Reversing chronic pseudoparesis secondary to massive, irreparable rotator cuff tear: superior capsular reconstruction vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Rajiv P Reddy; Zachary J Herman; Matthew Como; Michael G James; Fritz W Steuer; Samuel Adida; Anya Singh-Varma; Ehab M Nazzal; Confidence Njoku-Austin; Amin Karimi; Albert Lin

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2023.10.026

Reversing chronic pseudoparesis secondary to massive, irreparable rotator cuff tear: superior capsular reconstruction vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Dec 15:S1058-2746(23)00854-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.10.026. Online ahead of print.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
² Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: lina2@upmc.edu.

PMID: 38104716
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.10.026

Abstract

Introduction: Recent studies have defined pseudoparesis as limited active forward elevation between 45° and 90° and maintained passive range of motion (ROM) in the setting of a massive rotator cuff tear (RCT). Although pseudoparesis can be reliably reversed with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) or superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), the optimal treatment for this indication remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of RSA to SCR in patients with pseudoparesis secondary to massive, irreparable RCT (miRCT).

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients aged 40-70 years with pseudoparesis secondary to miRCT who were treated with either RSA or SCR by a single fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon from 2016 to 2021 with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Multivariate linear regression modeling was used to compare active ROM, visual analog pain scale (VAS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score between RSA and SCR while controlling for confounding variables.

Results: Twenty-seven patients were included in the RSA cohort and 23 patients were included in the SCR cohort with similar mean follow-up times (26.2 ± 21.1 vs. 21.9 ± 14.7 months, respectively). The patients in the RSA group were significantly older than those in the SCR group (65.2 ± 4.4 vs. 54.2 ± 7.8 years, P < .001) and had more severe arthritis (1.8 ± 0.9 vs. 1.2 ± 0.5 Samilson-Prieto, P = .019). The pseudoparesis reversal rate among the RSA and SCR cohorts was 96.3% and 91.3%, respectively. On univariate analysis, the RSA cohort demonstrated significantly greater mean improvement in active FF (89° ± 26° vs. 73° ± 30° change, P = .048), greater postoperative SSV (91 ± 8% vs. 69 ± 25%, P < .001), lower postoperative VAS pain scores (0.6 ± 1.2 vs. 2.2 ± 2.9, P = .020), and less postoperative internal rotation (IR; 4.6° ± 1.6° vs. 6.9° ± 1.8°, P = .004) compared with SCR. On multivariate analysis controlling for age and osteoarthritis, RSA remained a significant predictor of greater SSV (β = 21.5, P = .021) and lower VAS scores (β = -1.4, P = .037), whereas SCR was predictive of greater IR ROM (β = 3.0, P = .043).

Conclusion: Although both RSA and SCR effectively reverse pseudoparesis, patients with RSA have higher SSV and lower pain scores but less IR after controlling for age and osteoarthritis. The results of this study may inform surgical decision making for patients who are suitable candidates for either procedure.

Keywords: Pseudoparesis; RSA; SCR; arthroplasty; massive rotator cuff tear; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; rotator cuff; superior capsular reconstruction.