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
. 2022 Aug 3;104(15):1362-1369.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00982. Epub 2022 Apr 19.

Outcomes After Anatomic and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Jacob M Kirsch  1   2 , Richard N Puzzitiello  1   3 , Daniel Swanson  2 , Kiet Le  1   2 , Paul-Anthony Hart  2 , Ryan Churchill  4 , Bassem Elhassan  5 , Jon J P Warner  5 , Andrew Jawa  1   2
Affiliations

Outcomes After Anatomic and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Jacob M Kirsch et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. .

Abstract

Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is increasingly being utilized for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis. However, limited data are available regarding the outcomes of RSA as compared with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) in the setting of osteoarthritis.

Methods: We performed a retrospective matched-cohort study of patients who had undergone TSA and RSA for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis and who had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients were propensity score-matched by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, preoperative active forward elevation, and Walch glenoid morphology. Baseline patient demographics and clinical outcomes, including active range of motion, ASES score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, were collected. Clinical and radiographic complications were evaluated.

Results: One hundred and thirty-four patients (67 patients per group) were included; the mean duration of follow-up (and standard deviation) was 30 ± 10.7 months. No significant differences were found between the TSA and RSA groups in terms of the baseline or final VAS pain score (p = 0.99 and p = 0.99, respectively), ASES scores (p = 0.99 and p = 0.49, respectively), or SANE scores (p = 0.22 and p = 0.73, respectively). TSA was associated with significantly better postoperative active forward elevation (149° ± 13° versus 142° ± 15°; p = 0.003), external rotation (63° ± 14° versus 57° ± 18°; p = 0.02), and internal rotation (≥L3) (68.7% versus 37.3%; p < 0.001); however, there were only significant baseline-to-postoperative improvements in internal rotation (gain of ≥4 levels in 53.7% versus 31.3%; p = 0.009). The overall complication rate was 4.5% (6 of 134), with no significant difference between TSA and RSA (p = 0.99). Radiolucent lines were observed in association with 14.9% of TSAs, with no gross glenoid loosening. One TSA (1.5%) was revised to RSA for the treatment of a rotator cuff tear. No loosening or revision was encountered in the RSA group.

Conclusions: When performed for the treatment of osteoarthritis, TSA and RSA resulted in similar short-term patient-reported outcomes, with better postoperative range of motion after TSA. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the ultimate value of RSA in the setting of osteoarthritis.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H24 ).

Comment in

References

    1. Best MJ, Aziz KT, Wilckens JH, McFarland EG, Srikumaran U. Increasing incidence of primary reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 May;30(5):1159-66.
    1. Rabinowitz J, Kothandaraman V, Lin J, Li X, Friedman RJ, Eichinger JK. Utilization of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. An analysis of current trends and future predictions. Seminars in Arthroplasty: JSES. 2020 Sep;30(3):200-9.
    1. Wagner ER, Farley KX, Higgins I, Wilson JM, Daly CA, Gottschalk MB. The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty: rise and future projections compared with hip and knee arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Dec;29(12):2601-9.
    1. Lindbloom BJ, Christmas KN, Downes K, Simon P, McLendon PB, Hess AV 2nd, Mighell MA, Frankle MA. Is there a relationship between preoperative diagnosis and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? An experience in 699 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jun;28(6S):S110-7.
    1. Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. Neer Award 2005: The Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006 Sep-Oct;15(5):527-40.