Better Constant Scores and Active Forward Elevation Using Deltopectoral Versus Anterosuperior Approach for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Matched Cohort Study

• Published in: Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty 2024, Vol.8, p.24715492241234178
• Main Authors: Nerot, Cecile, Berhouet, Julien, Garret, Jérôme, Kany, Jean, van Rooij, Floris, Hibon, Aude, Nover, Luca, Saffarini, Mo, Aswad, Richard, Hubert, Laurent, Mansat, Pierre, Gallinet, David, Guery, Jacques, Josserand, Laurent Nove, Sirveaux, François, Peduzzi, Lisa, Godenèche, Arnaud
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Joint surgery; Rotator cuff; Shoulder
• ISSN: 2471-5492; 2471-5492
• DOI: 10.1177/24715492241234178

Purpose To determine, from a sizable cohort of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), whether the deltopectoral (DP) or anterosuperior (AS) approach grant better outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Methods The authors reviewed 743 RSAs in patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) with or without rotator cuff lesions and secondary OA due to rotator cuff tears. The DP approach was used in 540 and the AS approach in 203. Pre- and post-operative constant scores (CSs) and shoulder range of motion were recorded. Results Of the initial cohort of 743 shoulders, 193 (25.7%) were lost to follow-up, 16 (2.1%) died, and 33 (4.4%) were revised; 540 shoulders were operated using DP approach (73%), of which 22 were revised (4.1%), while 203 were operated using the AS approach (27%), of which 11 were revised (5.4%). Propensity score matching resulted in two groups: 172 shoulders operated by DP approach, and 88 shoulders operated by AS approach. Comparing outcomes of the matched groups at 2 or more years also revealed that, compared to the AS approach, the DP approach resulted in significantly better post-operative CSs (67.3 ± 14.0° vs 60.8 ± 18.3, P = 0.017), active forward elevation (137° ± 27.4° vs 129° ± 29.8; P = 0.031). Conclusion At 2 or more years following RSA, the DP approach granted significantly better CS (by 6.5 points) and active forward elevation (by 8°) compared to the AS approach. The differences observed are clinically relevant and must be considered to manage patient expectations following RSA and for selecting surgical approach depending on their functional needs. Level of evidence III, comparative study