Should the supraspinatus tendon be excised in the case of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture?

Abstract

Purpose In the case of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) with tuberosity reconstruction, it is unclear whether the supraspinatus tendon continues to play a role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of RSA for PHFs in a large cohort of elderly patients and compare the results in the case of supraspinatus excision or preservation. Methods In this retrospective multicentre study, 150 patients (mean age 77\xa0years, 93% female) were reviewed and radiographed with a minimum follow-up of 24\xa0months. The same Grammont prosthetic design was used in all cases (inclination angle 155°, non-lateralised glenosphere). Patients were divided into two groups: Group A ( n \u2009=\u2009117) underwent supraspinatus excision and Group B supraspinatus preservation ( n \u2009=\u200933). Complications were recorded, and shoulder function, active mobility and subjective results were assessed. Results At a mean follow-up of 59\xa0months, there was no statistical difference in the complication rate (6% vs. 6.8%, p \u2009=\u20091), mean Constant score (61 points vs. 59 points, p \u2009=\u20090.52), simple shoulder value (74% vs. 73.9%, p \u2009=\u20090.9), active anterior elevation (125° vs. 128°, p \u2009=\u20090.45) and internal rotation (4.9 points vs. 4.1 points, p \u2009=\u20090.2). However, mean active external rotation was better in Group A (22° vs. 13°, p \u2009=\u20090.01). The greater tuberosity healing rate in satisfactory position did not differ statistically between the groups (68% vs. 55%, p \u2009=\u20090.14). Conclusion In the case of RSA with tuberosity reconstruction for acute PHFs, there is no clear evidence that supraspinatus preservation is advantageous.