Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides better shoulder function than hemiarthroplasty for displaced 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in patients aged 70 years or older: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Eythor Ö. Jonsson, Carl Ekholm, Björn Salomonsson, Yilmaz Demir, Per Olerud, Mikael Etzner, Robert Ihrman, Anders Nordqvist, Johan Scheer, Fredrik Westman
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The most appropriate treatment for displaced multiple-fragment proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients is currently unclear. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is a promising treatment option that is being used increasingly. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of rTSA vs. hemiarthroplasty (HA) for the treatment of displaced 3- and 4-part fractures in elderly patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. We included patients aged ≥ 70 years with displaced 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures between September 2013 and May 2016. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years, with outcome measures including the Constant score (primary outcome), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index, EQ-5D (EuroQol 5 Dimensions) index, and range of motion, as well as pain and shoulder satisfaction assessed on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: We randomized 99 patients to rTSA (48 patients) or HA (51 patients). Fifteen patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 41 rTSA and 43 HA patients for analysis. The mean age was 79.5 years, and there were 76 women (90%). The rTSA group had a mean Constant score of 58.7 points compared with 47.7 points in the HA group, with a mean difference of 11.1 points (95% CI, 3.0-18.9 points; P = .007). Compared with HA patients, rTSA patients had greater mean satisfaction with the shoulder (79 mm vs. 63 mm, P = .011), flexion (125° vs. 90°, P < .001), and abduction (112° vs. 83°, P < .001), but there was no difference in Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index, pain, or EQ-5D index scores. We identified 3 and 4 adverse events in the rTSA and HA groups, respectively. Among patients aged ≥ 80 years (n = 38), there was no difference between rTSA treatment and HA treatment in pain (17 mm vs. 9 mm, P = .17) or shoulder satisfaction (77 mm vs. 74 mm, P = .73). CONCLUSION: We found that rTSA provides better shoulder function than HA as measured with the Constant score, further emphasized by rTSA patients being more satisfied with their shoulder function. The difference appears to be mainly a result of better range of motion (abduction and flexion) in the rTSA group. The results also indicate that patients aged ≥ 80 years benefit less from rTSA than patients aged 70-79 years.