Improved functional, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes at midterm follow-up for shoulder arthroplasty patients 75 years and older.

Background: Current discussion centers around the appropriateness of shoulder arthroplasty in elderly patients, and whether anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty yield acceptable results in this population. The purpose of this study was to examine midterm outcomes in patients 75 years and older who underwent either procedure.

Methods: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) between 2000 and 2018. Inclusion criteria was patient age ≥75 years at time of surgery and ≥1 years postoperative follow-up. Primary outcomes were differences in Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, and range of motion. A secondary outcome was revision surgery.

Results: 22 patients who underwent aTSA and 17 patients who underwent rTSA were included. Mean age at surgery was 79 and 80 in the aTSA and rTSA groups, respectively. Mean postoperative follow-up was 6.6 years across both cohorts. Anatomic TSA patients experienced improvements in VAS (7 preop vs. 1 postop; p < 0.001), ASES (16 vs. 75; p < 0.001), and SST (2 vs. 8; p < 0.001) scores. Reverse TSA patients also experienced improvements in VAS (7 vs. 1; p < 0.001), ASES (29 vs. 74; p < 0.001), and SST (1 vs. 7; p < 0.001) scores. Anatomic TSA patients experienced improved external rotation (17° vs. 53°; p < 0.001), forward elevation (108° vs. 155°; p < 0.001), and internal rotation (L5 vs. T10; p < 0.001). Reverse TSA patients experienced improved forward elevation (52° vs. 126°; p < 0.001). 21 aTSA patients (100%) and 16 rTSA patients (94%) experienced survival free from revision. 100% of aTSA and rTSA patients experienced survival free from loosening.

Conclusion: Both aTSA and rTSA can be performed in the elderly population with acceptable midterm outcomes, suggesting that implant survival and patient satisfaction have the potential to endure through the end of life.

Level Of Evidence: IV.