Does the stemless reverse arthroplasty compare to a conventional stemmed implant? Clinical and radiographic evaluation at 2 years' minimum follow-up.

Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a well-recognized treatment for many shoulder conditions, including rotator cuff arthropathy, primary glenohumeral joint arthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis, and can be used in both trauma and revision settings. Over the past 10 years, its popularity in New Zealand has been increasing, with a 6%-7% annual growth rate during this period. Stemless RSA designs have the following proposed advantages: They can preserve humeral bone stock, they can limit periprosthetic fractures, and they can be indicated in patients with abnormal diaphyseal humeral anatomy. To date, only 1 study has evaluated the outcomes of the Lima SMR Stemless implant. We present our data with an aim to report how the stemless reverse arthroplasty compares to a conventional stemmed implant.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients treated at a single institution between 2015 and 2020. The endpoint was defined as final follow-up at a minimum of 2 years. Patients were excluded from the final analysis if they underwent revision. Thirty-three patients were identified as having undergone stemless RSA. Thirty patients had patient-reported outcome measures and radiographs at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Three patients had undergone revision within 2 years. The same sample size of stemmed RSAs (n = 33) was selected for comparison.
Results: A total of 60 patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 30 underwent stemless RSA and 30 underwent stemmed RSA. The demographic characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable except age at operation, which showed a statistically significant difference (P = .001): 77 years (stemmed) vs. 65 years (stemless). The mean Oxford Shoulder Score was 40.1 in the stemless group vs. 40 in the stemmed group. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 72.9 in the stemless group vs. 79 in the stemmed group. Patient-reported outcome measures, pain scores, and satisfaction ratings were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups. In terms of radiographic data, subsidence was observed in 2 patients in the stemless RSA group but the patients had no clinical symptoms. Also in the stemless RSA group, 1 patient had an acromial stress fracture and 1 patient had a superficial wound infection successfully treated with oral antibiotics. In terms of revisions in the stemless RSA group, 1 patient underwent revision owing to chronic infection, 1 underwent revision as a result of a periprosthetic fracture after a fall, and 1 underwent revision for gross instability.
Conclusions: The early results of sRSA are promising, and the stemless implant shows similar outcomes to a conventional stemmed implant.
(Copyright © 2024 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)