Humeral Component Version Has No Effect on Outcomes Following Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the ideal humeral component version to optimize humeral rotation and patient outcomes in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). METHODS: Patients undergoing primary rTSA for rotator cuff tear arthropathy, a massive rotator cuff tear, or primary osteoarthritis with a rotator cuff tear were randomized to placement of the humeral component in neutral version or 30° of retroversion. Shoulder active range of motion and strength and visual analog scale (VAS) pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global 10 (PROMIS-10) scores were collected up to 2 years postoperatively. The goal of the study was to determine whether humeral external rotation and internal rotation are affected by humeral component version following rTSA at 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were included in the analysis. The median follow-up was 26 months for the neutral and 27 months for the 30° retroversion group. No differences between the groups were observed with respect to the primary diagnosis, sex, age, body mass index, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class. The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of improvement at 2 years in active shoulder abduction (p = 0.969), forward elevation (p = 1.000), internal rotation measured as the highest spinal level reached (p = 1.000), internal rotation with the arm abducted 90° (p = 0.451), external rotation (p = 0.362), or muscle strength in forward elevation (p = 1.000), abduction (p = 1.000), external rotation (p = 0.617), or internal rotation (p = 1.000). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in terms of improvement in postoperative ASES (p = 1.000), PROMIS-10 physical (p = 1.000), or VAS pain scores (p = 0.718) at the time of final follow-up. In the neutral version group, 1 patient underwent revision for instability and 1 for stiffness. One acromial stress fracture occurred in the 30° humeral retroversion group. Scapular notching was observed in 7 (21.2%) of the patients in neutral version group and 5 (15.2%) of the patients in the 30° retroversion group (p = 0.750). CONCLUSIONS: Securing the humeral component at neutral version or 30° of retroversion in rTSA resulted in similar active shoulder external rotation, internal rotation, forward elevation, abduction, and strength measurements, complication rates, and VAS pain, PROMIS-10 physical, and ASES scores at 2 years postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Previous Rotator Cuff Repair Is Associated With Inferior Clinical Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although recent evidence suggests that any prior shoulder surgery may cause inferior shoulder arthroplasty outcomes, there is no consensus on whether previous rotator cuff repair (RCR) is associated with inferior outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare outcomes in patients who underwent RTSA with and without previous RCR. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients with prior RCR and those without previous shoulder surgery (control) who underwent RTSA for cuff tear arthropathy or irreparable cuff tear were retrospectively identified from a prospective database. Exclusion criteria included revision arthroplasty, fractures, rheumatoid arthritis, dislocations, infection, prior non-RCR procedures, less than 12 months of follow-up, and latissimus dorsi tendon transfer. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, ASES Activities of Daily Living (ADL) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and range of motion (ROM) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Patients with previous RCR (n = 83 shoulders) were younger (mean ± SD, 67 ± 10 vs 72 ± 8 years; P < .001) and more likely to be male (46% vs 32%, P = .033) than controls (n = 189 shoulders). No differences were found in follow-up duration (25 ± 13 vs 26 ± 13 months, P = .734), body mass index, or any preoperative outcome variable or ROM measure. At final follow-up, patients with previous RCR had significantly lower ASES (76.5 [95% CI, 71.2-81.7] vs 85.0 [82.6-87.5], P = .015), lower SSV (76 [72-81] vs 86 [83-88], P < .001), worse pain (2.0 [1.4-2.6] vs 0.9 [0.6-1.1], P < .001), and less improvement in the ASES, ASES ADL, VAS, SSV, and forward elevation measures than controls. Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated that previous RCR was significantly associated with lower postoperative ASES score (B = -9.5, P < .001), lower ASES improvement (B = -7.9, P = .012), worse postoperative pain (B = 0.9, P = .001), worse improvement in pain (B = -1.0, P = .011), lower postoperative SSV (B = -9.2, P < .001), lower SSV improvement (B = -11.1, P = .003), and lower forward elevation ROM improvement (B = -12.7, P = .008). CONCLUSION: Patients with previous RCR attempts may experience fewer short-term gains in functional and subjective outcome scores after RTSA compared with patients with no history of shoulder surgery who undergo RTSA. However, the differences between groups were small and below the minimal clinically important differences for the outcome measures analyzed.