Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 5, 2025
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Value Analysis of Anatomic and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis with an Intact Rotator
Teja S Polisetty1, Ryan Colley, Jonathan C Levy
1Holy Cross Orthopedic Institute, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Background:
While anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has historically been considered the ideal treatment for end-stage glenohumeral osteoarthritis, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has recently gained popularity. With substantial differences in implant design and cost between TSA and RSA, further investigation of outcomes and value is needed to support recent trends. The purpose of this study was to use the average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER and ICER) and the procedure value index (PVI) to examine differences in outcomes and value between TSA and RSA for treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective matched-cohort study of patients treated with primary shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Outcome measures analyzed included the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and overall satisfaction. Patients treated with TSA were matched 4:1 to those treated with RSA based on sex, age, and preoperative SST score. Value differences between TSA and RSA were calculated. Radiographs were analyzed for preoperative glenoid classification and postoperative radiolucent lines and gross loosening.
Results:
Two hundred and fifty-two TSA-treated patients were matched to 63 RSA-treated patients with no significant differences in sex, age, or preoperative SST score. Total hospitalization costs, charges, and reimbursements along with outcome improvements in units of minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and patient satisfaction did not differ between the groups. For RSA, the implant cost was significantly higher than that for TSA, but the operating room, anesthesia, and cement costs were lower. The TSA group had a 3.2% rate of gross glenoid loosening and a 2.4% revision rate. There was no loosening or revision in the RSA group. None of the value analytics differed between groups even after inclusion of the outcomes and costs of early TSA revisions.
Conclusions:
TSA and RSA demonstrated similar outcomes and value when used to manage glenohumeral osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff.
Level Of Evidence:
Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
