Clinical outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty and rotator cuff repair in patients with massive rotator cuff tears without osteoarthritis: comparison using propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND

The optimal management for massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs) without osteoarthritis (OA) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) vs. rotator cuff repair (RCR) in patients with MRCTs without OA.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective data analysis of 68 patients treated for MRCTs via RSA and 215 patients treated for MRCTs via arthroscopic RCR between January 2014 and April 2019. Through propensity score matching, patients were matched for sex, age, tear size, and global fatty degeneration index. Thirty-nine patients in each group were included, and all patients had completed minimal 2-year follow-up. Postoperative radiologic evaluations of healing failure were performed. The visual analog scale score for pain, range of motion, and functional outcome measures including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, QuickDASH (short version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and Constant score were assessed and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Healing failure was observed in 10 patients in the RCR group (32.3%). No statistically significant differences in preoperative range of motion and functional scores were found between the RCR and RSA groups. Both groups showed significant pain relief and functional improvement at final follow-up. Patients in the RCR group showed significantly greater forward elevation (156.4° ± 23.8° vs. 139.7° ± 22.4°, P < .001) and internal rotation (thoracic vertebra, T8.2 ± 1.2 vs. T9.7 ± 2.6, P = .001). The average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 88.3 ± 12.2 in the RCR group and 81.8 ± 16.1 in the RSA group (P = .045). The QuickDASH score was significantly higher in the RCR group (P = .019). A significantly higher Simple Shoulder Test score (9.7 ± 2.8 vs. 8.1 ± 3.0, P = .01) and a significantly higher Constant score (67.2 ± 6.5 vs. 63.2 ± 7.1, P = .011) were seen in the RCR group.

CONCLUSION

Both RSA and RCR are effective and reliable treatment options for MRCTs without OA. However, the RCR group showed better shoulder function improvement than the RSA group. Considering the possible implications of RSA, RCR should be referred to as a first-line treatment option for patients with MRCTs without OA with proper indications.