Aims. It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery. Methods. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis. Results. A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. Conclusion. Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618–630

Aims. This systematic review asked which patterns of complications are associated with the three reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) prosthetic designs, as classified by Routman et al, in patients undergoing RTSA for the management of cuff tear arthropathy, massive cuff tear, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. The three implant design philosophies investigated were medial glenoid/medial humerus (MGMH), medial glenoid/lateral humerus (MGLH), and lateral glenoid/medial humerus (LGMH). Methods. A systematic review of the literature was performed via a search of MEDLINE and Embase. Two reviewers extracted data on complication occurrence and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Meta-analysis was conducted on the reported proportion of complications, weighted by sample size, and PROMs were pooled using the reported standardized mean difference (SMD). Quality of methodology was assessed using Wylde’s non-summative four-point system. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020193041). Results. A total of 42 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Rates of scapular notching were found to be significantly higher in MGMH implants (52% (95% confidence interval (CI) 40 to 63)) compared with MGLH ((18% (95% CI 6 to 34)) and LGMH (12% (95% CI 3 to 26)). Higher rates of glenoid loosening were seen in MGMH implants (6% (95% CI 3 to 10)) than in MGLH implants (0% (95% CI 0 to 2)). However, strength of evidence for this finding was low. No significant differences were identified in any other complication, and there were no significant differences observed in PROMs between implant philosophies. Conclusion. This systematic review has found significant improvement in PROMS and low complication rates across the implant philosophies studied. Scapular notching was the only complication found definitely to have significantly higher prevalence with the MGMH implant design. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):813–821

Aims. Scapular notching is thought to have an adverse effect on the outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). However, the matter is still controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical impact of scapular notching on outcomes after RTSA. Methods. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database, and EMBASE) were searched for studies which evaluated the influence of scapular notching on clinical outcome after RTSA. The quality of each study was assessed. Functional outcome scores (the Constant-Murley scores (CMS), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores), and postoperative range of movement (forward flexion (FF), abduction, and external rotation (ER)) were extracted and subjected to meta-analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD). Results. In all, 11 studies (two level III and nine level IV) were included in the meta-analysis. All analyzed variables indicated that scapular notching has a negative effect on the outcome of RTSA . Statistical significance was found for the CMS (WMD –3.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.98 to –1.23), the ASES score (WMD –6.50; 95% CI –10.80 to –2.19), FF (WMD –6.3°; 95% CI –9.9° to –2.6°), and abduction (WMD –9.4°; 95% CI –17.8° to –1.0°), but not for ER (WMD –0.6°; 95% CI –3.7° to 2.5°). Conclusion. The current literature suggests that patients with scapular notching after RTSA have significantly worse results when evaluated by the CMS, ASES score, and range of movement in flexion and abduction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1438–1445