{"title":"Clinical results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failed arthroscopic rotator cuff repair compared to primary cases: a case-control study.","authors":"Noriaki Shimada, Jun'ichi Inoue, Ryota Takei, Kazuo Saita, Hiroshi Inui","doi":"10.1186/s42836-025-00323-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a popular treatment, its efficacy in patients with failed rotator cuff repair (ARCR) remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical results of RSA for following failed ARCR. We hypothesized that RSA after failed ARCR would lead to improved clinical outcomes comparable to those of RSA performed without prior surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2017 and December 2022, 143 patients underwent RSA at our institution. We included 85 patients who met the study criteria and followed them for a minimum of 2 years. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent RSA for failed ARCR (group A: 25 patients; mean age, 77.7 years) and those who underwent primary RSA (group B: 60 patients; mean age, 77.9 years). The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, range of motion (ROM), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores, and complication rates were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the 2-year postoperative follow-up, both groups showed significant improvements in all items. Postoperative outcome or complication rate demonstrated no significant difference between group A and group B: UCLA scores (29.7 ± 3.9 vs 29.3 ± 3.6), JOA scores (87.4 ± 6.1 vs 87.4 ± 8.6), ROM forward elevation (129.1 ± 20.1 vs 133.9 ± 24.1), ROM external rotation (29.1 ± 12.7 vs 29.4 ± 10.7), ROM internal rotation (2.4 ± 1.0 points vs 2.3 ± 1.1 point), NRS scores (0.9 ± 1.2 vs 1.1 ± 1.3), and complication rates (4.0% vs 3.3%). Group A exhibited improvement in all items, and the results were comparable to those in group B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RSA in patients with prior rotator cuff repair demonstrated similar functional outcomes and complication rates to those in patients who underwent RSA without prior surgeries. The study demonstrated that prior ARCR would not be a negative predictor. For patients who are afraid of or cannot consent to artificial joint surgery, recommending ARCR first may be an option.</p>","PeriodicalId":52831,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty","volume":"7 1","pages":"38"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12315408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s42836-025-00323-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Although reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a popular treatment, its efficacy in patients with failed rotator cuff repair (ARCR) remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical results of RSA for following failed ARCR. We hypothesized that RSA after failed ARCR would lead to improved clinical outcomes comparable to those of RSA performed without prior surgeries.
Methods: Between January 2017 and December 2022, 143 patients underwent RSA at our institution. We included 85 patients who met the study criteria and followed them for a minimum of 2 years. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent RSA for failed ARCR (group A: 25 patients; mean age, 77.7 years) and those who underwent primary RSA (group B: 60 patients; mean age, 77.9 years). The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, range of motion (ROM), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores, and complication rates were compared between the two groups.
Results: At the 2-year postoperative follow-up, both groups showed significant improvements in all items. Postoperative outcome or complication rate demonstrated no significant difference between group A and group B: UCLA scores (29.7 ± 3.9 vs 29.3 ± 3.6), JOA scores (87.4 ± 6.1 vs 87.4 ± 8.6), ROM forward elevation (129.1 ± 20.1 vs 133.9 ± 24.1), ROM external rotation (29.1 ± 12.7 vs 29.4 ± 10.7), ROM internal rotation (2.4 ± 1.0 points vs 2.3 ± 1.1 point), NRS scores (0.9 ± 1.2 vs 1.1 ± 1.3), and complication rates (4.0% vs 3.3%). Group A exhibited improvement in all items, and the results were comparable to those in group B.
Conclusions: RSA in patients with prior rotator cuff repair demonstrated similar functional outcomes and complication rates to those in patients who underwent RSA without prior surgeries. The study demonstrated that prior ARCR would not be a negative predictor. For patients who are afraid of or cannot consent to artificial joint surgery, recommending ARCR first may be an option.
背景:虽然反向肩关节置换术(RSA)是一种流行的治疗方法,但其对肩袖修复失败(ARCR)患者的疗效尚不清楚。在本研究中,我们的目的是评估RSA对后续失败的ARCR的临床结果。我们假设,与之前没有手术的RSA相比,ARCR失败后的RSA会改善临床结果。方法:2017年1月至2022年12月,143例患者在我院接受了RSA。我们纳入了85名符合研究标准的患者,并对他们进行了至少2年的随访。患者被分为两组:接受RSA治疗失败的患者(A组:25例;平均年龄77.7岁)和原发性RSA患者(B组:60例;平均年龄77.9岁)。比较两组患者加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)评分、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、活动度(ROM)、数值评定量表(NRS)评分和并发症发生率。结果:术后2年随访,两组患者各项指标均有显著改善。A组和B组的术后结果或并发症发生率无显著差异:UCLA评分(29.7±3.9 vs 29.3±3.6),JOA评分(87.4±6.1 vs 87.4±8.6),ROM前抬高(129.1±20.1 vs 133.9±24.1),ROM外旋(29.1±12.7 vs 29.4±10.7),ROM内旋(2.4±1.0 vs 2.3±1.1),NRS评分(0.9±1.2 vs 1.1±1.3),并发症发生率(4.0% vs 3.3%)。A组在所有项目上都表现出改善,结果与b组相当。结论:先前进行过肩袖修复的RSA患者的功能结局和并发症发生率与未进行过手术的RSA患者相似。研究表明,先前的ARCR不会是一个负面的预测因子。对于害怕或不同意人工关节手术的患者,首先推荐ARCR可能是一种选择。