Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

We report here on the results, stratified by diagnosis, of a multicenter prospective study by surgeons unaffiliated with the design team of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) performed using a lateralized glenosphere. We hypothesized that outcomes would be comparable to those reported previously.Methods: A total of 245 patients underwent RSA for cuff tear arthropathy or glenohumeral arthritis with rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff tear with instability or escape and without glenohumeral arthritis, or failed shoulder arthroplasty. Clinical, radiographic, and self-assessed outcome measures were obtained preoperatively and at standardized time points postoperatively. At 2 years, 173 patients were available as 23 patients were deceased, 12 had undergone revision, and 37 were unavailable.Results: Range of motion and outcomes improved, irrespective of diagnosis. Active forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation improved (73°–127°, 65°–109°, and 24°–37°, respectively, P < .0001 for all). Simple Shoulder Test (3.2–8.5) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (45–86) also improved. Scapular notching occurred in 13.3%; scapular spine/acromial fractures in 6.5%. Patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty improved more modestly.Conclusion: In this multicenter study, surgeons unaffiliated with the design team obtained clinical improvements comparable to those reported previously and that exceeded minimal clinically important differences for RSA. Improvements in external rotation and low scapular notching rates potentially relate to the lateralized design.

Keywords

Reverse total shoulder replacement reverse shoulder prothesis shoulder arthroplasty lateralized glenosphere

Introduction

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has revolutionized the treatment of patients with arthritis and rotator cuff insufficiency, and can be performed with implants that either medialize or lateralize the center of rotation, and achieve this on the glenoid side, the humeral side, or both. In particular, studies on the outcomes of RSA employing a lateralized glenosphere have consistently reported improved active external rotation (aER) and low rates of scapular notching, but many of these are the work of the design team.^1–8 Furthermore, studies have demonstrated higher complication rates and inferior outcome when RSA is performed for revision of a failed prosthetic arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to report on the 2-year follow-up results of a 9-site multicenter prospective study of RSA using glenospheres with a lateralized center of rotation. The study purpose was to prospectively collect the results of RSA using an implant with a lateralized glenosphere performed by experienced nondesign surgeons and to stratify these results by preoperative diagnosis. The study hypothesis is that the outcomes and complication rates would be comparable to those reported previously by the design team. A secondary hypothesis is that RSA performed for revision of a failed prosthetic arthroplasty would have inferior results to primary RSA.

Methods

Patients older than 60 years with cuff tear arthropathy or glenohumeral arthritis with rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff tear with instability or escape and without glenohumeral arthritis, or a failed prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty who had failed conservative treatment and who were candidates for RSA were enrolled between December 2009 and July 2012 into this prospective clinical study at 1 of 9 sites, with participation at each site capped at 40 RSAs. All patients underwent RSA using a single implant design (DJO RSP, Austin, TX) characterized by a lateralized glenosphere. All prostheses were placed through a deltopectoral approach, and none were implanted for osteoarthritis without rotator cuff tear or for proximal humerus fracture. All humeral components employed in the study were of the original design featuring a modular humeral socket and stem and were inserted with cement. The glenoid baseplate was typically placed at the glenoid center or slightly inferior, but this was not standardized. The subscapularis tendon was taken down by peel, tenotomy, or osteotomy, according to surgeon preference and typically repaired whenever possible, although this too was not standardized. The postoperative rehabilitation protocol was not standardized and was at the discretion of the individual surgeon. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at all sites.

Patients underwent clinical and radiographic evaluation preoperatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Clinical examination at each time point included goniometeric measurement of both active and passive range of motion comprising forward flexion (FF), abduction (Ab), external rotation (ER), in degrees, and internal rotation to the back, measured as the highest spinous process attained at midline with the extended thumb. Internal rotation measurements were transformed to a 10-point scale, as described previously⁷ (Table 1).

Table 1.

Internal Rotation to the Back Transformed for Constant Score.

Bony Landmark	Thigh^a	Buttock^b	L/S^c	T12^c	T7^c
Constant score	2	4	6	8	10

^aGreater trochanter.

^bIschial tuberosity.

^cSpinous process.

Radiographic assessment included at each time point a minimum of 2 biplanar radiographs comprising true AP with the arm in ER (Grashey) and axillary-lateral views. Radiographs were reviewed for dislocation, component dissociation, periprosthetic fracture, acromion and scapular spine fracture, as well as for component subsidence and loosening. Advanced imaging such as computed tomography to diagnose these complications was obtained at each surgeon’s discretion. In addition, plain radiographs at 24 months were inspected for scapular notching by an independent reviewer who has not involved in patient care, and scapular notching was subsequently quantified according to the method of Nerot.^9,10

Patient recorded outcome measures included Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, obtained at each time point. Pain was assessed at each time point using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS-pain).

Postoperative complications were recorded and tabulated. These included acromion fracture, scapular spine fracture, prosthetic dislocation, component dissociation, deep infection, nerve injury, and death. In addition, the timing and details of any revision surgery including component revision were carefully recorded.

Statistical Analysis

Data from the 9 individual sites were collected and analyzed independently by a biostatistician. Range of motion, SST, ASES, and VAS-pain scores were compared across the various time points. Statistical analysis was performed on data pooled across study centers using the SPSS® Statistical Software version 25 (Cary, NC). Statistical significance was determined using an alpha of .05; P values are provided in the corresponding tables. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic and baseline data; means with standard deviations and were used for continuous data. Frequency and proportions were reported for categorical data, where appropriate.

Primary end points were stratified across diagnoses, including cuff tear arthropathy, rotator cuff tear with instability or escape, and failed prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty. For each end point and diagnosis, means and standard deviation are presented for baseline and 2-year follow-up scores, along with improvement (change from baseline) scores. Improvement scores were reported with 95% confidence intervals and P values for the resulting paired test statistic.

Results

Two hundred forty-five patients (138 females and 107 males) underwent RSA. All patients were older than 60 years and mean age was 73.1 years (standard deviation 7.6, range 60–92) at the time of surgery. One hundred sixty-three RSAs were performed for cuff tear arthropathy or glenohumeral arthritis with rotator cuff tear, 62 RSAs for rotator cuff tear with instability or escape and without glenohumeral arthritis, and 20 RSAs as a revision. Patient demographics are summarized in Table 2. At 2-year follow-up, 23 patients were deceased and 12 patients had undergone component revision. Thirty-seven patients were unwilling to return or lost to follow-up, despite multiple attempts to contact these patients by both telephone and registered mail. This left 173 patients (71%) available for study at 2-year follow-up.

Table 2.

Patient Demographics.

Characteristic	N	%
Gender
Male	138	56.3
Female	107	43.7
Smoking
Yes	10	4.1
No	235	95.9
BMI (kg/m²) (±SD)	29.2 (6.2)	Range: 17–53
Diagnosis
Cuff tear arthropathy	163	66.5
Cuff tear with instability or escape	62	25.3
Failed shoulder arthroplasty	20	8.2
Operative side
Left	79	32.2
Right	166	67.8

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; SD, standard deviation.

Significant improvements of all measured active motions were observed (Figure 1, Table 3). Mean preoperative active forward flexion (aFF) improved from 73° ± 38° to 102° ± 29° at 3 months, 114° ± 27° at 6 months, 121° ± 27° at 1 year, and 127° ± 29° at 2-year follow-up (P < .0001 for all time points compared with preoperative). Active abduction (aAB) improved from 65° ± 30° to 88° ± 25° at 3 months, 97° ± 24° at 6 months, 102° ± 26° at 1 year, and 109° ± 27° at 2-year follow-up (P < .0001 for all postoperative time points). aER at the side improved from 24° ± 21° to 29° ± 16° at 3 months, 33° ± 15° at 3 months, 37° ± 16° at 1 year, and 37° ± 18° at 2 years (P < .0001 for all time points); and active internal rotation (aIR) from the back improved modestly from the buttock to the L5 spinous process at 2-year follow-up (P < .05). Patients with the greatest preoperative aER deficits demonstrated the greatest gains postoperatively. Fifteen of 17 patients with preoperative aER < 0° were evaluated at 2 years; of these, 14 had aER ≥0° at 2 years with a mean improvement of 42°. Improvements in passive motions were also observed (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Active and passive shoulder range of motion over time. (A) Forward flexion, (B) abduction, (C) external rotation, and (D) internal rotation to the back (2 = thigh, 4 = buttock, 6 = sacrum, 8 = T12 spinous process, 10 = T7 spinous process).

Table 3.

Outcomes at Baseline, 2-Year Postoperative, and Change From Baseline.

	Preoperative	2-YearFollow-up	Mean Difference	LOS
aFF	73° ± 38°	127° ± 29°	53° ± 44°	<.001
aAB	65° ± 30°	109° ± 27°	44° ± 35°	<.001
aER	24° ± 21°	37° ± 18°	13° ± 22°	<.001
aIR	5.5 ± 2.2	5.9 ± 2.3	0.5 ± 2.8	.032
VAS pain	6.3 ± 2.6	1.4 ± 2.0	−4.8 ± 3.0	<.001
ASES	45± 19	86 ± 16	40 ± 24	<.001
SST	3.2 ± 2.2	8.5 ± 3.0	5.3 ± 3.3	<.001

Abbreviations: LOS, length of stay; SD, standard deviation; VAS, visual analog scale.

Values listed represent mean ± SD.

Patient reported outcome measures also improved. Mean SST improved from 3.2 ± 2.2 (out of 12), preoperatively, to 5.8 ± 3.1 at 3 months, 7.5 ± 3.0 at 6 months, 8.0 ± 3.1 at 1 years, and 8.5 ± 2.9 at 2 years (P < .0001 for all time points compared with preoperative) (Figure 2). Mean ASES score improved from 45 ± 19, preoperatively, to 73 ± 20 at 3 months, 80 ± 18 at 6 months, 83 ± 17 at 1 year, and 86 ± 16 at 2-year follow-up (P < .0001 for all time points; Figure 3). In addition, mean 10-point VAS pain scores declined from 6.3 ± 2.6, preoperatively, to 1.4 ± 2.0 at 2-year follow-up (Figure 4). These findings are summarized in Table 3.

Figure 2.

SST responses over time. SST, Simple Shoulder Test.

Figure 3.

ASES scores over time. ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.

Figure 4.

Pain levels (represented as a 10-point VAS) over time. VAS, visual analog scale.

Improvements in active range of motion and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) between preoperative and 2-year follow-up, stratified by diagnosis, are summarized in Table 4. With the numbers available, active internal rotation did not improve significantly when stratified by diagnosis. In addition, less consistent improvements were observed for patients undergoing RSA for a failed arthroplasty. For example, aER did not improve in these patients. In contrast, the improvement in aFF (63° ± 28°) for patients undergoing RSA for failed arthroplasty was greater than that observed for cuff tear arthropathy (56° ± 43°) or rotator cuff tear with instability or escape (43° ± 49°).

Table 4.

Clinical Outcomes, Stratified by Diagnosis.

	Preoperative	2-Year Follow-up	Mean Difference	P
aFF (°)
Cuff tear arthropathy	72 ± 35	129 ± 28	56 ± 43	<.001
Rotator cuff tear without arthritis	79 ± 46	122 ± 32	43 ± 49	<.001
Revision shoulder arthroplasty	62 ± 30	125 ± 23	63 ± 28	<.001
aAB (°)
Cuff tear arthropathy	65 ± 27	110 ± 25	45 ±33	<.001
Rotator cuff tear without arthritis	70 ± 38	109 ± 32	39 ± 42	<.001
Revision shoulder arthroplasty	55 ± 17	101 ± 20	47 ± 26	<.001
aER (°)
Cuff tear arthropathy	21 ± 20	38 ± 18	17 ± 21	<.001
Rotator cuff tear without arthritis	28 ± 21	36 ± 17	8 ± 21	.01
Revision shoulder arthroplasty	32 ± 25	31 ± 20	−1 ± 28	.9
aIR
Cuff tear arthropathy	5.5 ± 2.3	6.0 ± 2.3	0.5 ±3.0	.08
Rotator cuff tear without arthritis	5.7 ± 1.9	6.1 ± 2.2	0.4 ± 2.4	.22
Revision shoulder arthroplasty	4.6 ± 2.0	4.9 ± 2.7	0.3 ± 2.6	.71
VAS pain
Cuff tear arthropathy	6.2 ± 2.6	1.1 ± 1.5	5.1 ± 3.0	<.001
Rotator cuff tear without arthritis	6.7 ± 2.6	1.7 ± 2.2	5.0 ± 3.1	<.001
Revision shoulder arthroplasty	5.6 ± 2.2	2.8 ± 2.9	2.8 ± 2.9	.001
ASES score
Cuff tear arthropathy	46 ± 19.72	88 ± 13.17	42 ± 22	<.001
Rotator cuff tear without arthritis	42 ± 17.34	83 ± 17.97	42 ± 27	<.001
Revision shoulder arthroplasty	51 ± 18.54	74 ± 23.17	23 ± 23	.001
SST score
Cuff tear arthropathy	3.1 ± 2.2	8.8 ± 2.7	5.7 ± 3.0	<.001
Rotator cuff tear without arthritis	3.4 ± 2.4	8.3 ± 3.2	4.8 ± 3.9	<.001
Revision shoulder arthroplasty	3.3 ± 2.2	6.8 ± 3.7	3.5 ± 3.5	.001

Abbreviations: aAB, active abduction; aER, active external rotation; aFF, active forward flexion; aIR, active internal rotation; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; SST, simple shoulder test; VAS, visual analog scale.

Statistically significant improvements in active range of motion and self-assessed outcome scores were also observed from one time point to the next, through the 1-year follow-up. These improvements are depicted in Table 5 for aFF, aAB, aER, aIR, as well SST, ASES scores, and VAS pain scores.

Table 5.

Level of Significance for Improvements Between Consecutive Time Points in Active Range of Motion and Self-assessed Outcomes Scores.

	3 Months to Preoperative	6 Months to 3 Months	12 Months to 6 Months	2 Years to 12 Months
aFF	P < .0001	P < .0001	P < .0001	NS
aAB	P < .0001	P < .0001	P = .0014	P = .013
aER	P < .0001	P = .0003	P < .0001	NS
aIR	(Decline)	P < .0001	P < .0163	NS
ASES	P < .0001	P < .0001	P = .0017	NS
SST	P < .0001	NS	NS	NS
VAS pain	P < .0001	P = .0001	NS	NS

Abbreviations: aAB, active abduction; aER, active external rotation; aFF, active forward flexion; aIR, active internal rotation; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons; NS, not significant; SST, simple shoulder test; VAS, visual analog scale.

All complications arising following the 245 RSAs were recorded. These included 16 scapular fractures (6.5%), including 9 acromial stress fractures (3.7%) and 7 scapular spine or body stress fractures (2.9%), 7 dislocations (2.9%), 1 component dissociation, and 2 prosthetic joint infections. Twelve complications led to component revision during the first 2 years (4.9%). Two patients required revision surgery for infection at 7 months and 2 years postoperatively. Five patients underwent revision for postoperative instability after RSA including 1 patient requiring 3 revisions. One patient experienced humeral socket dissociation requiring revision to replace the socket, and 2 patients underwent component revision for sequelae of a scapular spine fracture but without internal fixation of the scapula. The distribution of complications is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6.

Complications (and Incidence) Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Complication	Totals at 2 Years
Acromial fracture	9 (3.7%)
Scapular spine fracture	7 (2.9%)
Dislocation	7 (2.9%)
Dissociation	1 (0.4%)
Infection	2 (0.8%)
Revisions	12 (4.9%)

Standardized radiographs, including Grashey view, were available for 165 of 173 patients at 2-year follow-up; 7 sets were inadequate for evaluation of scapular notching and 1 set could not be located. Scapular notching was observed in 22 of 165 shoulders (13.3%) at 24 months, and of these, 17 shoulders had grade 1 notching, 4 shoulders had grade 2 notching, and 1 shoulder had grade 3 notching.

Discussion

Modern reverse shoulder arthoplasty was pioneered by Grammont,^11,12 who designed an implant characterized by a medial center of rotation to minimize shear forces at the interface between baseplate and glenoid, and a 150° humeral angle of inclination that lengthens the deltoid to improve its contribution to active motion.¹³ Early results in patients with cuff tear arthropathy demonstrated improvements in active forward elevation following RSA employing a Grammont-type implant.^10,14–17 However, concerns were raised regarding the high incidence of scapular notching, exceeding 60% in some early series,^15,17 and its implications on long-term functional outcome. In addition, multiple studies have demonstrated that ER does not recover predictably when a Grammont-type implant is used.^13,17,18

In 2005, Frankle and colleagues² reported on RSA performed using a lateralized glenosphere and a humeral implant with an inclination angle of 135°, with the aim of better replicating more normal anatomy and kinematics and avoiding impingement of the humeral component with the inferior glenoid. Gains in aFF were comparable to those reported for Grammont-type implants but there was as 11% incidence of baseplate failure.² Following important changes in implant design (introduction of 5.0 mm peripheral locking screws and HA coating) and surgical technique (avoidance of superior tilt), Frankle and colleagues reported excellent functional gains without baseplate failures.¹ They have documented substantial gains in aER^1,2,4,7,8 and have also documented a very low incidence of scapular notching. Several early studies demonstrated a 0% incidence of scapular notching,^1,2,4–6 although 2 more recent studies demonstrated scapular notching rates of 9%^4–6 and 13.5%.⁷ Finally, previous studies have also shown more modest clinical improvements and higher complication rates when reverse RSA is performed for failed arthroplasty.^5,6,8

In recent years, there have been several studies by individual nondesign surgeons on the outcomes of RSA using an implant with a lateralized glenosphere. However, these have consisted mostly of retrospective reports, studies comparing RSA and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, or studies of surgical technique or complications.

Levy and Blum reported on the first 40 consecutive patients receiving the RSP prosthesis at a mean 18-month follow-up.¹⁹ Complications were identified in 10 patients (25%), but revision surgery was needed in only 2 patients (5%).¹⁹ However, initial and final clinical and self-assessed outcomes were not provided. Levy and colleagues have also published recent studies comparing functional internal rotation and speed of recovery following anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using the RSP prosthesis, but long-term outcomes were not a focus of their studies.^20,21 In a study of RSA using the RSP prosthesis, Clark and colleagues found that subscapularis repair did not influence postoperative range of motion;²² at 12-month follow-up, aFF improved 56° in the nonrepair group and 54° in the repair group,²² which are improvements comparable to those reported here.

Hasan and colleagues reported on the outcomes and effect of experience following the first 60 consecutive reverse shoulder arthroplasties with a lateralized glenosphere.²³ At minimum 2-year follow-up mean improvements in aFF, aAB, and aER were 65°, 54°, and 22°, respectively, and mean aIR improved from the buttock to the L3 spinous process (P < .0001 for all motions). Mean SST improved from 1.8 to 6.9 and mean final ASES score was 72,²³ which represents comparable gains in active range of motion and outcome scores to those reported here and previously by the design team. The gains in range of motion increased and the incidence of complications declined with experience.

In contrast to previous studies, this multi-center study confirms the effectiveness of RSA in improving shoulder mobility and self-assessed shoulder function in a wide range of patients. The ΔFF of 57° and ΔAB of 46° observed in this study between preoperative and 2-year follow-up are comparable to previously reported results for RSA using implants with both medialized and lateralized glenospheres.^1,15,17 Improvements in aER were also observed in this study, and this has been related to the lateralized glenosphere design.^24,25 The ΔER of 17° observed for patients with cuff tear arthropathy is comparable^1,7 to that reported by the design team, but it is greater than that reported in early studies of Grammont-type prostheses employing a medialized glenosphere.^14,17 Moreover, the ΔER for patients with less than 0° aER preoperatively was 42°. Tensioning of the residual rotator cuff and posterior deltoid may help explain the improvement in aER.

As demonstrated in Table 5, our study also supports the observation by Levy and colleagues²⁰ that patients experience false-plateaus in active range of motion following RSA because statistically significant incremental gains in active range of motion were observed for up to 1 year postoperatively.

This study also documented substantial improvements in PROMs, irrespective of preoperative diagnosis. The improvements of 42 points in ASES score for both patients with cuff tear arthropathy and rotator cuff tear with instability or escape are comparable to those reported by the design team, and the mean 2-year ASES score of 88 for patients with cuff tear arthropathy is among the highest reported for RSA. In addition, the ΔSST of 5.7 and 4.8 for patients with cuff tear arthropathy and rotator cuff tear with instability or escape, respectively, are also comparable to previous reports. In contrast, the mean improvements in ASES and SST were 23 points and 3.5 for patients undergoing RSA for a failed shoulder arthroplasty.

Collectively, the mean improvements in aFF, aAB, and aER observed at 2 years exceeded previously reported minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of 12° ± 4°, 7° ± 4° and 3° ± 2°, respectively,²⁶ for all preoperative diagnoses, with the exception of aER for patients undergoing RSA for a failed prosthesis. In addition, the improvements in this study for VAS-pain, ASES, and SST at 2 years also exceed previously published MCIDs^26,27 of 1.4–1.6, 14–21, and 1.5–2.4, respectively, for all preoperative diagnoses.

This study also demonstrates that patients undergoing RSA for a failed prosthesis have inferior outcomes compared to the rest of study group. In particular, for RSA performed as a revision, we observed statistically significant improvements in aFF and aAB but no improvement in aER or aIR, with the limited numbers available. This echoes previous reports demonstrating more limited improvements when RSA is performed for revision of a failed total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplaty.^5,6,8 Collectively, this information can help counsel patients preoperatively.

The complication rate at 2-year follow-up is substantially lower than those published in early reports on RSA,²⁸ but is higher than the 6.4% reported by the design team¹ for patients with cuff tear arthropathy. In addition, the 4.9% revision rate at 2 years is only slightly lower than the 6% reported by the design team at up to 12-year follow-up.²⁹ The rates of specific complications reported here reconcile with other previous studies: for example, the dislocation rate is comparable to that reported recently^23,30,31 and the 1.6% rate of deep infection at 2 years is comparable to the 4% and 0.9% reported for 2 consecutive large patient series by Walch and colleagues³¹ and the 0% and 3% reported by Nowinski and colleagues³² for implants inserted with and without antibiotics-impregnated cement.

We observed a 6.5% incidence of scapular fracture, including both acromion and scapular spine fractures. This is lower than the 10.2% reported by Levy and colleagues³³ using the same implant system and higher than the 3.1% incidence reported recently by Frankle and colleagues.³⁴ Our observed incidence is comparable to the 5.5% incidence previously reported by Crosby and colleagues³⁵ and the 4.9% incidence reported by Hamid and colleagues³⁶ for Grammont-style prostheses. More recently, Neyton and colleagues reported a 1.3% incidence of scapular fracture a mean 97 months following RSA, also using a Grammont-style prosthesis.³⁷ However, 46% of patients were unavailable for follow-up, so the actual incidence may be higher. A recent report has demonstrated that scapular fractures can occur well beyond 2 years postoperatively, so our observed incidence may increase over time.³⁴ Recent studies^33,38,39 have explored various patient, surgery, and implant factors to determine predictors of postoperative scapular fracture, but only osteoporosis has emerged as a risk factor.³³ Still, the nearly 10-fold variability in the published incidence of scapular fractures suggests that factors such as implant design, implant positioning, and soft tissue management play a role.

Finally, our 13.3% incidence of scapular notching is comparable to the 0% to 13.5% incidence observed in multiple reports by the design team and similar to the 11% observed by Hasan and colleagues.²³ A recent study has suggested that larger more lateralized glenospheres and placement of the humeral component to replicate native retroversion may help minimize scapular notching.⁴⁰

Limitations

This study has several limitations that warrant mention. Only 71% of the 245 patients enrolled in this study were available for 2-year follow-up. This percentage is lower than that for similar RSA studies that report the number of eligible or enrolled patients. Cuff and colleagues¹ noted that 96 of 114 RSAs (84.2%) performed by a single surgeon for rotator cuff deficiency were available for study at 2-year follow-up. Wall and colleagues⁴¹ reported on 240 RSAs performed by 2 surgeons in patients with a mean age of 72.7 years. At mean follow-up of 39 months, 191 (79.6%) were available for study. In our study, nearly one half of the 29% (72 of 245) lost to follow-up were either deceased from causes unrelated to the surgery (23 of 245) or had undergone component revision (12 of 245) at 2-year follow-up. This left 37 of 245 (15.1%) patients who could not be reached despite multiple attempts, chose not to follow-up, or elected to withdraw from the study.

In addition, all participating surgeons are fellowship-trained and experienced in RSA using an implant with a lateralized glenosphere. As such, the results may not generalize to low volume RSA surgeons who are unfamiliar with this prosthesis. In addition, we report here on minimum 2-year follow-up, but as with all arthroplasty studies, longer follow-up will be essential to establishing long-term durability of this procedure and its outcomes. Study strengths include prospective and standardized data collection and its balanced multi-center nature, with 6 sites contributing greater than 30 patients.

Conclusion

RSA with a lateralized glenosphere improves active shoulder motion and self-assessed function in carefully selected patients with cuff tear arthropathy and/or pseudoparalysis, or a failed prosthetic shoulder arthroplasty. The overall complication rate is not dramatically different from that reported by the design team, although acromion and scapular spine fractures warrant additional analysis to determine causative factors and preventive strategies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Several of the authors are consultants for DJO Global.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by DJO Global, Inc.

References

Cuff

Pupello

Virani

et al . Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90:1244–1251.

Frankle

Siegal

Pupello

et al . The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(8):1697–1705.

Frankle

Levy

Pupello

et al . The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(Suppl 1 Pt 2):178–190.

Holcomb

Hebert

Mighell

et al . Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010; 19(7):1076–1084.

Levy

Virani

Pupello

et al . Use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(2):189–195.

Levy

Frankle

Mighell

et al . The use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(2):292–300.

Mulieri

Dunning

Klein

et al . Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tear without glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92:2544–2556.

Walker

Willis

Brooks

et al . The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21(4):514–522.

Nicholson

Strauss

Sherman

SL.

Scapular notching: recognition and strategies to minimize clinical impact.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(9):2521–2530.

10.

Sirveaux

Favard

Oudet

et al . Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86(3):388–395.

11.

Baulot

Chabernaud

Grammont

PM.

Results of Grammont’s inverted prosthesis in omarthritis associated with major cuff destruction. Apropos of 16 cases.

Acta Orthop Belg. 1995; 61 Suppl 1:112–119.

12.

Grammont

Baulot

Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture.

Orthopedics. 1993; 16(1):65–68.

13.

Boileau

Watkinson

Hatzidakis

et al . Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14(1 Suppl S):147S–161S.

14.

Boileau

Watkinson

Hatzidakis

et al . Neer Award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15:527–540.

15.

Guery

Favard

Sirveaux

et al . Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship analysis of eighty replacements followed for five to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88:1742–1747.

16.

Vanhove

Beugnies

Grammont’s reverse shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff arthropathy. A retrospective study of 32 cases.

Acta Orthop Belg. 2004; 70(3):219–225.

17.

Werner

Steinmann

Gilbart

et al . Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87:1476–1486.

18.

Simovitch

Helmy

Zumstein

et al . Impact of fatty infiltration of the teresminor muscle on the outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89:934–939.

19.

Levy

Blum

SM.

Reverse shoulder replacement: initial complication rate after fellowship experience.

Curr Orthop Practice. 2011; 22(3):257–261.

20.

Levy

Everding

Gil

Jr et al . Speed of recovery after shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23:1872–1881.

21.

Triplet

Everding

Levy

et al . Functional internal rotation after shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24(6):867–874.

22.

Clark

Ritchie

Song

et al . Complication rates, dislocation, pain, and postoperative range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with and without repair of the subscapularis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21(1):36–41.

23.

Hasan

Gordon

Ramsey

et al . Reverse shoulder arthroplasty using an implant with a lateral center of rotation: outcomes, complications, and the influence of experience. Am J Orthop. 2014; 43:E194–E199.

24.

Berglund

Rosas

Triplet

Kurowicki

Horn

Levy

JC.

Restoration of external rotation following reverse shoulder arthroplasty without latissimus dorsi transfer. JB JS Open Access. 2018; 3(2):e0054.

25.

Virani

Cabezas

Gutiérrez

Santoni

Otto

Frankle

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty components and surgical techniques that restore glenohumeral motion.

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22(2):179–187.

26.

Simovitch

Flurin

Wright

et al . Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018; 27(2):298–305.

27.

Tashjian

Hung

Keener

et al . Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26(1):144–148.

28.

Farshad

Gerber

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-from the most to the least common complication.

Int Orthop. 2010; 34(8):1075–1082.

29.

Stephens

Simon

Clark

et al . Revision for a failed reverse: a 12-year review of a lateralized implant. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25(5):e115–e124.

30.

Chalmers

Rahman

Romeo

et al . Early dislocation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(5):737–744.

31.

Walch

Bacle

Lädermann

et al . Do the indications, results, and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty change with surgeon’s experience? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21(11):1470–1477.

32.

Nowinski

Gillespie

Shishani

et al . Antibiotic-loaded bone cement reduces deep infection rates for primary reveres total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective, cohort study of 501 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21(3):324–328.

33.

Levy

Anderson

Samson

Classification of postoperative acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(15):e104.

34.

Teusink

Otto

Cottrell

et al . What is the effect of postoperative scapular fracture on outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23:782–790.

35.

Crosby

Hamilton

Twiss

Scapula fractures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: classification and treatment.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469:2544–2549.

36.

Hamid

Connor

Fleischi

et al . Acromial fracture after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2011; 40(7):E125–E129.

37.

Neyton

Erickson

Ascione

Bugelli

Lunini

Walch

Grammont Award 2018: scapular fractures in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (Grammont style): prevalence, functional, and radiographic results with minimum 5-year follow-up.

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(2):260–267.

38.

Otto

Virani

Levy

et al . Scapular fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: evaluation of risk factors and the reliability of a proposed classification. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013; 22(11):1514–1521.

39.

Dubrow

Streit

Muh

et al . Acromial stress fractures: correlation with acromioclavicular osteoarthritis and acromiohumeral distance. Orthopedics. 2014; 37(12):e1074–e1079.

40.

Berhouet

Garaud

Favard

Evaluation of the role of glenosphere design and humeral component retroversion in avoiding scapular notching during reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(2):151–158.

41.

Wall

Nové-Josserand

O’Connor

Edwards

Walch

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology

. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(7):1476–1485.

Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis With a Lateralized Glenosphere: Early Results of a Prospective Multicenter Study Stratified by Diagnosis

Abstract

Background

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Statistical Analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References