Primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for fractures requires more revisions than for degenerative conditions 1 year after surgery: an analysis from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Abstract

Although reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is considered a viable treatment strategy for proximal humeral fractures, there is an ongoing discussion of how its revision rate compares with indications performed in the elective setting. First, this study evaluated whether RTSA for fractures conveyed a higher revision rate than RTSA for degenerative conditions (osteoarthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, rotator cuff tear, or rheumatoid arthritis). Second, this study assessed whether there was a difference in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 groups following primary replacement. Finally, the results of conventional stem designs were compared with those of fracture-specific designs within the fracture group. This was a retrospective comparative cohort study with registry data from the Netherlands, generated prospectively between 2014 and 2020. Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) were included if they underwent primary RTSA for a fracture (<4 weeks after trauma), osteoarthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, rotator cuff tear, or rheumatoid arthritis, with follow-up until first revision, death, or the end of the study period. The primary outcome was the revision rate. The secondary outcomes were the Oxford Shoulder Score, EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) score, numerical rating scale score (pain at rest and during activity), recommendation score, and scores assessing change in daily functioning and change in pain. This study included 8753 patients in the degenerative condition group (mean age, 74.3±7.2 years) and 2104 patients in the fracture group (mean age, 74.3±7.8 years). RTSA performed for fractures showed an early steep decline in survivorship: Adjusted for time, age, sex, and arthroplasty brand, the revision risk after 1 year was significantly higher in these patients than in those with degenerative conditions (hazard ratio [HR], 2.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-3.77). Over time, the HR steadily decreased, with an HR of 0.98 at year 6. Apart from the recommendation score (which was slightly better within the fracture group), there were no clinically relevant differences in the patient-reported outcome measures after 12 months. Patients who received conventional stems (n=1137) did not have a higher likelihood of undergoing a revision procedure than those who received fracture-specific stems (n=675) (HR, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-3.17). Patients undergoing primary RTSA for fractures have a substantially higher likelihood of undergoing revision within the first year following the procedure than patients with degenerative conditions preoperatively. Although RTSA is regarded as a reliable and safe treatment option for fractures, surgeons should inform patients accordingly and incorporate this information in decision making when opting for head replacement surgery. There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups and no differences in revision rates between conventional and fracture-specific stem designs.