Lateralized versus nonlateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Anatomic Versus Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Primary Osteoarthritis With an Intact Rotator Cuff: A Midterm Comparison of Early Top Performers

BACKGROUND

Several surgeons state that their best anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) outperforms their best reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) when performed for rotator cuff-intact glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We identified the top-performing aTSAs and rTSAs at short-term follow-up and compared their clinical performance at midterm follow-up to validate this common claim.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a multicenter shoulder arthroplasty database was conducted. All shoulders undergoing primary aTSA or rTSA for rotator cuff-intact glenohumeral osteoarthritis between 2007 and 2020 were reviewed. Shoulders with a follow-up clinical visit between 2 and 3 years and a clinical follow-up of minimum 5 years were included. Two separate cohorts were identified: patients with a top 20% (1) American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and (2) Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score at 2 to 3 years of follow-up. Clinical outcomes including range of motion, outcome scores, and rates of complications and revision surgeries were compared at minimum 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The ASES score cohort comprised 185 aTSAs (mean age 67 years, 42% female) and 49 rTSAs (mean age 72 years, 45% female). The SAS score cohort comprised 145 aTSAs (mean age 67 years, 59% female) and 42 rTSAs (mean age 71 years, 57% female). Active external rotation (ER) was greater after aTSA at midterm follow-up in both ASES and SAS score cohorts; however, preoperative to postoperative improvement was equivalent. Postoperative ER and SAS scores were greater after aTSA in both cohorts (P < 0.05); however, no other significant differences in any preoperative or postoperative clinical outcomes were present (P > 0.05), and patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit at similar rates for all outcomes. No difference was found in the incidence of complications and revision surgeries between top-performing aTSAs and rTSAs.

CONCLUSION

Among top-performing shoulder arthroplasties at early follow-up, aTSA does not appear to outperform rTSA, except superior ER at midterm follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative cohort study, Level Ⅲ.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: significantly different characteristics and outcomes in shoulders with intact vs. torn rotator cuff

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for primary osteoarthritis (OA) with and without rotator cuff (RC) tears to those with secondary OA due to RC tears.

METHODS

We reviewed records of all patients who received RSA for primary OA or secondary OA. All patients had preoperative radiographs, computed tomographic arthrography (CTA), and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of their shoulders to assess their etiology, glenoid morphology, and fatty infiltration. Pre- and postoperative (at minimum follow-up of 2 years) Constant scores and range of motion were compared between patients who had RSA for primary OA with and without RC tears to those with secondary OA due to RC tears.

RESULTS

Of the initial cohort of 605 shoulders (583 patients), 153 were lost to follow-up (25.3%), 25 required revision with implant removal (4.1%), and 13 died of causes unrelated to the surgery (2.1%), and left a final cohort of 414 patients. Of the final cohort, 97 had primary OA with intact RC, 62 had primary OA with RC tears, and 255 had secondary OA. Postoperative Constant scores were significantly higher for primary OA with intact RC (73.8 ± 14.3), compared with both primary OA with RC tears (66.1 ± 14.6, P < .001) and secondary OA (64.1 ± 14.8, P < .001). There were no differences in pre- or postoperative scores between primary OA with RC tears and secondary OA.

CONCLUSION

At 2 or more years following RSA, Constant scores were significantly higher for primary OA with intact RC, compared to either primary OA with RC tears or secondary OA, whereas there were no differences in pre- or postoperative scores of shoulders that had primary OA with RC tears vs. secondary OA. The authors recommend distinguishing primary OA with intact RC from primary OA with RC tears, as the two have considerably different characteristics and prognosis following RSA.

Better Constant Scores and Active Forward Elevation Using Deltopectoral Versus Anterosuperior Approach for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Matched Cohort Study

Purpose

To determine, from a sizable cohort of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), whether the deltopectoral (DP) or anterosuperior (AS) approach grant better outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 24 months.

Methods

The authors reviewed 743 RSAs in patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) with or without rotator cuff lesions and secondary OA due to rotator cuff tears. The DP approach was used in 540 and the AS approach in 203. Pre- and post-operative constant scores (CSs) and shoulder range of motion were recorded.

Results

Of the initial cohort of 743 shoulders, 193 (25.7%) were lost to follow-up, 16 (2.1%) died, and 33 (4.4%) were revised; 540 shoulders were operated using DP approach (73%), of which 22 were revised (4.1%), while 203 were operated using the AS approach (27%), of which 11 were revised (5.4%). Propensity score matching resulted in two groups: 172 shoulders operated by DP approach, and 88 shoulders operated by AS approach. Comparing outcomes of the matched groups at 2 or more years also revealed that, compared to the AS approach, the DP approach resulted in significantly better post-operative CSs (67.3 ± 14.0° vs 60.8 ± 18.3, P = 0.017), active forward elevation (137° ± 27.4° vs 129° ± 29.8; P = 0.031).

Conclusion

At 2 or more years following RSA, the DP approach granted significantly better CS (by 6.5 points) and active forward elevation (by 8°) compared to the AS approach. The differences observed are clinically relevant and must be considered to manage patient expectations following RSA and for selecting surgical approach depending on their functional needs.

Level of evidence

III, comparative study.

The association between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with stratification based on measurement method and implant design.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using PRISMA-P guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Trials, and Embase were queried for articles evaluating the relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes inclusive of range of motion (ROM), strength, outcome scores, and pertinent complications (acromial and scapular spine fractures, nerve injury) after RSA. The relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes was reported descriptively overall and stratified by measurement method and implant design (globally medialized vs. lateralized). A positive association was defined as increased humeral lengthening being associated with greater ROM, outcome scores, or a greater incidence of complications, whereas a negative association denoted that increased humeral lengthening was associated with poorer ROM, outcome scores, or a lower incidence of complications. Meta-analysis was performed to compare humeral lengthening between patients with and without fractures of the acromion or scapular spine.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. Humeral lengthening was assessed as the acromiohumeral distance (AHD), the distance from the acromion to the greater tuberosity (AGT), the acromion to the deltoid tuberosity (ADT), and the acromion to the distal humerus (ADH). Of 11 studies that assessed forward elevation, a positive association with humeral lengthening was found in 6, a negative association was found in 1, and 4 studies reported no association. Of studies assessing internal rotation (n = 9), external rotation (n = 7), and abduction (n = 4), all either identified a positive or lack of association with humeral lengthening. Studies assessing outcome scores (n = 11) found either a positive (n = 5) or no (n = 6) association with humeral lengthening. Of the studies that assessed fractures of the acromion and/or scapular spine (n = 6), 2 identified a positive association with humeral lengthening, 1 identified a negative association, and 3 identified no association. The single study that assessed the incidence of nerve injury identified a positive association with humeral lengthening. Meta-analysis was possible for AGT (n = 2) and AHD (n = 2); greater humeral lengthening was found in patients with fractures for studies using the AGT (mean difference 4.5 mm, 95% CI 0.7-8.3) but not the AHD. Limited study inclusion and heterogeneity prohibited identification of trends based on method of measuring humeral lengthening and implant design.

CONCLUSION

The relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after RSA remains unclear and requires future investigation using a standardized assessment method.

Subscapularis repair in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and descriptive synthesis of cadaveric biomechanical strength outcomes

Hypothesis/Background

There is no consensus on whether to repair the subscapularis in the setting of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). There have been an assortment of studies showing mixed results regarding shoulder stability and postoperative strength outcomes when looking at subscapularis repair in rTSA. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate differences in biomechanical strength outcomes of cadaveric subscapularis repair vs. no repair in rTSA.Increased force will be required to move the shoulder through normal range of motion (ROM) in cadaveric rTSA shoulders with the subscapularis repaired when compared with no subscapularis repair.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review was conducted in accordance with the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. The databases used to search the keywords used for the concepts of subscapularis, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, and muscle strength were PubMed (includes MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews and Trials, and Scopus. Original, English-language cadaveric studies evaluating rTSA and subscapularis management were included, with subscapularis repair surgical techniques and strength outcomes being evaluated for each article meeting inclusion criteria.

Results

The search yielded 4113 articles that were screened for inclusion criteria by 4 authors. Two articles met inclusion criteria and were subsequently included in the final full-text review. A total of 11 shoulders were represented between these 2 studies. Heterogeneity of the data across the 2 studies did not allow for meta-analysis. Hansen et al found that repair of the subscapularis with rTSA significantly increased the mean joint reaction force and the force required by the posterior deltoid, total deltoid, infraspinatus, teres minor, total posterior rotator cuff, and pectoralis major muscles. Giles et al found that rotator cuff repair and glenosphere lateralization both increased total joint load.

Conclusion

The present review of biomechanical literature shows that repair of the subscapularis in the setting of rTSA can effectively restore shoulder strength by increasing joint reactive forces and ROM force requirements of other rotator cuff muscles and of the deltoid muscle. Available biomechanical evidence is limited, and further biomechanical studies evaluating the strength of various subscapularis repair techniques are needed to evaluate the effects of these techniques on joint reactive forces and muscle forces required for ROM.