Comparison of Humeral-Head Replacement with Glenoid-Reaming Arthroplasty (Ream and Run) Versus Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Matched-Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid component failure is a major concern after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). Ream and run (RnR) is an alternative procedure that may avoid glenoid-related complications. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of RnR versus aTSA in younger patients with advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

METHODS: This was a retrospective matched-cohort study of 110 patients who underwent aTSA and 57 patients who underwent RnR; patients were <66 years of age and had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Propensity matching was performed using 21 preoperative variables. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) scores, satisfaction with outcome, and revision data were analyzed. Mixed-effects models examined the association of preoperative variables with outcomes.

RESULTS: Thirty-nine patient pairs were matched. All patients were male, with a mean age of 58.6 ± 7.3 years and a mean follow-up 4.4 ± 2.3 years. The aTSA cohort had better final Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. However, in the mixed-effects model analysis, arthroplasty type was not associated with outcome. At 2 years postoperatively, a significantly greater percentage of aTSA patients achieved the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the ASES (100% versus 79.2%; p = 0.01) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (89.7% versus 75%; p = 0.02) for the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. At >5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the cohorts in the percentage who achieved the MCID, SCB, or patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the ASES, SST, and VAS for pain. Three patients underwent revision arthroplasty for pain after RnR, at a mean of 1.9 ± 1.7 years. Two patients underwent revision arthroplasty for glenoid loosening at 9.2 and 14 years after aTSA.

CONCLUSIONS: RnR and aTSA had comparable outcomes in most analyses. The greater early revision rate after RnR should focus attention on optimizing patient selection and postoperative management. Revision for glenoid loosening is a concern among younger and active patients. Longer-term study is needed to better understand the relative benefits and disadvantages of these procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.