Total shoulder arthroplasty and shoulder hemiarthroplasty have been the traditional method for treating a variety of shoulder conditions, including arthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, and some fracture types. However, these procedures did not provide consistently good results for patients with torn rotator cuffs. The development of the reverse prosthesis by Grammont in the late 20th century revolutionized the treatment of the rotator-cuff-deficient shoulder with arthritis. The main indication for the reverse prosthesis remains the patient with cuff tear arthropathy who has pain and loss of motion. Because the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty produced such good results in these patients, the indications for the reverse prosthesis have expanded to include other shoulder conditions that have previously been difficult to treat successfully and predictably. This review discusses and critically reviews these newer indications for the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
*Arthroplasty, Replacement ; Humans ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Rotator Cuff/*surgery ; Shoulder Fractures/diagnosis/physiopathology/*surgery ; Shoulder Joint/*surgery

Background: Our purpose was to evaluate a custom reverse total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency, emphasizing the challenges with this approach, including short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications. Methods: This was a single-institution, retrospective series of 29 patients between January 2017 and December 2022 for whom a custom glenoid component was created for extensive glenoid bone loss. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at intervals for up to 5 years. All received preoperative physical examinations, plain radiographs, and computed tomography (CT). Intra- and postoperative complications are reported. Results: Of 29 patients, delays resulted in only undergoing surgery, and in three of those, the implant did not match the glenoid. For those three, the time from CT scan to implantation averaged 7.6 months (range, 6.1–10.7 months), compared with 5.5 months (range, 2–8.6 months) for those whose implants fit. In patients with at least 2-year follow-up (n=9), no failures occurred. Significant improvements were observed in all patient-reported outcome measures in those nine patients (American Shoulder and Elbow Score, P<0.01; Simple Shoulder Test, P=0.02; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, P<0.01; Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index, P<0.01). Range of motion improved for forward flexion and abduction (P=0.03 for both) and internal rotation up the back (P=0.02). Pain and satisfaction also improved (P<0.01 for both). Conclusions Prolonged time (>6 months) from CT scan to device implantation resulted in bone loss that rendered the implants unusable. Satisfactory short-term radiographic and clinical follow-up can be achieved with a well-fitting device.Level of evidence: III.