Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Feb;13(1):11-19.
doi: 10.1007/s12178-019-09582-2.

Advances and Update on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Stephen G Thon  1   2 , Adam J Seidl  2 , Jonathan T Bravman  2 , Eric C McCarty  2 , Felix H Savoie 3rd  1 , Rachel M Frank  3
Affiliations
Review

Advances and Update on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Stephen G Thon et al. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Purpose of review: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a procedure that has been increasingly utilized since its inception over 20 years ago. The purpose of this review is to present the most up to date practice and advances to the RTSA literature from the last 5 years.

Recent findings: Recent literature on RTSA has focused on identifying complications, maximizing outcomes, and determining its cost-effectiveness. RTSA has become a valuable tool in the treatment of various shoulder pathologies from fractures to massive-irreparable rotator cuff tears. Maximizing outcomes, proper patient counseling, and limiting complications are vital to a successful procedure. RTSA can be a difficult procedure; however, when utilized appropriately, it can be an invaluable tool in the orthopedic surgeon's armament. Recent evidence suggests, more and more, that RTSA not only provides value to the patient, but it is also cost-effective.

Keywords: Outcomes; RTSA; Reverse shoulder; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Reverse shoulder prosthesis; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Stephen Thon declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Dr. Adam Seidl reports personal fees from DJO and from Medacta, outside the submitted work.

Dr. Jonathan Bravman reports other from DJO, Smith & Nephew, Shukla Medical, and null, outside the submitted work.

Dr. Eric McCarty declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Dr. Felix Savoie III declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Dr. Rachel Frank declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Grammont PM, Baulot E. Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture. Orthopedics. 1993;16(1):65–68. doi: 10.3928/0147-7447-19930101-11. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Post M. Constrained arthroplasty: its use and misuse. Semin Arthroplasty. 1990;1(2):151–159. - PubMed
    1. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Suppl S):147S–161S. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mollon B, Mahure SA, Roche CP, Zuckerman JD. Impact of glenosphere size on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 297 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(5):763–771. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.10.027. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Virani NA, Harman M, Li K, Levy J, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. In vitro and finite element analysis of glenoid bone/baseplate interaction in the reverse shoulder design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(3):509–521. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.11.003. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources