Abstract
Aims
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using small and standard baseplates in Asian patients, and to investigate the impact of a mismatch in the sizes of the glenoid and the baseplate on the outcomes.
Methods
This was retrospective analysis of 50 and 33 RSAs using a standard (33.8 mm, ST group) and a small (29.5 mm, SM group) baseplate of the Equinoxe reverse shoulder system, which were undertaken between January 2017 and March 2021. Radiological evaluations included the size of the glenoid, the β-angle, the inclination of the glenoid component, inferior overhang, scapular notching, the location of the central cage in the baseplate within the vault and the mismatch in size between the glenoid and baseplate. Clinical evaluations included the range of motion (ROM) and functional scores. In subgroup analysis, comparisons were performed between those in whom the vault of the glenoid was perforated (VP group) and those in whom it was not perforated (VNP group).
Results
Perforation of the vault of the glenoid (p = 0.018) and size mismatch in height (p < 0.001) and width (p = 0.013) were significantly more frequent in the ST group than in the SM group. There was no significant difference in the clinical scores and ROM in the two groups, two years postoperatively (all p > 0.05). In subgroup analysis, the VP group had significantly less inferior overhang (p = 0.009), more scapular notching (p = 0.018), and more size mismatch in height (p < 0.001) and width (p = 0.025) than the VNP group.
Conclusion
In Asian patients with a small glenoid, using a 29.5 mm small baseplate at the time of RSA was more effective in reducing size mismatch between the glenoid and the baseplate, decreasing the incidence of perforation of the glenoid vault, and achieving optimal positioning of the baseplate compared with the use of a 33.8 mm standard baseplate. However, longer follow-up is required to assess the impact of these findings on the clinical outcomes.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1189–1195.
