Aims

The current evidence comparing the two most common approaches for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), the deltopectoral and anterosuperior approach, is limited. This study aims to compare the rate of loosening, instability, and implant survival between the two approaches for rTSA using data from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years.

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the incidence of implant-related complications, further operations, and their influence on the outcome in a series of patients who underwent primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Methods. The prospectively collected clinical and radiological data of 797 patients who underwent 854 primary RTSAs between January 2005 and August 2018 were analyzed. The hypothesis was that the presence of complications would adversely affect the outcome. Further procedures were defined as all necessary operations, including reoperations without change of components, and partial or total revisions. The clinical outcome was evaluated using the absolute and relative Constant Scores (aCS, rCS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) scores, range of motion, and pain. Results. The overall surgical site complication rate was 22% (188 complications) in 152 patients (156 RTSAs; 18%) at a mean follow-up of 46 months (0 to 169). The most common complications were acromial fracture (in 44 patients, 45 RTSAs; 5.3%), glenoid loosening (in 37 patients, 37 RTSAs; 4.3%), instability (in 23 patients, 23 RTSAs; 2.7%), humeral fracture or loosening of the humeral component (in 21 patients, 21 RTSAs; 2.5%), and periprosthetic infection (in 14 patients, 14 RTSAs; 1.6%). Further surgery was undertaken in 79 patients (82 RTSAs) requiring a total of 135 procedures (41% revision rate). The most common indications for further surgery were glenoid-related complications (in 23 patients, 23 RTSAs; 2.7%), instability (in 15 patients, 15 RTSAs; 1.8%), acromial fractures (in 11 patients, 11 RTSAs; 1.3%), pain and severe scarring (in 13 patients, 13 RTSAs; 1.5%), and infection (in 8 patients, 8 RTSAs; 0.9%). Patients who had a complication had significantly worse mean rCS scores (57% (SD 24%) vs 81% (SD 16%)) and SSV scores (53% (SD 27%) vs 80% (SD 20%)) compared with those without a complication. If revision surgery was necessary, the outcome was even further compromised (mean rCS score: 51% (SD 23%) vs 63% (SD 23%); SSV score: 4% (SD 25%) vs 61% (SD 27%). Conclusion. Although the indications for, and use of, a RTSA are increasing, it remains a demanding surgical procedure. We found that about one in five patients had a complication and one in ten required further surgery. Both adversely affected the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):401–407

Aims. Rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continue to grow. Glenoid bone loss and deformity remains a technical challenge to the surgeon and may reduce improvements in patients’ outcomes. However, there is no consensus as to the optimal surgical technique to best reconstruct these patients’ anatomy. This review aims to compare the outcomes of glenoid bone grafting versus augmented glenoid prostheses in the management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated study-level data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We performed searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed from their dates of inception to January 2022. From included studies, we analyzed data for preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported functional outcomes, and complication rates. Results. A total of 13 studies (919 shoulders) were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients at initial evaluation was 72.2 years (42 to 87), with a mean follow-up time of 40.7 months (24 to 120). Nine studies with 292 rTSAs evaluated the use of bone graft and five studies with 627 rTSAs evaluated the use of augmented glenoid baseplates. One study was analyzed in both groups. Both techniques demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures and ROM assessment, with augmented prostheses outperforming bone grafting on improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score. There was a higher complication rate (8.9% vs 3.5%; p < 0.001) and revision rate among the bone grafting group compared with the patients who were treated with augmented prostheses (2.4% vs 0.6%; p = 0.022). Conclusion. This review provides strong evidence that both bone graft and augmented glenoid baseplate techniques to address glenoid bone loss give excellent ROM and functional outcomes in primary rTSA. The use of augmented base plates may confer fewer complications and revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1334–1342