We sought to compare functional outcomes and survival between non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers who underwent anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) in a large cohort of patients. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was performed between August 1991 and September 2020 to identify patients who underwent primary aTSA. Patients were excluded for preoperative diagnoses of fracture, infection, or oncological disease. Three cohorts were created based on smoking status: non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. Outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant-Murley score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), University of California, Los Angeles activity scale (UCLA)), range of motion (external rotation (ER), forward elevation (FE), internal rotation, abduction), and shoulder strength (ER, FE) evaluated at two- to four-year follow-up were compared between cohorts. Evaluation of revision-free survival was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method to final follow-up.Aims
Methods
Both anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA and rTSA) provide functional improvements. A reported benefit of aTSA is better range of motion (ROM). However, it is not clear which procedure provides better outcomes in patients with limited foward elevation (FE). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of aTSA and rTSA in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), an intact rotator cuff, and limited FE. This was a retrospective review of a single institution’s prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database for TSAs undertaken between 2007 and 2020. A total of 344 aTSAs and 163 rTSAs, which were performed in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff with a minimum follow-up of two years, were included. Using the definition of preoperative stiffness as passive FE ≤ 105°, three cohorts were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and follow-up: stiff aTSAs (85) to non-stiff aTSAs (85); stiff rTSAs (74) to non-stiff rTSAs (74); and stiff rTSAs (64) to stiff aTSAs (64). We the compared ROMs, outcome scores, and complication and revision rates.Aims
Methods
