Employee Portal
Connect with a Rep

ABout

The INHANCE™ Shoulder System empowers surgeons to treat a broad range of shoulder replacement cases in less time using fewer interoperative steps and a seamless construct design.

INHANCE™ is designed to meet unmet needs in shoulder arthroplasty by addressing critical inefficiencies in intra- and postoperative operations, so surgeons can advance their patient care while administrators improve their reprocessing costs.

Why INHANCE™?

The INHANCE™ Shoulder System offers a simplified surgical technique and optimized instrumentation, which may result in:
Better Efficiency

Better Efficiency

Reducing the number of trays necessary to do a case may improve intraoperative efficiency and reduce the number of trays needing to be stored, retrieved, and set up.13,14,25

More Consistency

More Consistency

Allows surgical teams and staff to be trained on and become proficient with a single system vs. multiple different systems, which may improve consistency and repeatability.14,26

Lifetime Cost Savings

Lifetime Cost Savings

The INHANCE™ System provides $525 in estimated savings per case through a reduction in Sterilization,*by only requiring two trays regardless of construct.

 

*Assumes 11 trays (glenoid and humeral) currently used per case and 4 trays used with the INHANCE™ Shoulder System and a cost per tray of $75.
TIME-SAVING CONSTRUCTION

Stemless Constructs

Shoulder arthroplasty procedures can be associated with extended surgical duration and blood loss.8,9,10,11 Studies have also shown that extended surgical duration is associated with a variety of postoperative medical complications and increased use of healthcare resources.10,11 INHANCE™ offers a stemless implant option that addresses these inefficiencies, with key benefits such as:

 

  • Lower operating room times compared to standard stems (up to 25 min lower).9,21,22,23 Shorter operative time may also lower indirect marginal costs due to increased throughput and efficiency.
     
  • Up to 16% lower estimated blood loss with stemless compared to standard stems, which may reduce the need for costly transfusions.22,23
A NEXT-GENERATION GLENOID

INHANCE™ Anatomic Glenoid

The INHANCE™ Anatomic Glenoid is one of the key features that make the INHANCE™ system leap forward in shoulder replacement technology, with features & benefits like:

 

  • Stability while removing 45% less bone than a traditional pegged glenoid and 35% less bone than an inset glenoid.3 
     
  • In testing, accelerated aged INHANCE™ Anatomic Glenoids demonstrated a 780% reduction in wear particles compared to unaged conventional polyethylene glenoids after 5 million cycles.4 
     
  • Mechanical testing of the INHANCE™ Anatomic Glenoid demonstrated less displacement than a market-leading pegged hybrid glenoid.5
SURGICAL ACCURACY & EFFICIENCY

ONE STEP PREP™

Simplify the implant process and reduce the number of steps with our ONE STEP PREP™ Glenoid process.

ONE STEP PREP™ Glenoid reduces the total number of surgical steps by up to 59% over traditional pegged glenoids.7

The INHANCE™ Shoulder System circular glenoid shape is designed to simplify implant insertion with an attached inserter, compared to an oval or pear-shaped glenoid.

ONE STEP PREP™ Reamers prepare all glenoid features on the same axis, in contrast to other systems which require sequential step preparation.

Ready to integrate our solutions into your practice, or just want to learn more about our products? Contact us to get started.

Want to learn more? Visit our Contact page for more information.

Name

Email

Phone

Zip Code

Product Inquiry

Message

Submit

References

  1. Best JM, Aziz KT, Wilckens JH et al. Increasing incidence of primary reverse and anatomic total shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2021; 30(5): 1159-1166.  
  2. Wagner ER, Farley KX, Higgins I et al. The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty: rise and future projections compared with hip and knee arthroplasty. 2020; 29; 2601-2609.  
  3. Weatherby PJ, Efejuku TA, & Somerson JS. Complications after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: revisiting leading causes of failure. Orthopedic Clinics of North America. 2021; 52(3): 277.  
  4. Chung AS, Makovicka JL, Hydrick T. Analysis of 90-day readmissions after total shoulder arthroplasty. The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019; 7(9): 2325967119868964.  
  5. Cowling PD, Holland P, Kottam L et al. Risk factors associated with intraoperative complications in primary shoulder arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaedica. 2017; 88(6): 587-591.  
  6. Fram B, Elder A, Surena N. Periprosthetic humeral fractures in shoulder arthroplasty. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Reviews. 2019; 7(11):e6.  
  7. Chalmers PN, Kahn T, Broschinsky K et al. An analysis of costs associated with shoulder arthroplasty. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2019; 28(7):1334-1340.  
  8. Malcherczyk D, Abdelmoula A, Heyse TJ et al. Bleeding in primary shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopaedic Surgery. 2018; 138: 317-232  
  9. Anastasio AT, Okafor C, Garrigues GE et al. Stemmed versus stemless total shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of operative times. Seminars in Arthroplasty: JSES. 2021.  
  10. Kashanchi KI, Nazemi AK, Komatsu DE. Impact of operative time on short-term adverse events following total shoulder arthroplasty. Seminars in Arthroplasty: JSES. 2020; 30(3):227-236. 
  11.  Swindell HW, Alrabaa RG, Boddapati V et al. Is surgical duration associated with postoperative complications in primary shoulder arthroplasty? Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2020; 29:807-813.  
  12. Cichos KH, Hyde ZB, Mabry SE et al. Optimization of orthopedic surgical instrument trays: lean principles to reduce fixed operating room expenses. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(12): 2834-2940.  
  13. Capra RC, Bini SA, Bowden DE et al. Implementing a perioperative efficiency initiative for orthopedic surgery instrumentation at an academic center. A comparative before and after study. Medicine. 2019; 98(7):e14338.  
  14. Delatore P, Bourque M, Taylor J, Ferko N. The value of SKU reduction and standardization initiatives within a hospital system. Value in Health – ISPOR 21st Annual International Meeting. 2016. PHP206.  
  15. Ford, S. “Nurses waste ‘an hour a shift’ finding equipment,” Nursing Times. 105(5):1, 2009 February.  
  16. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2021 Annual Report. Table ST33. Adelaide; AOA, 2021: 1-432.
  17. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2021 Annual Report. Table ST35. Adelaide; AOA, 2021: 1-432. 
  18. Ignite. Glenoid Wear Testing Report & Appendix A-H. 2021. TR-200403 REV.02.
  19. DePuy Synthes. Glenoid Bone Removal Comparison with Calculation. 2021. PLM System # 103840234.  
  20. Willems JIP, Hoffmann J, Sierevelt IN et al. Results of stemless shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EFFORT Open Review. 2021; 6(1):35-49.  
  21. Heuberer PR, Brandl G, Pauzenberger L et al. Radiological changes do not influence clinical mid-term outcome in stemless humeral head replacements with hollow screw fixation: a prospective radiological and clinical evaluation. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2018; 19:28.  
  22. Berth A, Pap G. Stemless shoulder prosthesis versus conventional anatomic shoulder prosthesis in patients with osteoarthritis: a comparison of the functional outcome after a minimum of two years follow-up. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. 2013; 14:31-37.
  23. Liu EY, Kord D, Horner NS et al. Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. 2020; 29(9): 1928-1937.  
  24. DePuy Synthes. Surgical Steps Competitive Comparison – Glenoid Procedure. Jun 22 2021. PLM System # 103814569. 25. Wallis BC, Berend KR, Doucette DL et al. Operating room efficiencies during total joint arthroplasty be all they can be. Seminars in Arthroplasty. 2018; 29: 129-133. 26. Chobin N. The real costs of surgical instrument training in sterile processing revisited. AORN Journal. 2010; 92(2): 185-193 

217124-220613-DSUS