BACKGROUND:
The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and stemless anatomic total shoulder replacement has been increasing in the United States every year. Stemless humeral components in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty are only approved for clinical trials in the United States with an investigational device exception with limited data.

METHODS:
A systematic review on stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted on November 25, 2020, using the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. All articles were reviewed by 2 independent evaluators, with any conflicts or issues resolved by consensus or a final decision by the senior author. The primary outcomes extracted were complications, radiographic results, and outcome scores.

RESULTS:
We evaluated 10 studies that used either the Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS) or Verso implant. There were 430 total patients and 437 total procedures; 266 patients in the TESS group underwent a total of 272 procedures, and 164 patients in the Verso group underwent a total of 165 procedures. The mean age at the time of surgery was 73.8 years (range, 38-93 years). The mean follow-up period ranged from 6.4 to 101.6 months per study. There was an overall trend of improved clinical outcome scores, a 0.2% humeral component loosening rate, and an 11.2% complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS:
This review shows that the clinical and functional outcomes following stemless or metaphyseal reverse total shoulder arthroplasty are quite promising, especially with the low rate of humeral-sided complications. There continues to be a need for additional long-term studies and randomized clinical trials.



Polls results
1

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

NO change
BIG change
60% Article relates to my practice (37/61)
11% Article does not relate to my practice (7/61)
27% Undecided (17/61)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

47% Yes (29/61)
26% No (16/61)
26% Undecided (16/61)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

14% Yes (9/61)
72% No (44/61)
13% Undecided (8/61)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

1% Level 1 (1/61)
19% Level 2 (12/61)
49% Level 3 (30/61)
21% Level 4 (13/61)
8% Level 5 (5/61)