Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review
Edward C.A. Gee*, Emma K. Hanson, Adnan Saithna
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2015
First Page: 237
Last Page: 245
Publisher ID: TOORTHJ-9-237
Article History:Received Date: 13/12/2014
Revision Received Date: 19/4/2015
Acceptance Date: 18/5/2015
Electronic publication date: 31/7/2015
Collection year: 2015
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
Anatomical shoulder replacement for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is complicated by a high incidence of rotator cuff tears and glenoid erosion. This can lead to poor function and early failure. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has gained popularity as an alternative. This systematic review attempts to further define the role of RSA in RA.
A systematic review identified seven studies reporting outcomes of RSA in RA patients. Studies were critically appraised, and data on outcomes, complications and technical considerations were extracted and analysed.
One hundred and twenty one shoulders were included (mean follow up 46.9 months). Consistent improvements in the main outcome measures were noted between studies. Ninety five percent of patients described excellent to satisfactory outcomes. The minimum mean forward elevation reported in each study was 115 degrees. Symptomatic glenoid loosening (1.7%), deep infection (3.3%) and revision surgery (5%) rates were no higher than for a population of mixed aetiologies.
Previous concerns regarding high pre- and peri-operative complication and revision rates in RA patients were not shown to be valid by the results of this review. Although associated cuff tears are common and glenoid bone loss can increase the technical complexity of surgery, RSA provides consistent and predictable improvements in key outcome measures and the revision and complication rates do not appear to be higher than reported in a large population of mixed aetiologies.
The contemporary literature shows that RSA is a safe, effective and reliable treatment option in RA patients.