Outcomes of Bilateral Shoulder Arthroplasties: A Comparison of Bilateral Total Shoulder Arthroplasties and Bilateral Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasties

Overview

Journal Clin Orthop Surg

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2019 Sep 3

PMID 31475053

Citations 3

Authors

Ryan Matthew Cox

Tyler James Brolin

Eric Michael Padegimas

Mark David Lazarus

Charles Lonnie Getz

Matthew Lee Ramsey

Gerald Ross Williams Jr

Joseph Albert Abboud

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent bilateral total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) for osteoarthritis (OA) versus bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).

Methods: Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent bilateral TSAs for OA or bilateral RSAs for CTA with at least 2 years of follow-up. Twenty-six TSA patients (52 shoulders) were matched 2 to 1 with 13 RSA patients (26 shoulders) by sex, age at first surgery, and time between surgeries. Outcomes measured were shoulder range of motion (ROM), complications, and patient-reported scores.

Results: Preoperatively, TSA patients had significantly better forward elevation (FE) of both shoulders than RSA patients (dominant side [Dom]: 103° ± 32° vs. 81° ± 31°, = 0.047; nondominant side [non-Dom]: 111° ± 28° vs. 70° ± 42°, = 0.005) without significant differences in external (ER) or internal rotation (IR). Postoperatively, TSA patients had significantly better FE (Dom and non-Dom: 156° ± 12°, 156° ± 14° vs. 134° ± 24°, 137° ± 23°; = 0.006, = 0.019) and ER (42° ± 11°, 43° ± 10° vs. 24° ± 12°, 25° ± 10°; < 0.001, < 0.001) bilaterally and IR of their dominant arm (L1 vs. L4, = 0.045). TSA patients had significantly better activities of daily living external and internal rotations (ADLEIR) scores (Dom and non-Dom: 35.3 ± 1.0, 35.5 ± 0.9 vs. 32.1 ± 2.4, 32.5 ± 2.2; = 0.001, = 0.001), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (94.2 ± 8.4, 94.2 ± 8.2 vs. 84.7 ± 10.0, 84.5 ± 8.0; = 0.015, = 0.004), and Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) scores (93.5 ± 7.6, 93.8 ± 11.8 vs. 80.5 ± 14.2, 82.3 ± 13.1; = 0.014, = 0.025), with no significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores (0.4 ± 1.0, 0.3 ± 1.0 vs. 0.7 ± 1.3, 0.8 ± 1.2) bilaterally.

Conclusions: Overall, patients with bilateral TSAs and RSAs exhibited improved ROM and patient-reported outcomes. Those with bilateral TSAs had better functional outcomes than those with bilateral RSAs.

Citing Articles

Whether the Indications for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Should Continue to Be Expanded? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li H, Bao H, Yang Z, Hu B, Pan Y, Wang Y Orthop Surg. 2024; 17(2):313-332.

PMID: 39667948 PMC: 11787993. DOI: 10.1111/os.14311.

Modification of Humeral Component Results in Increased Impingement Free Range of Motion in a Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Model.

Schroeder D, Borsgard A, Rossman T, Stewart C J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast. 2024; 8:24715492241237034.

PMID: 38628981 PMC: 11020712. DOI: 10.1177/24715492241237034.

Bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus bilateral anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Daher M, Fares M, Koa J, Singh J, Abboud J Clin Shoulder Elb. 2023; 27(2):196-202.

PMID: 38147874 PMC: 11181065. DOI: 10.5397/cise.2023.00332.

Bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review of clinical outcomes.

Smith J, Houck D, Hart J, Bravman J, Frank R, Vidal A Shoulder Elbow. 2021; 13(4):402-415.

PMID: 34394738 PMC: 8355642. DOI: 10.1177/1758573220916822.

References

Williams G, Gangel T, Arciero R, Uhorchak J, Taylor D . Comparison of the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation method and two shoulder rating scales. Outcomes measures after shoulder surgery. Am J Sports Med. 1999; 27(2):214-21. DOI: 10.1177/03635465990270021701. View

Bodian C, Freedman G, Hossain S, Eisenkraft J, Beilin Y . The visual analog scale for pain: clinical significance in postoperative patients. Anesthesiology. 2001; 95(6):1356-61. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200112000-00013. View

Michener L, McClure P, Sennett B . American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11(6):587-94. DOI: 10.1067/mse.2002.127096. View

Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis A, Balg F . Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14(1 Suppl S):147S-161S. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006. View

Deshmukh A, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill T . Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14(5):471-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.009. View

Gerber C, Lingenfelter E, Reischl N, Sukthankar A . Single-stage bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty: a preliminary study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(6):751-5. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17601. View

Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis A, Hovorka I . Neer Award 2005: The Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15(5):527-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.003. View

Zlotolow D, Catalano 3rd L, Barron O, Glickel S . Surgical exposures of the humerus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006; 14(13):754-65. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200612000-00007. View

Boileau P, Chuinard C, Roussanne Y, Bicknell R, Rochet N, Trojani C . Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with a modified latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer for shoulder pseudoparalysis associated with dropping arm. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(3):584-93. PMC: 2505202. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0114-x. View

10.

Gruson K, Pillai G, Vanadurongwan B, Parsons B, Flatow E . Early clinical results following staged bilateral primary total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 19(1):137-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.005. View

11.

Cil A, Veillette C, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling J, Schleck C, Cofield R . Survivorship of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 19(1):143-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.011. View

12.

Khan A, Bunker T, Kitson J . Clinical and radiological follow-up of the Aequalis third-generation cemented total shoulder replacement: a minimum ten-year study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91(12):1594-600. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B12.22139. View

13.

Hamada K, Yamanaka K, Uchiyama Y, Mikasa T, Mikasa M . A radiographic classification of massive rotator cuff tear arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(9):2452-60. PMC: 3148384. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1896-9. View

14.

Smith C, Guyver P, Bunker T . Indications for reverse shoulder replacement: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(5):577-83. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B5.27596. View

15.

Raiss P, Schmitt M, Bruckner T, Kasten P, Pape G, Loew M . Results of cemented total shoulder replacement with a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(23):e1711-10. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00580. View

16.

Wiater B, Boone C, Koueiter D, Wiater J . Early outcomes of staged bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a case-control study. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B(9):1232-8. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B9.31445. View

17.

Raiss P, Bruckner T, Rickert M, Walch G . Longitudinal observational study of total shoulder replacements with cement: fifteen to twenty-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(3):198-205. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00079. View

18.

Stevens C, Struk A, Wright T . The functional impact of bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(9):1341-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.12.012. View

19.

Schoch B, Schleck C, Cofield R, Sperling J . Shoulder arthroplasty in patients younger than 50 years: minimum 20-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 24(5):705-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.07.016. View

20.

Morris B, Haigler R, OConnor D, Elkousy H, Gartsman G, Edwards T . Outcomes of staged bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasties for rotator cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 24(3):474-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.008. View