Reverse shoulder arthroplasty renders better clinical scores at a minimum follow-up of two years for patients with no rotator cuff deficiency operated by the deltopectoral approach.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this multi-centre study was to report outcomes of a large cohort of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) at a minimum follow-up of two years and to determine patient and surgical factors that influence postoperative outcomes. The hypothesis was that surgical indication, surgical approach, and implant design would affect clinical outcomes significantly. METHODS: The authors reviewed records of 743 RSAs in patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) with or without rotator cuff (RC) tears, secondary OA due to RC tears, and irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (mRCT). The deltopectoral (DP) approach was used in 540 and the anterosuperior (AS) approach in 203. Pre- and postoperative Constant scores (CS) were recorded. Multivariable linear analyses were performed to determine if CS was associated with indications for surgery, surgical approach, or implant design. RESULTS: Of the 743 shoulders, 193 (25.7%) were lost to follow-up, 16 (2.1%) died, and 33 (4.4%) were revised, leaving 501 for analysis. At a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 0.9 years, net improvement in CS was 29.2 ± 17.0. Multivariable analyses revealed that postoperative CS decreased with age and was worse in shoulders that had preoperative rotator cuff deficiency and in shoulders operated by the AS approach. Multivariable analyses also revealed worse net improvement in shoulders operated for secondary OA due to RC tears or for irreparable mRCT, as well as shoulders operated by the AS approach. CONCLUSION: This large multi-centre study confirms that, at two or more years following RSA, Constant scores are not associated with implant design, but rather with rotator cuff deficiency and surgical approach. Multivariable analysis revealed that postoperative CS was worse for shoulders with preoperative rotator cuff deficiency and for shoulders operated by the AS approach. Multivariable analysis also revealed that net improvement in CS was worse in shoulders treated for secondary OA due to RC tears and for shoulders with irreparable mRCT, as well as for shoulders operated by the AS approach.

Anterosuperior approach versus deltopectoral approach for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical approach is an important factor that may affect the outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The most common approaches for RTSA are anterosuperior (AS) and deltopectoral (DP). However, controversy exists on which surgical approach is better. This meta-analysis aimed to compare both approaches in terms of radiological and clinical outcomes and complications. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies that compared the postoperative outcomes of the AS and DP approaches for RTSA. After screening and quality assessment of the articles, we obtained two randomized controlled trials and four retrospective comparative studies. We analyzed the radiologic outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications between the two approaches. The standardized mean difference and odds ratio were used to analyze the differences in outcomes between the two surgical approaches. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The incidence rate of glenoid implant loosening was significantly (P = 0.04) lower in the AS group than that in the DP group. In terms of forward flexion after surgery, the DP approach produced significantly (P = 0.03) better outcomes compared with the AS approach. There were no significant differences in radiological outcomes or other complication rates between the two approaches. CONCLUSION: As a result of this meta-analysis, one of the two approaches did not bring a better result than the other. One has strength for better forward flexion and the other for a lower glenoid loosening rate. With this in mind, it is recommended to use the approach that the surgeon is most familiar with.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty, Deltopectoral Approach vs. Anterosuperior Approach: An Overview of the Literature.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become an optimal treatment for numerous orthopedic entities, such as rotator cuff tear arthropathies, pseudoparalysis, fracture sequelae, acute fractures, failed arthroplasties, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis, and is linked with relief of topical pain and regaining of functionality. Presently, RSA has been conducted through anterosuperior (AS) or deltopectoral (DP) approach. The aim of the study was to discuss both approaches and to examine broadly their features to render a comparison in terms of clinical effectiveness. An electronic search in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases was performed, using combinations of the following keywords: RSA, DP approach, AS approach, notching, and cuff tear arthropathy. A total of 61 studies were found, and 16 relevant articles were eventually included. Currently published literature has not shown significant diversities in the clinical course due to approach preference; risk of instability seems to be greater in DP approach, while regarding scapular notching and fracture rates the findings were conflicted. In addition, the AS approach has been associated with decreased risk of acromial and scapular spine fractures. In conclusion, both surgical approaches have shown similar clinical outcomes and effectiveness concerning pain and restoring range of motion (ROM) in rotator cuff tear arthropathies. In the future, further investigations based on large-scale well-designed studies are required to address clinical gaps allowing in-depth comparison of both approaches.

Positioning of the metaglene in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: deltopectoral versus anterosuperior approach: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether there are differences in metaglene positioning related to the approach used (deltopectoral vs. anterosuperior) in primary reverse shoulder prosthesis (reverse shoulder arthroplasty) implantation. The hypothesis was that there would be no differences in metaglene positioning between the 2 approaches. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was designed to evaluate metaglene positioning in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The patients included were allocated to either the deltopectoral approach (group I) or the anterosuperior approach (group II). Glenosphere overhang and glenosphere tilt were assessed using the methods described by Lévigne et al, Simovitch et al, and Kempton et al, and the beta angle was assessed as described by Maurer et al. The functional outcome was assessed with the Constant score at 2 years' follow-up. Scapular notch development and complication rates were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients (77 women and 21 men) were randomized and allocated to group I (49 patients) or group II (49 patients). The mean age of the patients was 74.4 years (standard deviation, 6.3 years). Glenosphere overhang did not show significant differences between groups (6.5 mm in group I vs. 6.1 mm in group II by the Lévigne method, P = .482; 2.2 mm in group I vs. 2.1 mm in group II by the Simovitch method, P = .08). Glenosphere tilt was significantly different between groups (94.6° in group I vs. 86.8° in group II by the Lévigne method, P < .001; 125.9° in group I vs. 119.4° in group II by the Kempton method, P = .002). This was also the case for the prosthesis-scapular neck angle (94.6° in group I vs. 86.8° in group II, P < .001). Moreover, the postoperative beta angle was significantly different between groups (78.6° in group I vs. 73.8° in group II, P = .001). No significant differences were noted in terms of functional outcomes as measured with the Constant score (P = .16). No significant differences between groups were noted relative to scapular notch development and the overall complication rate. DISCUSSION: The deltopectoral and anterosuperior approaches do not differ relative to the craniocaudal positioning of the metaglene, but a slight superior tilt can be expected when using the anterosuperior approach. Both approaches yield comparable functional outcomes, scapular notch development, and complication rates at 2 years' follow-up.

Difference in the Surgical Approach in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Cuff Tear Arthroplasty: Comparison of the Radiological and Clinical Result according to the Deltopectoral and Anterosuperior Approach / 대한정형외과학회잡지

PURPOSE: This study compared the clinical and radiological results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using an anterosuperior approach with those using a deltopectoral approach to determine the difference in cuff tear arthroplasty between both approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 24 consecutive patients who underwent RSA due to cuff tear arthroplasty from February 2014 to November 2015 was performed. The anterosuperior and deltopectoral approaches were 12 cases each. The mean age was 72 years and the mean follow-up period was 13.2 months. The clinical results were assessed using the visual analogue pain scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score, Korean shoulder scoring system, and the Constant score. The prosthesis-scapular neck angle (PSNA), peg-glenoid rim distance (PGRD), scapular neck-inferior glenosphere rim distance (inferior glenosphere overhang), acromion-greater tuberosity (AT) distance, glenoid-greater tuberosity (GT) distance were assessed, and severity of notching according to the Nerot-Sirveaux classification, were measured from the radiology evaluation. RESULTS: Compared to the anterosuperior approach, the PSNA (9.6°, p=0.018) and inferior glenosphere overhang (2.0 mm, p=0.024) were significantly greater in the deltopectoral approach and the PGRD (2.2 mm, p=0.043) was shorter. The AT and GT distance was similar in the two groups. Two and three cases of implant notching occurred on deltopectoral approach and anterosuperior approach, respectively. No metal loosening, acromion fracture, or nerve injury was noted. The clinical results improved significantly in both groups, but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The anterosuperior approach could cause the superior position of the glenoid baseplate and a decrease in the inferior tilt compared to the deltopectoral approach, but the clinical results had improved in both groups and there was no difference between the two groups.