Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis with restricted preoperative forward elevation demonstrates similar outcomes but faster range of motion recovery compared to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty

Abstract

Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has been increasingly utilized for a variety of shoulder pathologies that are difficult to treat with anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Few studies have compared the outcomes of TSA vs. RSA in patients with cuff intact glenohumeral osteoarthritis and poor preoperative forward elevation. This study aimed to determine whether there is a difference in functional outcomes and postoperative range of motion (ROM) between TSA and RSA in these patients.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 116 patients who underwent RSA or TSA between 2013 and 2022 for the treatment of rotator cuff intact primary osteoarthritis with restricted preoperative forward flexion (FF) and a minimum 1-year follow-up. Each arthroplasty group was divided into 2 subgroups: patients with preoperative FF between 91° and 120° or FF lower than or equal to 90°. Patients' clinical outcomes, including active ROM, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale for pain, and subjective shoulder value were collected. Clinical and radiographic complications were evaluated.

Results: There was no significant difference between RSA and TSA in terms of sex (58.3% male vs. 62.2% male, P = .692), or follow-up duration (20.1 months vs. 17.7 months, P = .230). However, the RSA cohort was significantly older (72.0 ± 8.2 vs. 65.4 ± 10.6, P = .012) and weaker in FF and (ER) before surgery (P < .001). There was no difference between RSA (57 patients) and TSA (59 patients) in visual analog scale pain score (1.2 ± 2.3 vs. 1.3 ± 2.3, P = .925), subjective shoulder value score (90 ± 15 vs. 90 ± 15, P = .859), or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (78.4 ± 20.5 vs. 82.1 ± 23.2, P = .476). Postoperative active ROM was statistically similar between RSA and TSA cohorts in FF (145 ± 26 vs. 146 ± 23, P = .728) and ER (39 ± 15 vs. 41 ± 15, P = .584). However, internal rotation was lower in the RSA cohort (P < .001). This was also true in each subgroup. RSA led to faster postoperative FF and ER achievement at 3 months (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates between cohorts.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis who have a structurally intact rotator cuff but limited preoperative forward elevation can achieve predictable clinical improvement in pain, ROM, and function after either TSA or RSA. Reverse arthroplasty may be a reliable treatment option in patients at risk for developing rotator cuff failure.

Keywords: Shoulder arthroplasty; complication; functional outcome; postoperative ROM; restricted forward elevation; reverse shoulder arthroplasty.