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
. 2023 Mar 7;12(6):2097.
doi: 10.3390/jcm12062097.

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humeral Fractures and Sequalae Compared to Non-Fracture Indications: A Matched Cohort Analysis of Outcome and Complications

Alexander Paszicsnyek  1 , Philipp Kriechling  2 , Sam Razaeian  2 , Lukas Ernstbrunner  3   4 , Karl Wieser  2 , Paul Borbas  2
Affiliations

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humeral Fractures and Sequalae Compared to Non-Fracture Indications: A Matched Cohort Analysis of Outcome and Complications

Alexander Paszicsnyek et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background: With the increase in utility and popularity of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) within the last decades, indications for RTSA have expanded. As well as the established indications such as cuff tear arthropathy and massive irreparable rotator cuff tears, RTSA for complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients has been proven to be a reliable treatment option.

Methods: A prospectively enrolled RTSA database of 1457 RTSAs implanted between September 2005 and November 2020 was reviewed. Patients treated with RTSA for a complex proximal humerus fracture and fracture sequalae (F-RTSA) were 1:1 matched with a group of patients who were treated electively with RTSA for indications other than a fracture (E-RTSA). Matching criteria included sex, age, length of follow-up and body mass index. Evaluation after a minimum of 2 years follow-up included evaluation of the absolute and relative Constant-Murley score (aCS; rCS), subjective shoulder value (SSV), range of motion (ROM) assessment and complications.

Results: Each of the matched cohorts comprised 134 patients with a mean follow-up of 58 ± 41 months for the fracture group and 58 ± 36 months for the elective group. The mean age for both groups was 69 ± 11 years in the F-RTSA and 70 ± 9 years for the E-RTSA group. There were no significant differences in clinical outcome measures including aCS, rCS and SSV (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference in mean active external rotation with 20° ± 18° in the F-RTSA group compared with 25° ± 19° in the E-RTSA group (p = 0.017). The complication rate was not significantly different, with 41 complications in 36 shoulders in the F-RTSA and 40 complications in 32 shoulders in the E-RTSA group (p = 0.73). The main complication for the F-RTSA group was dislocation of the greater tuberosity (6%), whereas acromial fractures (9%) were the leading complication in the E-RTSA group. There was also no significant difference in revision rate comparing F-RTSA with E-RTSA (10% vs. 14%; p = 0.25).

Conclusions: RTSA for complex proximal humeral fractures and its sequalae leads to a comparable clinical outcome as that for patients treated electively with RTSA for indications other than fracture. There was, however, a significant difference in active external rotation, with inferior rotation in patients undergoing RTSA for fracture. This valuable information can help in requesting informed consent of patients with proximal humeral fractures.

Keywords: RTSA; complications; outcome; proximal humeral fracture; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s), their immediate family, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated have not received any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.

References

    1. Coscia A.C., Matar R.N., Espinal E.E., Shah N.S., Grawe B.M. Does preoperative diagnosis impact patient outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty? A systematic review. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30:1458–1470. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.10.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shah S.S., Gaal B.T., Roche A.M., Namdari S., Grawe B.M., Lawler M., Dalton S., King J.J., Helmkamp J., Garrigues G., et al. The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: Part I. JSES Int. 2020;4:929–943. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2020.07.017. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Crespo A.M., Luthringer T.A., Frost A., Khabie L., Roche C., Zuckerman J.D., Egol K.A. Does reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture portend poorer outcomes than for elective indications? J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30:40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.053. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hasty E.K., Jernigan E.W., 3rd, Soo A., Varkey D.T., Kamath G.V. Trends in Surgical Management and Costs for Operative Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly. Orthopedics. 2017;40:e641–e647. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20170411-03. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Paras T., Raines B., Kohut K., Sabzevari S., Chang Y.F., Yeung M., Li R., Tublin J., Baradaran A., Lin A. Clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for elective indications versus acute 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022;31:e14–e21. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.07.014. - DOI - PubMed