Aims: Both anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA and rTSA) provide functional improvements. A reported benefit of aTSA is better range of motion (ROM). However, it is not clear which procedure provides better outcomes in patients with limited foward elevation (FE). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of aTSA and rTSA in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), an intact rotator cuff, and limited FE.Methods: This was a retrospective review of a single institution’s prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database for TSAs undertaken between 2007 and 2020. A total of 344 aTSAs and 163 rTSAs, which were performed in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff with a minimum follow-up of two years, were included. Using the definition of preoperative stiffness as passive FE ≤ 105°, three cohorts were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and follow-up: stiff aTSAs (85) to non-stiff aTSAs (85); stiff rTSAs (74) to non-stiff rTSAs (74); and stiff rTSAs (64) to stiff aTSAs (64). We the compared ROMs, outcome scores, and complication and revision rates.Results: Compared with non-stiff aTSAs, stiff aTSAs had poorer passive FE and active external rotation (ER), whereas there were no significant postoperative differences between stiff rTSAs and non-stiff rTSAs. There were no significant differences in preoperative function when comparing stiff aTSAs with stiff rTSAs. However, stiff rTSAs had significantly greater postoperative active and passive FE (p = 0.001 and 0.004, respectively), and active abduction (p = 0.001) compared with stiff aTSAs. The outcome scores were significantly more favourable in stiff rTSAs for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California, Los Angeles score, and the Constant score, compared with stiff aTSAs. When comparing the proportion of stiff aTSAs versus stiff rTSAs that exceeded the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit, stiff rTSAs achieved both at greater rates for all measurements except active ER. The complication rate did not significantly differ between stiff aTSAs and stiff rTSAs, but there was a significantly higher rate of revision surgery in stiff aTSAs (p = 0.007).Conclusion: Postoperative overhead ROM, outcome scores, and rates of revision surgery favour the use of a rTSA rather than aTSA in patients with glenohumeral OA, an intact rotator cuff and limited FE, with similar rotational ROM in these two groups.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1303–1313.

Background: Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are relatively common, although optimal rehabilitation is unknown. This review aims to characterize the published rehabilitation regimens utilized for PHFs. Methods: A systematic review was performed per PRISMA guidelines, utilizing PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane. All studies reporting PHF rehabilitation protocols after nonoperative management, open reduction internal fixation with a plate, or intramedullary nailing were included. Results: Forty articles comprising 3507 patients (66% female, weighted mean age 63.5 years) were included. Substantial variability was present regardless of management. Rehabilitation modalities reported were: sling use in 34 cohorts, most commonly for three weeks; pendulum exercises in 21 cohorts, most commonly starting at post-intervention day 1; post-intervention passive range of motion (ROM) for 30 cohorts, most commonly starting at two days; active-ROM in eight cohorts, most commonly starting at three weeks; active-assisted ROM for 21 cohorts, most commonly starting at three weeks; unlimited ROM for 20 cohorts, most commonly at 4 or 6 weeks; non-weight-bearing for six cohorts, most commonly for six weeks; strengthening for 16 cohorts, most commonly at six weeks; removal of all restrictions for nine cohorts, most commonly starting at six weeks. Conclusions: Published rehabilitation protocols for PHFs vary considerably regardless of management. Future studies comparing methods of management need to consider the influence of postoperative rehabilitation protocol heterogeneity when aggregating data from multiple sites. Level of Evidence: IV