are Initial active and passive forward elevation and external rota-
expanding, and reverse arthroplasty can also be performed to tion was 130 and 30 degrees, respectively. No external lag sign
manage proximal humerus fractures, inflammatory arthro- was present, and appropriate subscapularis function was
pathy, and in the revision setting following total shoulder
arthroplasty.
Good results have been demonstrated with reverse total
shoulder arthroplasty.1–3
Secure glenoid fixation is critical to ensure reverse total
shoulder implant longevity. Studies have emphasized the
importance of surgical technique in optimizing reverse
shoulder implant biomechanics.4–6 Adequate glenoid bone
stock is required to anchor the glenosphere, and must be suf-
ficient to withstand the physiological loads of the shoulder.
When glenoid deficiencies exist, technical adjustments can be
performed, such as asymmetrically reaming, restoring bone
stock through the use of grafts, using a customized component,
altering glenosphere size, or using a composite biological and
prosthetic solution.
The need to address glenoid bone loss is frequently
encountered during both primary and revision arthroplasty.

From the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at

Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
All work was completed at Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn
School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
E.L.F. received royalties from Zimmer and Innomed. The other authors
declare no conflict of interest.
Reprints: Paul J. Cagle Jr, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn
School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 East 98th Street, 9th Floor,
New York, NY 10029 (e-mail: pauljcaglemd@gmail.com). FIGURE 1. Grashey view showing advanced degenerative
Copyright r 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins change.

134 | www.shoulderelbowsurgery.com Techniques in Shoulder & Elbow Surgery  Volume 15, Number 4, December 2014
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Techniques in Shoulder & Elbow Surgery  Volume 15, Number 4, December 2014 Bone Graft Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

appreciated. Magnetic resonance imaging and 4 radiographic

views were obtained. Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate Grashey and
axillary radiographs. Figures 3–5 demonstrate magnetic reso-
nance imaging showing a compromised rotator cuff and sig-
nificant glenoid erosion. A reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
with glenoid bone graft was planned.
Before induction, the anesthesia team placed an indwel-
ling interscalene catheter. The patient underwent induction
with anesthesia and intubation. The patient was positioned in
the beach-chair position. A pneumatic arm holder assisted with
arm position control. A standard deltopectoral approach was
utilized, and a subscapularis tenotomy was performed. A 360-
degree subscapularis release and a capsular release were
completed following standard humeral preparation. The
resected portion of the humeral head was saved for bone graft,
and remaining cartilage was removed from the bone graft with
a curette.
Upon visualizing the glenoid, the degree of retroversion
was examined both visually and by reference palpation of the
anterior glenoid neck and scapula. Any remaining cartilage
was removed to allow for a true view of the bony glenoid FIGURE 3. MRI illustrating glenoid erosion and a compromised
surface. The version was compared with the preoperative rotator cuff.
imaging assessment. With the assistance of an anterior refer-
encing guide, a guidewire was placed as demonstrated
in Figure 6. The guidewire should just penetrate the anterior screws were placed with locking caps, and a glenosphere was
cortex so that the long post (25 or 30 mm) peg will lodge in the seated onto the baseplate in a standard manner. Humeral
far cortex. Anterior referencing and visualization are combined implantation was performed in a standard manner. Closed
to choose the appropriate amount of correction while placing suction drainage was utilized with a subcuticular closure.
the guidewire. Subsequently, the glenoid is drilled and reamed Postoperatively, hand and elbow range of motion were
to prepare the surface for the bone graft and baseplate. A long started immediately. At 6 weeks postoperatively, active
central post glenoid implant was utilized. The central hole was assisted range of motion and passive range of motion were
drilled slightly deeper to just penetrate the anterior cortex. started with organized physical therapy. Muscle strengthening
Attention was turned to the resected humeral head. The was allowed at 12 weeks.
head was placed onto the reamed glenoid to understand the
shape necessary to correct the version, and a rongeur was used
to shape the bone graft. A center hole for the baseplate peg was RESULTS
drilled and reamed in the bone graft, and a humeral shaft At the 3-month follow-up visit, the patient reported
reamer was utilized to dilate the hole as illustrated in Figures 7 complete pain relief. Her postoperative active and passive
and 8. The graft was again examined against the glenoid to forward elevation and external rotation were 140 and 30
assess proper positioning and rotation. This is illustrated degrees, respectively. The incision had healed, and she
in Figure 9. Care was taken to ensure the graft would pass on to reported compliance with therapy recommendations. Final
the baseplate central peg. The graft was placed on the base- radiographs are demonstrated in Figures 12 and 13.
plate with the appropriate rotation as illustrated in Figure 10.
The position was carefully maintained as the baseplate was
impacted as illustrated in Figure 11. Complete seating of the
graft and baseplate was examined circumferentially. Two

FIGURE 2. Axillary view showing advanced degenerative FIGURE 4. MRI image demonstrating fatty infiltration of the
change. rotator cuff muscles.

r 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins www.shoulderelbowsurgery.com | 135

Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Cagle et al Techniques in Shoulder & Elbow Surgery  Volume 15, Number 4, December 2014

FIGURE 8. Bone graft preparation: reaming of central hole to

allow the graft to easily fit onto glenoid baseplate central
peg.

FIGURE 5. MRI illustrating glenoid erosion.

FIGURE 9. Assessing rotational placement of bone graft on the

glenoid surface.

FIGURE 6. Placement of the glenoid guide pin.

FIGURE 7. Preparing the glenoid with drilling for central FIGURE 10. Placing bone graft on baseplate in correct
peg. rotation.

136 | www.shoulderelbowsurgery.com r 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Techniques in Shoulder & Elbow Surgery  Volume 15, Number 4, December 2014
FIGURE 11. Impacting baseplate with bone graft.
DISCUSSION
Glenoid bone loss poses a significant problem for patients
requiring a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Adequate gle-
noid bone stock is critical for minimizing the likelihood of
glenoid component loosening and failure, and has received
considerable attention in the setting of the total shoulder
arthroplasty. Neer and Morrison7 reported the use of humeral
head corticocancellous graft in 20/463 total shoulder arthro-
plasties with glenoid defects secondary to a multitude of eti-
ologies. The Mayo group recently reported on the results of
structural humeral head autografting, with a mean of 8.7-year
follow-up, inclusive of their preliminary data from 13 years
prior. Although clinical outcomes were favorable, the authors
recognized the technique’s limitations and note worrisome
radiographic deterioration of the glenoid fixation.8,10
FIGURE 12. Postoperative Grashey radiograph view.
r 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Bone Graft Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty
FIGURE 13. Postoperative scapula lateral radiograph view.
The same group also reported on the use of impaction
cancellous grafting to restore glenoid bone stock. Antuna
et al11 proposed a classification based on the intraoperative
assessment of remaining glenoid bone stock following glenoid
component removal in revision total shoulder arthroplasty. The
authors advocated bone grafting with central or combined
deficiencies, with the advantages being the construction of a
glenoid surface that articulates more closely to the humeral
component, and the establishment of improved bone stock for
later construction if necessary. The reported cases included
those managed with component removal, bone graft place-
ment, and glenoid reimplantation at a later date. Although
glenoid bone stock at the time of reimplantation was not equal
to that at the index total shoulder arthroplasty, it was restored
enough to allow glenoid component reimplantation.12 Follow-
up data confirmed their earlier findings, although the group
noted that motion could not reliably be improved with this
course of management.13
Neyton and colleagues found that iliac crest cortico-
cancellous grafting after glenoid component removal due to
loosening provides more structure and decreases the chance of
humeral head medialization more than cancellous graft alone,
as performed by Antuna and colleagues. This technique was
used as a salvage procedure for the restoration of glenoid bone
stock, although it allows for later implantation of a glenoid
component.
As compared with reports on total shoulder arthroplasty,
there are comparatively fewer studies that focus on the man-
agement of glenoid bone loss in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
Bone grafting during reverse shoulder arthroplasty has been
extrapolated from the reported experiences involving total
shoulder arthroplasty. Sirveaux et al14 emphasized the risk of
www.shoulderelbowsurgery.com | 137
Cagle et al Techniques in Shoulder & Elbow Surgery
glenoid baseplate positioning being too superior in cases of
superior glenoid deficiency, potentially leading to impinge-
ment. Neyton et al15 used either humeral head or iliac crest
corticocancellous autograft in 9 patients, with their cohort
encompassing both primary and revision patients cases. At a
mean of 31 months, they observed no radiographic evidence of
component loosening, graft lysis, or graft compression.
Bateman and Donald16 reported on a novel technique that
addresses glenoid deficiency using a hybrid corticocancellous
graft, with a femoral neck allograft acting as a cortical bushing
to prevent medialization, filled with impacted cancellous
autograft. Klein et al17 demonstrated that comparable short-
term clinical outcomes can be achieved in the setting of gle-
noid bone loss when surgical technique is altered, with
reported methods including the adjustment of glenosphere size
or bone grafting.
Our technique addresses the problem of restoring glenoid
version with an autograft from the humeral head. This provides
an excellent source of bone stock, and the curvature of the
humeral head contours naturally as a graft. There is no donor-site
morbidity of iliac crest, and there are not any of the risks
involved with allograft. We have appreciated integration of the
graft with the glenoid, and our experience has shown excellent
results with this technique. We recommend this to address
excessive glenoid version in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
REFERENCES
1. Guery J, Favard L, Sirveaux F, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthro-
plasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1742–1747.
2. Boulahia A, Edwards TB, Walch G, et al. Early results of a reverse
design prosthesis in the treatment of arthritis of the shoulder in elderly
patients with a large rotator cuff tear. Orthopedics. 2002;25:129–133.
3. Frankle MA, Siegal S, Pupello DR, et al. The reverse shoulder pros-
thesis for glenohumeral arthririts associated with severe rotator cuff
deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87-A:1697–1705.
4. Frankle MA, Teramoto A, Luo ZP, et al. Glenoid morphology in
reverse shoulder arthroplasty: classification and surgical implications.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:874–885.
138 | www.shoulderelbowsurgery.com
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Volume 15, Number 4, December 2014
5. Kelly JD II, Humphrey CS, Norris TR. Optimizing glenosphere
position and fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, part one: the
twelve-mm rule. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17:589–594.
6. Harman M, Frankle M, Vasey M, et al. Initial glenoid component
fixation in “reverse” total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical
evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14:S162–S167.
7. Neer CS, Morrison DS. Glenoid bone-grafting in total shoulder
arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70-A:1154–1162.
8. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency
in total shoulder replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9:
361–367.
9. Hill JM, Norris TR. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty
following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2001;83:877–883.
10. Klika BJ, Wooten CWW, Sperling JW, et al. Structural bone grafting
for glenoid deficiency in primary total shoulder arthroplasty.
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;23:1066–1072.
11. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, et al. Glenoid revision surgery
after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10:
217–224.
12. Antuna S, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Reimplantation of a glenoid
component after component removal and allograft bone grafting: a
report of 3 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:637–641.
13. Cheung EV, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Reimplantation of a glenoid
component following component removal and allogenic bone-grafting.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1777–1783.
14. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, et al. Grammont inverted total
shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis
with massive rupture of the cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:
388–395.
15. Neyton L, Boileau P, Nové-Josserand L, et al. Glenoid bone grafting
with a reverse design prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16:
S71–S78.
16. Bateman EB, Donald SM. Reconstruction of massive uncontained
glenoid defects using a combined autograft-allograft construct with
reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21:
925–934.
17. Klein SM, Dunning P, Mulieri P, et al. Effects of acquired glenoid
bone defects on surgical technique and clinical outcomes in reverse
shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1144–1154.
r 2014 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins