Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Indication matters: effect of indication on clinical outcome following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-a
Edward J Testa1, Evan Glass2, Andrew Ames3
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Warren Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Background:
As the utilization and success of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) have continued to grow, so have its surgical indications. Despite the adoption of RTSA for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with an intact rotator cuff and irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (MCTs) without arthritis, the literature remains sparse regarding the differential outcomes after RTSA among these varying indications. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the postoperative clinical outcomes of RTSA based on indication.
Methods:
A retrospective review of 2 large institutional databases was performed to identify all patients who underwent RTSA between 2015 and 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were stratified by indication into 3 cohorts: GHOA, rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), and MCT. Baseline demographic characteristics were collected to determine differences between the 3 cohorts. Clinical outcomes were measured preoperatively and postoperatively, including active range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and visual analog scale pain score. Multivariate linear regression was performed to determine the factors independently predictive of the postoperative ASES score.
Results:
A total of 625 patients (383 with GHOA, 164 with CTA, and 78 with MCTs) with a mean follow-up period of 33.4 months were included in the analysis. Patients with GHOA had superior ASES scores (85.6 ± 15.7 vs. 76.6 ± 20.8 in CTA cohort [P < .001] and 75.9 ± 19.9 in MCT cohort [P < .001]), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores (86 ± 20.9 vs. 76.7 ± 24.1 in CTA cohort [P < .001] and 74.2 ± 25.3 in MCT cohort [P < .001]), and visual analog scale pain scores (median [interquartile range], 0.0 [0.0-1.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0-2.0] in CTA cohort [P < .001] and 0.0 [0.0-2.0] in MCT cohort [P < .001]) postoperatively. Postoperative active forward elevation (P < .001) and improvement in active external rotation (P < .001) were greatest in the GHOA cohort compared with other indications. Multivariate linear regression demonstrated that the factors independently associated with the postoperative ASES score included a diagnosis of GHOA (β coefficient, 7.557 [P < .001]), preoperative ASES score (β coefficient, 0.114 [P = .009]), female sex (β coefficient, -4.476 [P = .002]), history of surgery (β coefficient, -3.957 [P = .018]), and postoperative complication (β coefficient, -13.550 [P < .001]).
Conclusion:
RTSA for the treatment of GHOA generally has superior patient-reported and functional outcomes when compared with CTA and MCTs without arthritis. Long-term follow-up is needed to identify the lasting implications of such outcome differences.
