Medialized vs. lateralized humeral implant in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the comparison of outcomes in pseudoparalysis with massive rotator cuff tear.

Background: With the increasing use of lateralized humeral implants in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), it is still unclear whether this design will be as advantageous as the medialized humeral implants in the setting of pseudoparalysis (PP).

Methods: A total of 51 eligible RTSA cases for PP signs due to massive rotator cuff deficiency were selected for the retrospective review. Twenty-five patients were allocated to group L in which the isolated humeral side lateralization was performed (neck-shaft angle of 145°), and 26 patients were allocated to group M (neck-shaft angle of 155°). Pre- and postoperative radiologic measurements including critical shoulder angle, acromiohumeral distance (AHD), lateral humeral offset (LHO), and deltoid wrapping offset (DWO), as well as range of motion (ROM) and clinical outcome scores, were compared. The mean age was 71.0 ± 6.5 years for group L and 70.3 ± 7.0 years for group M, and the overall mean follow-up period was 49.0 ± 13.5 months (range, 25.7-68.9).

Results: The preoperative radiologic measurements were similar, but the postoperative LHO and DWO were significantly larger for group L, whereas the postoperative AHD was larger for group M compared with group L, with the values being 39.8 ± 9.7 mm and 33.6 ± 10.4 mm, respectively (P = .034). For the ROM, active forward elevation did improve significantly for both, starting preoperatively with the active ranges of 39° ± 19° (passively 153° ± 24°) for group L and 42° ± 18° (passively 156° ± 11°) for group M-the final postoperative active ranges being 142° ± 16° and 133° ± 33°, respectively, without significant difference between the groups (P = .426). The postoperative recovery of PP for group L was 100% (25 of 25), whereas for group M, it was 96.2% (25 of 26). The final visual analog scale (VAS) scores and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder scores improved significantly for both groups, but the differences between the groups at the final assessments were insignificant. The 4 complications were periprosthetic fracture, acromial stress fracture, periprosthetic joint infection, and neuropraxia, all of which were in group M, and scapular notching with higher grades were more prevalent for group M (26.9%, 7 of 26).

Conclusions: With RTSA, good outcomes and recovery were achieved in most cases of PP. The postoperative active elevation range and functional outcomes were not affected by medialization or lateralization of the humeral implant. Earlier recovery of motion was observed with the lateralized group, but no significant differences were seen in the final ROM between the groups.