Anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for management of type B2 and B3 glenoids: a matched-cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with posterior glenoid erosion remains challenging to address for shoulder surgeons. Whereas anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has historically been the treatment of choice, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) offers an alternative option. Limited evidence exists directly comparing these 2 treatments in a similar patient population. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with GHOA and Walch type B2 and B3 glenoid morphologies treated with TSA vs. RSA.

METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with GHOA who were treated with primary shoulder arthroplasty and had a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Preoperative computed tomography was used to determine type B2 and B3 glenoid morphology as described by the modified Walch classification. Three-dimensional perioperative planning software was used to characterize glenoid retroversion and humeral subluxation. Patients were categorized based on type of arthroplasty (TSA or RSA) and were matched 1:1 by sex, Walch classification, and age. Patient-reported outcome measures, active range of motion, presence and severity of glenoid loosening, and complications were compared. The percentage of patients who reached previously established clinically significant thresholds of the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was also comparatively assessed.

RESULTS: In total, 202 patients (101 per group) with GHOA and type B2 or B3 glenoids were included in the 1:1 matched analysis. The mean length of follow-up (± standard deviation) was 39 ± 18.7 months. The cohorts were well matched, with no differences in sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, preoperative glenoid morphology (Walch classification), glenoid retroversion, or posterior subluxation (P > .05). RSA was associated with a lower postoperative visual analog scale pain score (0.5 in RSA group vs. 1.2 in TSA group, P = .036); however, no other no other significant differences in patient-reported significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures were found. Most patients in both groups (95.0% in TSA group vs. 98.0% in RSA group, P = .436) reached the minimal clinically important difference, and 82% of TSA patients and 90% of RSA patients reached the substantial clinical benefit value (P = .292). No significant differences in the overall complication rate (P = .781) and active range of motion were found, with the exception of internal rotation (scored on a numeric scale) being worse in the RSA group (2.7 preoperatively and 5.2 postoperatively in RSA group vs. 3.9 and 6.5, respectively, in TSA group; P < .001). Baseplate loosening occurred in 2 RSA cases, and 29 TSA cases had glenoid radiolucencies (P < .001), with 3 grossly loose glenoid components.

CONCLUSION: Primary RSA results in short-term outcomes largely comparable to those of TSA in patients with Walch type B2 or B3 glenoid morphology. Both TSA and RSA provide substantial clinical benefit to patients with significant posterior glenoid wear.