Concomitant subscapularis tendon repair in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and assessment of superior migration of reattachment: a cadaveric biomechanical study

Article information

Clin Shoulder Elb. 2026;29(1):10-19

Publication date (electronic) : 2025 December 12

doi : https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2025.00675

Yong Bok Park ¹

, Su Cheol Kim ²

, Michelle H. McGarry ³

, Thay Q. Lee ³

, Jae Chul Yoo^,²

¹Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Bucheon, Korea

²Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Orthopedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Congress Medical Foundation, Pasadena, CA, USA

Correspondence: Jae Chul Yoo Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea Tel: +82-2-3410-3509, Fax: +82-2-3410-0061, Email: shoulderyoo@gmail.com

Received 2025 June 10; Revised 2025 October 7; Accepted 2025 October 21.

Abstract

Background

Concomitant repair of the subscapularis (SSC) tendon in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) with a lateralized design remains controversial. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of SSC repair (repair at native insertion, repair at superiorly migrated position, and no repair) on the glenohumeral arc of motion following RTSA in a cadaveric biomechanical setting.

Methods

RTSA was performed on eight cadaveric shoulders under six testing conditions as follows: unrepaired SSC/intact teres minor (TM); intact SSC/intact TM; superiorly repaired SSC/intact TM; unrepaired SSC/deficient TM; intact SSC/deficient TM; and superiorly repaired SSC/deficient TM. Increasing load (2.5-N increments) was applied to the middle deltoid (anterior, posterior; 10 N each, middle; 10–20 N). The resulting abduction and rotation positions were measured.

Results

Unrepaired SSC demonstrated greater abduction and reduced internal rotation (IR), whereas SSC repair increased IR, particularly in TM–deficient models. Superiorly repaired SSC had higher glenohumeral abduction and IR than original SSC repair. SSC repair caused excessive IR in the TM deficiency seen with massive rotator cuff tears.

Conclusion

Concomitant SSC repair in lateralized RTSA decreased glenohumeral abduction and increased IR. Concomitant SSC repair at the original and superiorly migrated footprints should be carefully considered following lateralized RTSA.

Level of evidence

Keywords: Arthroplasty, replacement, shoulder; Biomechanical methods; Cadaver; Rotator cuff; Subscapularis tendon

INTRODUCTION

Since reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) was introduced in 1987, its indications have been consistently expanded by implant development, advancements in surgical technique, and accumulation of experience [1]. Originally, medializing the center of rotation (COR) and lengthening the humerus increased deltoid muscle tension, making the deltoid lever arm more efficient [2]; however, issues such as scapular notching [3-5] and reduction of the external rotation moment arm occurred [6-8], limiting clinical outcomes. Furthermore, with lengthening of the humerus, changes in the muscle vector negatively affected glenohumeral joint stability frequently [9]. In concomitant subscapularis (SSC) tendon repair in RTSA with a medialized design, a 9% dislocation rate was reported in procedures that did not achieve SSC tendon repair compared with a 0% rate following procedures in which repair was achieved (relative risk, 1.9), and hence, attempted repair was advocated in every case [10].

However, the need for SSC tendon repair with lateralized implant designs remains unclear. In several reports on the biomechanical effects of lateralization, the lateralized prosthesis was found to reduce scapular notching and to preserve the remaining rotator cuff muscles, thereby allowing for an increased moment arm while maintaining the original anatomical vector of the muscles around which the deltoid wraps the shoulder [11-17]. This more normalized vector maximizes the overall arc of motion, especially external rotation, and improves stability when compared to a medialized design [16,18-20]. Lateralized designs reportedly have lower dislocation rates (0%–4.2%) [21-24] than medialized designs (0%–8.6%) [25-29]. A previous study examining the role of concomitant SSC tendon repair in dislocation rates associated with lateralized designs found no difference between the repair and no-repair groups [21,30-34].

The SSC is a strong muscle that strengthens the internal rotators after RTSA; however, it may antagonize the posterior deltoid and external rotators, especially the teres minor (TM) [35]. The original insertion of the SSC migrates inferiorly after RTSA; hence, the vector moves perpendicularly and acts as an adductor, which counteracts the abductor moment arm of the deltoid muscle [36,37]. Some researchers have suggested performing SSC repair at a superiorly migrated position of the humerus rather than reattaching it to the original footprint, as this approach restores the preoperative vector of the SSC tendon and improves glenohumeral abduction [38,39]. However, patient satisfaction after RTSA may be reduced due to external rotation weakness; hence, the advantages of concomitant repair of SSC tendon in lateralized designs remain controversial.

Therefore, the aims of this research were to determine: (1) The effects of SSC repair on abduction and rotation following RTSA; (2) the effects of superior repair of the SSC tendon on glenohumeral abduction and rotation compared with original repair; and (3) the effects of complete loss of the posterior cuff on SSC repair.

METHODS

This cadaveric biomechanical study does not involve living human subjects or identifiable private information and therefore does not constitute human subjects research according to 45 CFR 46. Institutional review board approval was not required.

Specimen Preparation

Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (four left and four right; mean age, 60.3±7.6 years; range, 51–70) were tested in a custom, validated shoulder testing system (Fig. 1). The specimens were stored at -20°C and thawed overnight at room temperature before the experiment. The humerus was transected 2 cm distal to the deltoid tuberosity and the scapula was removed from the chest wall. The clavicle, serratus anterior, pectoralis minor, coracobrachialis, short and long heads of the biceps brachii, trapezius, triceps, and brachialis muscles were removed completely along with all the neurovascular structures. Dissection was performed carefully to preserve the tendinous insertions of the pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi, deltoid, TM, and SSC muscles, and the coracoacromial ligament. All specimens were macroscopically intact with no history of trauma or prior surgery.

Fig. 1.

(A, B) Anterolateral view of the custom shoulder testing system with left shoulder mounted. The humeral reference was established using three screws. (C) A bone tunnel was created 3 mm posterior to the bicipital groove to make a superiorly migrated subscapularis (SSC) insertion for superior repair of the tendon (arrow). Three fishing lines connected at the three SSC tags represent the original footprint repair of the SSC. Three SSC fishing lines connected to the supraspinatus anterior tag and the upper two SSC tags represent a superiorly repaired SSC. GT: greater tuberosity, LHB: long head of the biceps, PM: pectoralis major.

Surgical Procedures for RTSA

RTSA was performed using an Exactech Equinoxe Reverse System (Exactech), which features a lateralized humeral stem with a 145° neck-shaft angle and a lateralized COR. The humeral procedure was performed first. Humeral implant retroversion was determined using the relationship between the humeral axis and biceps groove described by Doyle and Burks [40] by placing the humeral implant 12-mm posterior to the bicipital groove, reproducing normal anatomic humeral retroversion. The humerus was then sectioned along the anatomical neck with care to prevent damage to the tendinous insertions of the rotator cuff. The intramedullary canal was reamed and the humeral stem was inserted. Humeral stems measuring 7, 9, and 11 mm were used for each specimen. A stem which has mild resistance during insertion was selected and press-fitted into the humeral shaft to prevent rotation during the experiment. A standard humeral adaptor tray and a standard polyethylene liner for 36-mm glenosphere were used.

The glenoid procedure was performed next. Normal glenoid version and anatomy were confirmed preoperatively. Bone loss or abnormal version of the glenoid muscles was not observed. The capsule-labral tissue located 2 to 10 hours from the glenoid was removed using a blade. The central hole for the peg reamer was established carefully using a standard baseplate guide to place the glenosphere at an inferior tilt of 10° with a 3-mm inferior overhang to minimize prosthesis-scapular impingement. Subsequently, the glenoid surface was reamed until the subchondral bone was exposed and the central peg was reamed. A standard baseplate was inserted onto the glenoid surface and superior, inferior, and 4 or 8 O’ clock screw holes were drilled and fixed with locking screws. The screws were advanced to penetrate the far cortex and then secured with locking caps. A standard 36-mm glenosphere was implanted onto the baseplate and fixed with a central locking screw. Proper fixation was confirmed by pulling the glenosphere with a bone hook. Finally, the inferior overhang and tilt of the glenosphere were examined.

Testing Setup

Tendinous insertions of the muscles were tagged using locking sutures made with No. 2-0 Fiber-Wire (Arthrex). The TM, latissimus dorsi, and pectoralis major muscles were tagged with a single locking suture at the center of the tendinous insertion. The anterior, middle, and posterior deltoid insertions were tagged with three locking sutures. The SSC was tagged with three locking sutures at the upper and lower ends of the tendinous portion and between (in the middle) the two ends. A bone tunnel was created 3 mm posterior to the bicipital groove to facilitate superiorly migrated SSC insertion for optimal tendon repair (Fig. 1). The migrated position was chosen because, following RTSA, inferior displacement of the subscapularis insertion of approximately 5–10 mm is typically observed, as reported in biomechanical studies. This location was selected to allow superior repositioning and suturing of the SSC within a range that prevents tearing of the remaining tendon tissue.

The scapula was mounted on the shoulder testing system with 0° of scapular abduction (medial border perpendicular to the floor) and 20° anterior scapular tilt to mimic the anatomic position of scapula-thoracic articulation. An intramedullary rod (400 g) was inserted and distally weighted to simulate the weight of the arm. The previously sutured tags were tied with braided low-stretch fishing line (Izorline) which was fed through an adjustable metal guide in the testing system, simulating anatomic muscle vectors. The muscle loading direction was validated based on the original muscle vector direction [41]. The ends of these lines were connected to a free hanging weight that represented muscle loading. The muscle load was determined according to previous studies, using the cross-sectional surface of each muscle [42,43]. The muscle force for balanced load was as follows: three SSCs (2.5 N each); TM (2.5 N); latissimus dorsi (2.5 N); pectoralis major (2.5 N), and three deltoids (anterior, posterior; 10 N each, middle; from 10 to 20 N with 2.5-N increments).

A three-dimensional (3D) referencing system was established using the MicroScribe 3DLX device (Revware) (accuracy, <0.3 mm) with the testing system to measure humeral abduction and rotation. The scapular reference was established using three screws inserted into the tip of the coracoid and the anterior and posterior corners of the acromion. The humeral reference was established using three screws: 2 cm distal to the greater tuberosity and 0.5 cm posterior to the biceps groove, 3 cm distal to the greater tuberosity and 5 mm posterior to the biceps groove, 3 cm distal to the greater tuberosity, and 1 cm posterior to the biceps groove. The MicroScribe 3DLX device was referenced to the scapular screws at the beginning of each test condition and the initial humeral position was measured. The initial position was set by the humerus at 0° abduction (humerus perpendicular to the floor) and 0° rotation (the central screw of the glenosphere and lateral marking of the humeral stem apex in the same line).

First, the three deltoid lines (tagged on insertion of the anterior, middle, and posterior deltoid; 10 N each) were loaded and the other lines were unloaded to confirm the deltoid muscle vector. After placing the humerus in the initial position, it was moved freely by releasing the hand. If there was humeral rotation, flexion, or extension during shoulder abduction, we adjusted the deltoid fishing line’s metal guide anteriorly or posteriorly to position the humerus in neutral rotation and abduction in the scapular plane. The experiment was continued after confirming the absence of humeral rotation or flexion/extension imbalance.

Testing Conditions

We tested six conditions sequentially as follows: (1) unrepaired SSC/intact TM (SSC unloaded [SU]/TM loaded [TL]); (2) original SSC repair/intact TM (SSC loaded [SL]/TL); (3) superiorly repaired SSC/intact TM (superiorly repaired SSC loaded [SSL]/TL); (4) unrepaired SSC/deficient TM (SU/TU); (5) original SSC repair/deficient TM (SL/TM unloaded [TU]); and (6) superiorly repaired SSC/deficient TM (superiorly repaired SSC unloaded/TU).

Conditions SU/TL, SL/TL, and SSL/TL represented large to massive rotator cuff tears with intact TM. Conditions SU/TU, SL/TU, and SSL/TU represented large to massive rotator cuff tears with TM deficiency. When SSC repair was not performed with an intact TM (SU/TL), three SSC fishing lines were unloaded, and the TM fishing line was loaded. In complete repair of the SSC and intact TM (SL/TL), three SSC fishing lines and the TM fishing line were loaded. Superior repair of the SSC with an intact TM (SSL/TL) was simulated by the supraspinatus fishing line and upper two SSC fishing lines being loaded. Conditions SU/TU, SL/TU, and SSL/TU were the same as SU/TL, SL/TL, and SSL/TL except that the TM was unloaded.

Testing Protocol and Statistical Analysis

After equalization of the testing system, the weights were loaded to the fishing lines for each condition. The humerus was placed in the initial position and was freely movable by releasing the hand. The movement from initial position to released position was detected using the MicroScribe 3DLX device and the reference screw of the humerus to calculate its abduction and rotation. Three trials were repeated for each condition. Mid-deltoid weight was raised at 2.5-N increments from 10 N to 20 N, and humeral abduction and rotation were measured repeatedly (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

(A) The initial position was set by the humerus at 0° abduction (humerus is perpendicular to the floor) and 0° rotation (the central screw of the glenosphere and lateral marking of the humeral stem apex are in the same line). (B) The humerus was placed in the initial position and could be moved freely by releasing the hand. The movement from the initial position to the released position was detected by the MicroScribe 3DLX device using the reference screw of the humerus to calculate the abduction and rotation of the humerus.

Data were exported to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corp.), and the mean and standard deviation were calculated. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed along with post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction to compare the abduction and rotation for the six different conditions using SPSS statistical software version 25 (IBM Corp.). All P-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

Humeral Abduction and Rotation with Intact TM

In the simulated intact TM (TL) scenario, humeral abduction and rotation was tested under three conditions: (unrepaired SSC (SU/TL), original SSC repair (SL/TL), and superiorly repaired SSC (SSL/TL). At a 10-N mid-deltoid load (initial load), the SU/TL had less abduction than the SL/TL and SSL/TL (P=0.013 and P=0.019, respectively). However, abduction in SU/TL increased steeply as the mid-deltoid load increased. SU/TL had more abduction than SL/TL and SSL/TL at 15 to 20 N of mid-deltoid load. SU/TL showed significantly higher abduction than the SL/TL at mid-deltoid loads of 17.5 and 20 N (P=0.014 and P=0.010, respectively). At 10 and 12.5 N, SU/TL showed less abduction than the SSL/TL (P=0.001 and P=0.009, respectively). However, there were no significant differences from 15 to 20 N, as the mid-deltoid load increased (P=0.18). In a comparison of the SSC repair site (original vs. superior repair), SSL/TL showed more abduction than the SL/TL at all mid-deltoid loads (statistically significant at the 10 to 17.5 N mid-deltoid loads increased at 2.5-N increments; P=0.009, P=0.004, P=0.011, and P=0.023, respectively).

In SU/TL, the internal rotation (IR) of the humerus was minimal (0.6°–8.1°) at all mid-deltoid loads. However, both SL/TL and SSL/TL showed greater IR (47.8°–61.2° and 52.9°–73.5° respectively) than SU/TL (P<0.05). SSL/TL showed more IR than the SL/TL at 10- to 20-N mid-deltoid loads (statistically significant at the 10- to 15-N mid-deltoid loads increased at 2.5-N increments; P=0.024, P=0.03 and P=0.04, respectively) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

The abduction and internal rotation of the humerus with a loaded teres minor: (A) humeral abduction, (B) internal rotation of the humerus. SU/TL: subscapularis unloaded/teres minor loaded, SL/TL: subscapularis loaded/teres minor loaded, SSL/TL: superiorly repaired subscapularis loaded/teres minor loaded. ^a)Statistically significant compared to SU/TL; ^b)Statistically significant compared to SL/TL.

Humeral Abduction and Rotation with Deficient TM

In the simulated deficient TM (TU) scenario, humeral abduction and rotation was tested in three conditions: unrepaired SSC (SU/TU), original SSC repair (SL/TU), and superiorly repaired SSC (SSL/TU). The abduction ranges in the deficient TM and intact TM were similar. SU/TU showed less abduction with the 10- and 12.5-N mid-deltoid loads than the SSL/TU (P=0.001 and P=0.048, respectively). Humeral abduction of SU/TU increased steeply as the mid-deltoid load increased. A significant difference was observed at 17.5- and 20-N mid-deltoid loads of SL/TU and 17.5 N of SSL/TU. In the SSC repair scenario (original vs. superior repair), SSL/TU showed more humeral abduction than the SL/TU for all mid-deltoid loads (P<0.05).

The IR was lower in SU/TU (range, 25.0°–31.8°) than in SL/TU (range, 51.0°–72.6°) and SSL/TU (range, 60.8°–85.5°) for 10- to 17.5-N mid-deltoid loads (P<0.05). SSL/TU showed higher IR than SL/TU in 10-, 12.5-, and 15-N mid-deltoid loads (P=0.001, P=0.001, and P=0.001, respectively). SSL/TU showed IR exceeding 80° at 10- to 15-N mid-deltoid loads and SL/TU exhibited IR exceeding 70° at 10- to 12.5-N mid-deltoid loads (Fig. 4). Table 1 presents data on humeral abduction and rotation under different conditions.

Fig. 4.

Abduction and internal rotation of the humerus without teres minor load: (A) humeral abduction, (B) internal rotation of the humerus. SU/TU: subscapularis unloaded/teres minor unloaded, SL/TU: subscapularis loaded/teres minor unloaded, SSL/TU: superiorly repaired subscapularis loaded/teres minor loaded. ^a)Statistically significant compared to SU/TU; ^b)Statistically significant compared to SL/TU.

Table 1.

Testing of range-of-motion (abduction and internal rotation) in different scenarios

DISCUSSION

In our study, we found that SSC repairs (using both the original footprint and superiorly migrated insertion) limited glenohumeral abduction and external rotation while aiding humeral IR in lateralized RTSA. Greater glenohumeral abduction and IR was seen with superior SSC repair than with the original SSC footprint repair, irrespective of posterior rotator cuff status (intact or deficient TM). SSC repairs (both original footprint and superiorly migrated insertion) led to excessive humeral IR, especially with a deficient posterior rotator cuff. The most favorable movement arc (increased abduction and reduced resistance to external rotation) was demonstrated by unrepaired SSC with an intact TM.

Changing RTSA designs from medialized to lateralized implants to avoid scapular notching and improve overall arc of motion, especially external rotation, has also improved stability [3,4,11,12,16,17,20,21,38]. Concomitant SSC repair in RTSA may have increased dislocation rates, if the SSC is not repaired, especially in medialized designs [10]. In our study, the dislocation rates were similar to those of previous studies, suggesting that SSC repair is not critical to stability when using lateralized designs [31,32,34]. Nevertheless, the benefits of performing SSC repair during RTSA are still being debated, especially in lateralized RTSA.

The SSC is a biphasic muscle and contracting the upper portion of the SSC causes abduction, while contracting the lower portion causes adduction on initiating abduction [44-48]. Downward migration of the humerus after RTSA causes the original footprint of rotator cuff insertion (i.e., the lesser tuberosity) to move downward, below the COR [38,39]. Accordingly, the force vector of the SSC becomes steeper. Much of the SSC is involved in adduction as a negative moment arm can generate antagonistic action on the deltoid during abduction.

Routman [49] reported that at low levels of abduction, the SSC acts as an adductor antagonistically against the deltoid, with a 132% increase in deltoid force being required for abduction when the SSC was intact versus released. Hansen et al. [37] performed a cadaveric biomechanical study and demonstrated that concomitant SSC repair was biomechanically unfavorable in medialized and lateralized RTSA designs. Therefore, SSC repair is sometimes performed superiorly to the original footprint to recover the preoperative vector of the SSC, similar to the original SSC.

A few studies have focused on the SSC repair site. King et al. [39] described superior SSC repair at the greater tuberosity, referred to it as over-the-top SSC repair. They used a 3D computer model for muscle moment arm analysis after RTSA and compared the abduction moment arm length of the SSC tendon for original footprint repair and over-the-top repair with three different RTSA designs. They demonstrated that the abduction moment arm of the SSC was better in over-the-top SSC repair than that with original footprint repair, irrespective of the medialized or lateralized RTSA design [39]. Moreover, lower SSC tenotomy is beneficial for the abduction moment arm because the lower portion of the SSC always functions as an adductor during glenohumeral abduction [39]. Eno et al. [38] also investigated the moment arms and muscle lengths of the SSC after superior repair during RTSA using a 3D-biomechanical computer shoulder model. They investigated only the lateralized glenoid design and found that superior SSC repair reduced the adductive moment arm of the SSC and resulted in lower tension at the repair site compared with repair at the original footprint [38].

Our study showed increased abduction and IR in superior repair of SSC, consistent with the findings of prior studies. In conditions with TM deficiency, SSC repairs caused excessive humeral IR of 51.0°–72.6° in original SSC footprint repairs and 60.8°–85.5° in superior SSC repairs, whereas unrepaired SSC showed 25.0°–31.8° IR for all mid-deltoid loads.

The main concerns regarding postoperative range of motion (ROM) are weakness in external rotation and limitation in internal rotation. SSC repair could improve IR force. However, it remains unclear whether SSC repair can resolve the limitation of IR at the terminal range caused by implant-bone impingement, tensioning during reduction, and restricted excursion of the residual posterior cuff muscle postoperative. Increased IR force might resist external rotation. External rotation is frequently used and essential in daily living, and associated deficits affect clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction following RTSA. However, in the comparison between the original repair and the superior repair, the differences in abduction and internal rotation (IR) were small, it might be difficult to prove the significant difference between two groups in clinical setting.

This study has several limitations. First, since this was a cadaveric biomechanical study, the load and vector of the rotator cuff and the scapulo-thoracic muscle cannot accurately represent the real human shoulder. The vector of muscles can generate different degrees of force during dynamic active motion, and thus the cross-surface method cannot adequately simulate real action of the muscles under dynamic circumstances. The central tagging suture at the point of tendon insertion could have potentially changed the muscle vector, since muscles typically have a continuous and broad insertion. Additionally, the retracted SSC tendon and lateralized RTSA design may increase tension on the repaired SSC tendon during surgery, which could not be reproduced in this experiment. Thus, the clinical applications of this study are limited. Second, humeral impingement was observed between the greater tubercle and acromion during terminal abduction due to the absence of scapular motion. Humeral implant-glenoid neck impingement was observed at the terminal range of IR (exceeding 80°), although we used a lateralized implant and created an inferior glenosphere overhang. During the increase of mid-deltoid load, impingement occurred, and no further angular increase was observed thereafter, so additional loading did not contribute to obtaining meaningful experimental results. Third, we did not measure humeral flexion/extension even though it was observed during rotation. Fourth, the small sample size and the use of a single implant design may further impact the applicability of the results to other implant configurations.

Our study’s strength is that it is the first cadaveric biomechanical study to reveal the effects of the SSC repair options (repair on the native footprint, superiorly migrated insertion, or none) in lateralized RTSA. Our findings also describe the indications for SSC repairs for massive rotator cuff tears with TM deficiency.

In conclusion, concomitant SSC repair in lateralized RTSA decreases glenohumeral abduction and increases IR. Superior SSC repair to restore the native vector of the SSC slightly increases humeral abduction and IR compared with original SSC footprint repair. However, increased IR might cause external rotation difficulty, a major complaint of patients undergoing RTSA. SSC repair might also cause excessive humeral IR in massive rotator cuff tears involving TM deficiency. Concomitant SSC repair on the original and superiorly migrated footprints in lateralized RTSA should be carefully considered, especially when the posterior rotator cuff is deficient.

Notes

Author contributions

Conceptualization: YBP, JCY. Formal analysis: SCK. Investigation: SCK, MHM, TQL, JHK. Methodology: SCK, MHM, TQL, JHK. Validation: SCK, MHM, TQL, JHK. Visualization: SCK, MHM, TQL, JHK. Writing – original draft: YBP, JCY. Writing – review & editing: YBP, SCK, MHM, TQL, JHK, JCY. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Jae Chul Yoo is an editorial board member of the journal but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

None.

Data availability

None.

Acknowledgments

This study was presented at 29th Annual International Congress of Korean Shoulder and Elbow Society on April 1 to 2, 2022.

References

1. Day JS, Paxton ES, Lau E, Gordon VA, Abboud JA, Williams GR. Use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015;24:766–72. 10.1016/j.jse.2014.12.023. 25704826.

2. Nyffeler RW, Werner CM, Gerber C. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:524–8. 10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.010. 16194746.

3. Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. Neer Award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2006;15:527–40. 10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.003. 16979046.

4. Lévigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:925–35. 10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010. 18558499.

5. Simovitch RW, Zumstein MA, Lohri E, Helmy N, Gerber C. Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the Delta III reverse total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:588–600. 10.2106/jbjs.f.00226. 17332108.

6. Boileau P, Chuinard C, Roussanne Y, Bicknell RT, Rochet N, Trojani C. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with a modified latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer for shoulder pseudoparalysis associated with dropping arm. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:584–93. 10.1007/s11999-008-0114-x. 18219547.

7. Favre P, Loeb MD, Helmy N, Gerber C. Latissimus dorsi transfer to restore external rotation with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008;17:650–8. 10.1016/j.jse.2007.12.010. 18430593.

8. Gerber C, Pennington SD, Lingenfelter EJ, Sukthankar A. Reverse Delta-III total shoulder replacement combined with latissimus dorsi transfer: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:940–7. 10.2106/JBJS.F.00955. 17473129.

9. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2005;14:147S–161S. 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006. 15726075.

10. Edwards TB, Williams MD, Labriola JE, Elkousy HA, Gartsman GM, O'Connor DP. Subscapularis insufficiency and the risk of shoulder dislocation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009;18:892–6. 10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.013. 19282204.

11. Costantini O, Choi DS, Kontaxis A, Gulotta LV. The effects of progressive lateralization of the joint center of rotation of reverse total shoulder implants. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015;24:1120–8. 10.1016/j.jse.2014.11.040. 25601382.

12. Feeley BT, Zhang AL, Barry JJ, et al. Decreased scapular notching with lateralization and inferior baseplate placement in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with high humeral inclination. Int J Shoulder Surg 2014;8:65–71. 10.4103/0973-6042.140112. 25258496.

13. Greiner S, Schmidt C, König C, Perka C, Herrmann S. Lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty maintains rotational function of the remaining rotator cuff. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:940–6. 10.1007/s11999-012-2692-x. 23212769.

14. Helmkamp JK, Bullock GS, Amilo NR, et al. The clinical and radiographic impact of center of rotation lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018;27:2099–107. 10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.007. 30340806.

15. Hettrich CM, Permeswaran VN, Goetz JE, Anderson DD. Mechanical tradeoffs associated with glenosphere lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015;24:1774–81. 10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.011. 26238003.

16. Valenti P, Sauzières P, Katz D, Kalouche I, Kilinc AS. Do less medialized reverse shoulder prostheses increase motion and reduce notching? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:2550–7. 10.1007/s11999-011-1844-8. 21403989.

17. Werthel JD, Walch G, Vegehan E, Deransart P, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Valenti P. Lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a descriptive analysis of different implants in current practice. Int Orthop 2019;43:2349–60. 10.1007/s00264-019-04365-3. 31254018.

18. Boileau P, Moineau G, Roussanne Y, O'Shea K. Bony increased-offset reversed shoulder arthroplasty: minimizing scapular impingement while maximizing glenoid fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:2558–67. 10.1007/s11999-011-1775-4. 21286887.

19. Greiner S, Schmidt C, Herrmann S, Pauly S, Perka C. Clinical performance of lateralized versus non-lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015;24:1397–404. 10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.041. 26163281.

20. Roche CP, Marczuk Y, Wright TW, et al. Scapular notching and osteophyte formation after reverse shoulder replacement: radiological analysis of implant position in male and female patients. Bone Joint J 2013;95:530–5. 10.1302/0301-620X.95B4.30442. 23539706.

21. Clark JC, Ritchie J, Song FS, et al. Complication rates, dislocation, pain, and postoperative range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with and without repair of the subscapularis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012;21:36–41. 10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.009. 21803609.

22. Cuff D, Pupello D, Virani N, Levy J, Frankle M. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90:1244–51. 10.2106/jbjs.g.00775. 18519317.

23. Frankle M, Siegal S, Pupello D, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M. The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency: a minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1697–705. 10.2106/jbjs.d.02813. 16085607.

24. Mulieri P, Dunning P, Klein S, Pupello D, Frankle M. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tear without glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:2544–56. 10.2106/jbjs.i.00912. 21048173.

25. Guery J, Favard L, Sirveaux F, Oudet D, Mole D, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship analysis of eighty replacements followed for five to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:1742–7. 10.2106/JBJS.E.00851. 16882896.

26. Seebauer L, Walter W, Keyl W. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of defect arthropathy. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2005;17:1–24. 10.1007/s00068-005-6505-8. 16007376.

27. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Molé D. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004;86:388–95. 10.1302/0301-620x.86b3.14024. 15125127.

28. Wall B, Nové-Josserand L, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:1476–85. 10.2106/JBJS.F.00666. 17606786.

29. Wierks C, Skolasky RL, Ji JH, McFarland EG. Reverse total shoulder replacement: intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:225–34. 10.1007/s11999-008-0406-1. 18685908.

30. Franceschetti E, de Sanctis EG, Ranieri R, Palumbo A, Paciotti M, Franceschi F. The role of the subscapularis tendon in a lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: repair versus nonrepair. Int Orthop 2019;43:2579–86. 10.1007/s00264-018-4275-2. 30612172.

31. Friedman RJ, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Roche CP. Comparison of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes with and without subscapularis repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017;26:662–8. 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.027. 28277259.

32. Roberson TA, Shanley E, Griscom JT, et al. Subscapularis repair is unnecessary after lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty. JB JS Open Access 2018;3e0056. 10.2106/jbjs.oa.17.00056. 30533594.

33. Vourazeris JD, Wright TW, Struk AM, King JJ, Farmer KW. Primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes in patients with subscapularis repair versus tenotomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017;26:450–7. 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.017. 27751722.

34. Werner BC, Wong AC, Mahony GT, et al. Clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without subscapularis repair: the importance of considering glenosphere lateralization. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2018;26:e114–9. 10.5435/jaaos-d-16-00781. 29419724.

35. Wickham J, Pizzari T, Balster S, Ganderton C, Watson L. The variable roles of the upper and lower subscapularis during shoulder motion. Clin Biomech (Bristol) 2014;29:885–91. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.07.003. 25172119.

36. Giles JW, Langohr GD, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. The rotator cuff muscles are antagonists after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016;25:1592–600. 10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.028. 27107733.

37. Hansen ML, Nayak A, Narayanan MS, et al. Role of subscapularis repair on muscle force requirements with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 2015;73 Suppl 1:S21–7. 26631191.

38. Eno JT, Kontaxis A, Novoa-Boldo A, et al. The biomechanics of subscapularis repair in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: the effect of lateralization and insertion site. J Orthop Res 2020;38:888–94. 10.1002/jor.24531. 31743476.

39. King JJ, Greene AT, Hamilton MA, et al. The over-the-top subscapularis repair in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: biomechanical evaluation of a novel technique. JSES Open Access 2019;3:304–10. 10.1016/j.jses.2019.09.005. 31891030.

40. Doyle AJ, Burks RT. Comparison of humeral head retroversion with the humeral axis/biceps groove relationship: a study in live subjects and cadavers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1998;7:453–7. 10.1016/s1058-2746(98)90193-8. 9814921.

41. Moore KL, Dalley AF, Agur AM. Clinically oriented anatomy 7th edth ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.

42. Akagi R, Kanehisa H, Kawakami Y, Fukunaga T. Establishing a new index of muscle cross-sectional area and its relationship with isometric muscle strength. J Strength Cond Res 2008;22:82–7. 10.1519/jsc.0b013e31815ef675. 18296959.

43. Veeger HE, Van der Helm FC, Van der Woude LH, Pronk GM, Rozendal RH. Inertia and muscle contraction parameters for musculoskeletal modelling of the shoulder mechanism. J Biomech 1991;24:615–29. 10.1016/0021-9290(91)90294-w. 1880145.

44. D'Addesi LL, Anbari A, Reish MW, Brahmabhatt S, Kelly JD. The subscapularis footprint: an anatomic study of the subscapularis tendon insertion. Arthroscopy 2006;22:937–40. 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.04.101. 16952721.

45. Ide J, Tokiyoshi A, Hirose J, Mizuta H. An anatomic study of the subscapularis insertion to the humerus: the subscapularis footprint. Arthroscopy 2008;24:749–53. 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.02.009. 18589262.

46. Morag Y, Jamadar DA, Miller B, Dong Q, Jacobson JA. The subscapularis: anatomy, injury, and imaging. Skeletal Radiol 2011;40:255–69. 10.1007/s00256-009-0845-0. 20033149.

47. Richards DP, Burkhart SS, Tehrany AM, Wirth MA. The subscapularis footprint: an anatomic description of its insertion site. Arthroscopy 2007;23:251–4. 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.11.023. 17349466.

48. Yoo JC, Rhee YG, Shin SJ, et al. Subscapularis tendon tear classification based on 3-dimensional anatomic footprint: a cadaveric and prospective clinical observational study. Arthroscopy 2015;31:19–28. 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.08.015. 25442662.

49. Routman HD. The role of subscapularis repair in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 2013;71 Suppl 2:108–12. 24328591.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

	Mid-deltoid load (N)
	10	12.5	15	17.5	20
Abduction (°)
SU/TL	8.5±2.3	17.4±3.7	41.4±8.7	64.5±6.3	82.5±4.8
SL/TL	26.8±3.3	28.9±3.1	31.8±3.0	35.0±2.9	50.7±7.4
SSL/TL	34.0±3.9^a),b),c)	36.8±3.9^a),b)	39.8±4.0	48.1±5.3	67.3±8.9
SU/TU	21.3±2.3^a)	29.4±3.7^a)	53.0±8.7	69.9±6.3^b),d)	86.6±4.8^b),d)
SL/TU	29.0±2.6^a)	30.2±2.7	33.0±2.6	38.0±3.2	54.1±7.5
SSL/TU	37.2±2.9^a),b),c),d)	39.8±2.7^a),b),d)	42.7±3.0^b),d)	53.1±5.6^b),d)	70.8±8.9
Internal rotation (°)
SU/TL	4.2±2.7	3.0±3.7	0.6±4.7	2.9±6.9	8.1±9.8
SL/TL	59.1±5.8^a)	61.2±5.1^a)	61.0±5.0^a)	57.3±4.7^a)	47.8±7.3
SSL/TL	71.3±6.7^a),c))	73.5±6.3^a),c))	71.4±6.5^a),c))	61.0±7.3^a)	52.9±5.9
SU/TU	31.8±3.0^a),b),d)	28.9±3.2^a),b),d)	25.0±4.6^b),d)	28.0±6.9^d)	29.7±9.9
SL/TU	72.6±4.0^a)	71.3±3.7^a)	69.2±3.8^a)	63.8±4.8^a)	51.0±6.8
SSL/TU	85.5±2.8^a),b),c),d)	84.0±2.8^a),b),c),d)	80.2±2.9^a),b),c),d)	68.5±5.4^a)	60.8±4.3^a)