BACKGROUND: It is common for patients to require staged bilateral shoulder arthroplasties. There is a unique cohort of patients who require an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and a contralateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study compared the outcomes of patients with a TSA in 1 shoulder and an RSA in the contralateral shoulder. METHODS: Our institutional database was queried to identify all patients with a TSA and a contralateral RSA. Data collection included patient demographics, preoperative and latest follow-up shoulder range of motion, radiographic analysis, and postoperative complications. Identified patients were assessed at follow-up visits or contacted by phone for functional outcome scores. RESULTS: Nineteen patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. There was statistically significant greater internal rotation in the TSA shoulder (P= .044) but no significant difference in forward elevation (P = .573) or external rotation (P= .368). There was no radiographic evidence of humeral or glenoid component loosening of any arthroplasty implants. There were no significant differences between TSA and RSA shoulders for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment (P= .381), Simple Shoulder Test (P = .352), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (P = .709), and visual analog scale satisfaction (P= .448) or pain scores (P= .305). Thirteen patients (68.4%) preferred the RSA side, 1 patient (5.3%; z = 4.04, P < .001) patient preferred the TSA side, and 5 patients expressed no preference. CONCLUSION: Despite known limitations and differences between TSA and RSA designs, patients who have received both implants are highly satisfied with both. The only parameter in which the TSA had superior outcomes was internal rotation.
BACKGROUND: It is common for patients to require staged bilateral shoulder arthroplasties. There is a unique cohort of patients who require an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and a contralateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study compared the outcomes of patients with a TSA in 1 shoulder and an RSA in the contralateral shoulder. METHODS: Our institutional database was queried to identify all patients with a TSA and a contralateral RSA. Data collection included patient demographics, preoperative and latest follow-up shoulder range of motion, radiographic analysis, and postoperative complications. Identified patients were assessed at follow-up visits or contacted by phone for functional outcome scores. RESULTS: Nineteen patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. There was statistically significant greater internal rotation in the TSA shoulder (P= .044) but no significant difference in forward elevation (P = .573) or external rotation (P= .368). There was no radiographic evidence of humeral or glenoid component loosening of any arthroplasty implants. There were no significant differences between TSA and RSA shoulders for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment (P= .381), Simple Shoulder Test (P = .352), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (P = .709), and visual analog scale satisfaction (P= .448) or pain scores (P= .305). Thirteen patients (68.4%) preferred the RSA side, 1 patient (5.3%; z = 4.04, P < .001) patient preferred the TSA side, and 5 patients expressed no preference. CONCLUSION: Despite known limitations and differences between TSA and RSA designs, patients who have received both implants are highly satisfied with both. The only parameter in which the TSA had superior outcomes was internal rotation.
Authors: John-Rudolph H Smith; Darby A Houck; Jessica A Hart; Jonathan T Bravman; Rachel M Frank; Armando F Vidal; Eric C McCarty Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2020-04-19
Authors: Pierre Henri Flurin; Carl Tams; Ryan W Simovitch; Christopher Knudsen; Christopher Roche; Thomas W Wright; Joseph Zuckerman; Bradley S Schoch Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-07-27
Authors: Sarav S Shah; Alexander M Roche; Spencer W Sullivan; Benjamin T Gaal; Stewart Dalton; Arjun Sharma; Joseph J King; Brian M Grawe; Surena Namdari; Macy Lawler; Joshua Helmkamp; Grant E Garrigues; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Kyle Flik; Randall J Otto; Richard Jones; Andrew Jawa; Peter McCann; Joseph Abboud; Gabe Horneff; Glen Ross; Richard Friedman; Eric T Ricchetti; Douglas Boardman; Robert Z Tashjian; Lawrence V Gulotta Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-09-10
Authors: Brandon J Erickson; Daphne Ling; Alexandra Wong; Joshua S Dines; David M Dines; Lawrence V Gulotta Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-08-25