Comparison of short- and midterm outcomes in patients following ream-and-run and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) may not be an ideal treatment option for young and active patients because of potential activity restriction and concerns about glenoid loosening. The ream-and-run procedure (RnR) allows for the continuance of high-level activity without concerns of a glenoid component failure. Initial RnR publications are promising, although more outcomes studies are needed. Therefore, our primary purpose was to compare outcomes at multiple time points between matched aTSA and RnR cohorts. Second, we sought to examine relationships between patient-reported outcomes and preoperative glenoid pathoanatomy in our RnR cohort Last, we examined postoperative radiographs to determine if the RnR successfully corrected glenoid pathoanatomy and humeral head decentering. METHODS: We performed a retrospective matched-cohort study comparing patients who underwent an RnR vs. patients who underwent the aTSA procedure between 2017 and 2019. All patients had primary diagnoses of shoulder osteoarthritis and a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and daily and worst pain outcomes were compared between groups at 3 and 6 months, and 1 and 2 years postarthroplasty. Pre- and postoperative glenoid anatomy and humeral decentering were measured radiographically, and correlation analyses were conducted to explore relationships between these factors and 2-year pain and function scores. RESULTS: Forty-six shoulders (23 RnR and 23aTSA) belonging to 43 male patients with an average age of 56.2 ± 8.3 years were included. Eighteen matched pairs were available at 3 and 6 months, 21 matched pairs at 1 year, and all 23 matched pairs at the 2-year time point. RnR patients reported significantly higher daily pain ratings (P = .047) and lower ASES scores (P = .031) compared with the aTSA group 3 months after arthroplasty but reported similar outcomes at 6 months and beyond. Preoperative pathoanatomy outcomes were not directly related to final reported pain or function in the RnR group. Additionally, the RnR was able to correct posterior humeral head decentering in our cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Young male patients undergoing RnR can likely expect similar short-term results as young male patients who undergo aTSA. Additionally, the RnR outcomes were not affected by preoperative glenoid wear or humeral head decentering. Our findings support the RnR as a viable surgical alternative for young, active patients with shoulder arthritis.