Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humeral Fractures and Sequalae Compared to Non-Fracture Indications: A Matched Cohort Analysis of Outcome and Complications.

BACKGROUND

With the increase in utility and popularity of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) within the last decades, indications for RTSA have expanded. As well as the established indications such as cuff tear arthropathy and massive irreparable rotator cuff tears, RTSA for complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients has been proven to be a reliable treatment option.

METHODS

A prospectively enrolled RTSA database of 1457 RTSAs implanted between September 2005 and November 2020 was reviewed. Patients treated with RTSA for a complex proximal humerus fracture and fracture sequalae (F-RTSA) were 1:1 matched with a group of patients who were treated electively with RTSA for indications other than a fracture (E-RTSA). Matching criteria included sex, age, length of follow-up and body mass index. Evaluation after a minimum of 2 years follow-up included evaluation of the absolute and relative Constant-Murley score (aCS; rCS), subjective shoulder value (SSV), range of motion (ROM) assessment and complications.

RESULTS

Each of the matched cohorts comprised 134 patients with a mean follow-up of 58 ± 41 months for the fracture group and 58 ± 36 months for the elective group. The mean age for both groups was 69 ± 11 years in the F-RTSA and 70 ± 9 years for the E-RTSA group. There were no significant differences in clinical outcome measures including aCS, rCS and SSV ( > 0.05). There was a significant difference in mean active external rotation with 20° ± 18° in the F-RTSA group compared with 25° ± 19° in the E-RTSA group ( = 0.017). The complication rate was not significantly different, with 41 complications in 36 shoulders in the F-RTSA and 40 complications in 32 shoulders in the E-RTSA group ( = 0.73). The main complication for the F-RTSA group was dislocation of the greater tuberosity (6%), whereas acromial fractures (9%) were the leading complication in the E-RTSA group. There was also no significant difference in revision rate comparing F-RTSA with E-RTSA (10% vs. 14%; = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

RTSA for complex proximal humeral fractures and its sequalae leads to a comparable clinical outcome as that for patients treated electively with RTSA for indications other than fracture. There was, however, a significant difference in active external rotation, with inferior rotation in patients undergoing RTSA for fracture. This valuable information can help in requesting informed consent of patients with proximal humeral fractures.