Comparative clinical and radiologic evaluation between patients undergoing standard reversed shoulder arthroplasty or bony increased offset
- Author:
Tiago AMORIM-BARBOSA
1
;
Ana RIBAU
;
Hélder FONTE
;
Luís Henrique BARROS
;
Rui CLARO
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow 2023;26(1):3-9
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Modifications of the medialized design of Grammont-type reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using a bony increased offset (BIO-RSA) has shown better clinical results and fewer complications. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical results, complications, and radiological outcomes between patients undergoing standard RSA and BIO-RSA.
Methods:A retrospective review was performed of 42 RSA procedures (22 standard RSA and 20 BIO-RSA). With a minimum of one year of follow-up, range of motion (ROM), Constant shoulder score (CSS), visual analog scale (VAS), and subjective shoulder score (SSS) were compared. Radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scan were examined for scapular notching, glenoid and humeral fixation, and graft healing.
Results:At a mean follow-up of 27.6 months (range, 12–48 months), a significant difference was found for active-internal rotation (P=0.038) and for passive-external rotation (P=0.013), with better results in BIO-RSA. No other differences were found in ROM, CSS (P=0.884), VAS score, and SSS. Graft healing and viability were verified in all patients with CT scan (n=34). The notching rate was 28% in the standard RSA group and 33% in the BIO-RSA group, but the standard RSA had more severe notching (grade 2) than BIO-RSA (P=0.039). No other significative differences were found in glenoid and humeral fixation.
Conclusions:Bone-graft lateralization is associated with better internal and external rotation and with less severe scapular notching compared to the standard RSA. Integration of the bone graft occurs effectively, with no relevant changes observed on radiographic evaluation.Level of evidence: Level III; Retrospective cohort design treatment study
