Supplemental Table 1: Preoperative Evaluation. All data are collected anonymously.
Preoperative Primary Data (basic)
Secondary Basic Data (advanced)
Demographic Patient ID Smoking (+Pack Years)
Birthday Alcohol
Gender Employment Status
BMI, Weight, Height Job Description
ASA-Classification Sports
Study Agreement Previous Surgeries
Co-Morbidities Surgical /
Arthroplasty
Admission report + date Approach Discharge report + date Patient Position Procedure (Primary/Secondary) Surgeon + Experience
Date of Surgery Duration Surgery
Side operated, Dominance Additional Measures Name of Surgery (c&p) Stem Length + Diameter Indication to Surgery (c&p) Inlay high
Indication (prespecified fields) Glenoid Grafting Arthroplasty Manufacturer Glenoid Peg Length
Stem Type Glenoid Glenosphere Size
Cementation used
Surgical report (c&p) Stem Manufacturer Survey of the anesthesiologist (c&p) Stem Name
Stem Humeral Cup Glenoid Manufacturer Glenoid Name
Clinical Report (c&p) Range of Motion
Constant-Murley-Score [3]
Subjective Shoulder Value [6]
Satisfaction Radiographic
x-ray
Date x-ray
Evaluating physician Side
Critical Shoulder Angle [11]
Acromio-Humeral-Distance Class: Samilson&Prieto [12]
Class: Hamada [7]
Class: Favard Glenoid[8]
Class: Bigliani Acromion[9]
Maurer Angle[10]
Deltoid Tuberosity Index [15]
Radiographic CT Date CT
Walch Classification [16]
Subluxation Humeral Head (%) Glenoid-Version Friedmann[5]
Fatty Infiltration Rotator Cuff in Hounsfield Units
Abbreviations: C&P – Copy & Paste; CT – Computed Tomography.
Supplemental Table 2: Follow-up Evaluation. All data are collected anonymously.
Follow-up Regularly all 2-3 years + unregular
Clinical Report + Date
Range of Motion
Constant-Murley-Score [3]
Subjective Shoulder Value [6]
Satisfaction
Radiographic [4] Type (xray/CT) + Date Evaluating physician Notching (Sirveaux) [13]
Subluxation
Radiolucent Lines [14]
DSA & LSA [2]
Critical Shoulder Angle [11]
Humeral Offset [17, 18]
Heterotopic Ossification
Complication / Adverse Event [1]
Adverse Event [1] Date
Intraoperative vs. Postoperative Local (surgical site) vs. systemic Description
Exact Name (prespecified fields) Outcome
Reintervention Surgical Report + Date Indication
Name of surgery Surgical report Side
Surgeon + Experience Approach
Patient Position
Reoperation vs. Revision Changed components Additional Measures
Lost to follow-up Latest Update on Patient Information Latest Report available in the System Time from Surgery
Lost to follow + Reason if yes
Time of Lost to Follow-up from Surgery Abbreviations: CT – Computed Tomography
Classification References
1. Audigé L, Schwyzer H-K, Durchholz H et al. (2019) Core set of unfavorable events of shoulder arthroplasty: an international Delphi consensus process. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery 28:2061-2071
2. Boutsiadis A, Lenoir H, Denard PJ et al. (2018) The lateralization and distalization shoulder angles are important determinants of clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27:1226-1234
3. Constant CR, Murley AH (1987) A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res:160-164
4. Durchholz H, Salomonsson B, Moroder P et al. (2019) Core Set of Radiographic Parameters for Shoulder Arthroplasty Monitoring: Criteria Defined by an International Delphi Consensus Process. JB JS Open Access 4:e0025
5. Friedman RJ, Hawthorne KB, Genez BM (1992) The use of computerized
tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:1032- 1037
6. Gilbart MK, Gerber C (2007) Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:717-721
7. Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M et al. (1990) Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res:92-96
8. Huguet D, Favard L, Lautmann S et al. (2000) Épidémiologie, imaginerie,
classification del'omarthrose avecrrupture massive et non reparable de la coiffe. In:
Walch G, Boileau P, D M (eds) Shoulder prostheses 2-10 year follow-up.
Saurampsmedical, p 233-240
9. Lu B, Ds M, Ew A (1986) The morphology of the acromion and its relationship to rotator cuff tears. Ortho Trans. 10
10. Maurer A, Fucentese SF, Pfirrmann CW et al. (2012) Assessment of glenoid
inclination on routine clinical radiographs and computed tomography examinations of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:1096-1103
11. Moor BK, Bouaicha S, Rothenfluh DA et al. (2013) Is there an association between the individual anatomy of the scapula and the development of rotator cuff tears or osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint?: A radiological study of the critical shoulder angle. Bone Joint J 95-B:935-941
12. Samilson RL, Prieto V (1983) Dislocation arthropathy of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:456-460
13. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D et al. (2004) Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume 86-B:388-395 14. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, O'driscoll SW et al. (2000) Radiographic assessment of
ingrowth total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 9:507-513
15. Spross C, Kaestle N, Benninger E et al. (2015) Deltoid Tuberosity Index: A Simple Radiographic Tool to Assess Local Bone Quality in Proximal Humerus Fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:3038-3045
16. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A et al. (1999) Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 14:756-760
17. Werthel J-D, Schoch BS, Van Veen SC et al. (2018) Acromial Fractures in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty 2:247154921877762
18. Zmistowski B, Gutman M, Horvath Y et al. (2020) Acromial stress fracture following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: incidence and predictors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29:799-806