Augmented glenoid component designs for type B2 erosions: a computational comparison by volume of bone removal and quality of remaining bone

BackgroundThe purpose of this computational modeling study was to compare the volume of glenoid bone removal required to implant 3 augmented component designs for management of B2 erosions. In addition, we assessed bone quality of the supporting bone directly beneath the implants by measuring bone density and porosity.MethodsThree augmented component designs-full-wedge, posterior-wedge, and posterior-step-were studied by virtual implantation in a cohort of 16 patients with B2 glenoids. B2 retroversion was corrected to 0° and 10°. The outcome variables were the volume of glenoid bone removal required for implantation and the density and porosity of the bone immediately beneath the implant.ResultsImplant design had a significant effect on the volume of bone removal (P < .001). When correcting to 0°, the posterior-wedge implant removed less bone than the posterior-step (P < .001) and the full-wedge (P = .004). At 10° retroversion, the posterior-wedge removed less bone (P = .029) than the posterior-step but was no different than the full-wedge (P = .143). The residual glenoid bone density with the posterior-wedge was significantly greater than with the posterior-step (P = .048), with no other significant differences (P > .05). Residual glenoid bone porosity was not significantly different between implants (P > .262).ConclusionsAugmented components can provide a bone-preserving option for B2 glenoid management. Substantial variations in the volume of bone removal and the quality of the remaining glenoid bone were found between 3 different designs of augmented implants. Simulations with the posterior-wedge implant resulted in substantially less glenoid bone removal, with the remaining supporting bone being of better quality.