Reverse total shoulder replacement versus anatomical total shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis: population based cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

OBJECTIVES:To answer a national research priority by comparing the risk-benefit and costs associated with reverse total shoulder replacement (RTSR) and anatomical total shoulder replacement (TSR) in patients having elective primary shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. DESIGN:Population based cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England. SETTING:Public hospitals and publicly funded procedures at private hospitals in England, 2012-20. PARTICIPANTS:Adults aged 60 years or older who underwent RTSR or TSR for osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff tendons. Patients were identified from the National Joint Registry and linked to NHS Hospital Episode Statistics and civil registration mortality data. Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to balance the study groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures included serious adverse events within 90 days, reoperations within 12 months, prolonged hospital stay (more than three nights), change in Oxford Shoulder Score (preoperative to six month postoperative), and lifetime costs to the healthcare service. RESULTS:The propensity score matched population comprised 7124 RTSR or TSR procedures (126 were revised), and the inverse probability of treatment weighted population comprised 12 968 procedures (294 were revised) with a maximum follow-up of 8.75 years. RTSR had a reduced hazard ratio of revision in the first three years (hazard ratio local minimum 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.59) with no clinically important difference in revision-free restricted mean survival time, and a reduced relative risk of reoperations at 12 months (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.83) with an absolute risk difference of -0.51% (95% confidence interval -0.89 to -0.13). Serious adverse events and prolonged hospital stay risks, change in Oxford Shoulder Score, and modelled mean lifetime costs were similar. Outcomes remained consistent after weighting. CONCLUSIONS:This study's findings provide reassurance that RTSR is an acceptable alternative to TSR for patients aged 60 years or older with osteoarthritis and intact rotator cuff tendons. Despite a significant difference in the risk profiles of revision surgery over time, no statistically significant and clinically important differences between RTSR and TSR were found in terms of long term revision surgery, serious adverse events, reoperations, prolonged hospital stay, or lifetime healthcare costs.