Clinical outcomes of anatomical versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis, an intact rotator cuff, and limited forward elevation

Both anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA and rTSA) provide functional improvements. A reported benefit of aTSA is better range of motion (ROM). However, it is not clear which procedure provides better outcomes in patients with limited foward elevation (FE). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of aTSA and rTSA in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), an intact rotator cuff, and limited FE.This was a retrospective review of a single institution's prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database for TSAs undertaken between 2007 and 2020. A total of 344 aTSAs and 163 rTSAs, which were performed in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff with a minimum follow-up of two years, were included. Using the definition of preoperative stiffness as passive FE ≤ 105°, three cohorts were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and follow-up: stiff aTSAs (85) to non-stiff aTSAs (85); stiff rTSAs (74) to non-stiff rTSAs (74); and stiff rTSAs (64) to stiff aTSAs (64). We the compared ROMs, outcome scores, and complication and revision rates.Compared with non-stiff aTSAs, stiff aTSAs had poorer passive FE and active external rotation (ER), whereas there were no significant postoperative differences between stiff rTSAs and non-stiff rTSAs. There were no significant differences in preoperative function when comparing stiff aTSAs with stiff rTSAs. However, stiff rTSAs had significantly greater postoperative active and passive FE (p = 0.001 and 0.004, respectively), and active abduction (p = 0.001) compared with stiff aTSAs. The outcome scores were significantly more favourable in stiff rTSAs for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California, Los Angeles score, and the Constant score, compared with stiff aTSAs. When comparing the proportion of stiff aTSAs versus stiff rTSAs that exceeded the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit, stiff rTSAs achieved both at greater rates for all measurements except active ER. The complication rate did not significantly differ between stiff aTSAs and stiff rTSAs, but there was a significantly higher rate of revision surgery in stiff aTSAs (p = 0.007).Postoperative overhead ROM, outcome scores, and rates of revision surgery favour the use of a rTSA rather than aTSA in patients with glenohumeral OA, an intact rotator cuff and limited FE, with similar rotational ROM in these two groups.