Previous short-term results from a single surgeon for glenoid bone loss treated with total shoulder arthroplasty and an inlay glenoid component have been reported. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the mid to long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of these patients.

Following Institutional Review Board approval, a cohort of patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty with an inlay glenoid component performed by a single surgeon between 2010-2019 for severe glenoid dysplasia and/or glenoid bone loss was identified. Patients with a minimum of two years follow-up were evaluated with preoperative and postoperative range of motion, radiographs, visual analog scale scores and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score.

Overall, 39 shoulders in 33 patients were treated with an inlay glenoid component for severe glenoid bone loss. Four patients were lost to follow-up and one patient was deceased with a well-functioning implant in place. The final cohort included 34 shoulders in 28 patients (46.4% (13/28) female and 53.6% (15/28) male patients) with a mean age of 66.9 years (range 58-81) and mean follow-up of 68.3 months. Five of the 34 were revision cases. One patient was deceased following two-year follow-up. Ten shoulders were classified as Walch type A2, 4 as Walch type B3, 15 as Walch type C, and 5 were unable to be classified. There was a statistically significant increase in range of motion (forward elevation, 38.1° p< 0.001; external rotation, 18.8°, p< 0.001), and improvement of SANE scores (26.6 to 81.0, p< 0.001). Two patients were converted to reverse shoulder arthroplasty at 2.2 and 1.7 years postoperatively.

Inlay glenoid components provide a low rate of revision and improved clinical and functional outcomes at mid- to long-term follow-up.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
57% Article relates to my practice (11/19)
26% Article does not relate to my practice (5/19)
15% Undecided (3/19)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

57% Yes (11/19)
21% No (4/19)
21% Undecided (4/19)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

10% Yes (2/19)
73% No (14/19)
15% Undecided (3/19)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/19)
15% Level 2 (3/19)
42% Level 3 (8/19)
36% Level 4 (7/19)
5% Level 5 (1/19)