Clinical evaluation of patients over the age of 75 receiving either anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a single-institution retrospective analysis

Abstract

BackgroundAnatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) are proven surgical treatment options for both traumatic and degenerative conditions of the shoulder. Our objective is to report both clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients over the age of 75 at the time of arthroplasty. We hypothesize no functional difference in outcomes between patient groups. MethodsPatients over the age of 75 at the time of surgery who received primary aTSA or rTSA between 2009 and 2020 with a minimum of two-year follow-up were selected. A retrospective chart review was performed. Patients 60-75 were included as a control group. 2:1 propensity matching using sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative forward elevation (FE), and external rotation (ER) was used in selecting a comparison cohort of patients 60-75. Statistical analysis included the t-test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and chi-squared test. ResultsFor aTSA, 25 patients older than 75 years fit the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up time was 4.2 (2.0-12.0) years. aTSA patients over the age of 75 had significant improvements in FE 111 to 141 degrees (P = .007), ER 28 to 44 degrees (P < .001), and internal rotation (IR) sacrum to L4 (P = .003). There were also improvements in FE strength (FES) 4+/5 to 5/5 (P = .0303) and IR strength (IRS) but not ER strength (ERS) from 4+/5 to 5/5 (P = .098). There was no significant difference in range of motion (ROM), strength, or PROs between age groups (>75 years vs. 60-74 years). For rTSA, 47 patients older than 75 years fit the inclusion criteria. Average clinical follow-up was 3.5 (2.0-10.6) years. Patients demonstrated ROM improvements in ER (31 to 40 degrees, P = .0413), FE (96 to 138 degrees, P <.001) but not IR (L5 to L4, P = .3509). There were significant improvements in postoperative strength in FES (4-/5 to 4+/5, P <.001), ERS (4-/5 to 4+/5, P <.001), and IRS (4/5 to 5/5, P <.001). The only significant difference between propensity-matched age groups was postoperative IR (L4 to L5, P = .013). There were no significant differences in PROs between different age groups. ConclusionaTSA and rTSA provide significant improvements in ER, FE, ROM, ERS, FES, and IRS in patients over the age of 75 with no significant difference in outcomes compared to a younger cohort.