Is reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) more advantageous than anatomic TSA (aTSA) for osteoarthritis with intact cuff tendon? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of anatomical shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with intact cuff tissue. Materials and methods The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systema...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology 2022-01, Vol.23 (1), p.3-3, Article 3
Hauptverfasser: Kim, Hyojune, Kim, Chul-Ho, Kim, Minsoo, Lee, Wonsun, Jeon, In-Ho, Lee, Kwang Won, Koh, Kyoung Hwan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose We aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of anatomical shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with intact cuff tissue. Materials and methods The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for studies published before March 2, 2021 using the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they directly compared aTSA and rTSA for treating primary glenohumeral arthritis. A meta-analysis was performed using six studies that compared radiologic outcomes, functional scores, and range of motion (ROM). All the data were pooled using a random-effects model. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as dichotomous data, while continuous data were analyzed using mean differences with 95% CIs. Results Two independent researchers reviewed 1,061 studies. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The range of motion, especially external rotation, was better for aTSA than for rTSA (MD = − 10.28, 95% CI: − 16.69 to − 3.88, P  = 0.002). Functional scores showed no difference between aTSA and rTSA. Glenoid loosening (OR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.06–0.50, P  = 0.001) was more common with aTSA, and scapula notching (OR = 10.63, 95% CI: 1.73–65.27, P  = 0.01) with rTSA. In the mid-term follow-up, the overall revision rate showed no difference between aTSA and rTSA, with a pooled OR of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.07–1.57, P  = 0.16). Conclusion A better ROM was achieved after aTSA than after rTSA. There was no difference in the revision rate at mid-term follow-up between aTSA and rTSA. Glenoid loosening was more common with aTSA, and scapula notching with rTSA. Level of evidence: Level IV, Meta-analysis.
ISSN:1590-9921
1590-9999
DOI:10.1186/s10195-022-00625-y