BACKGROUND:
Management of bone loss and glenoid deformity can present a significant challenge to surgeons. The purpose of this review was to compare outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using either bone graft or augmented baseplates for the management of glenoid bone loss and deformity.

METHODS:
A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane indices was performed for studies reporting clinical outcomes following primary RSA with bone grafting or use of augmented baseplates. Pooled and frequency-weighted means were calculated where applicable. Between-group comparison was also performed.

RESULTS:
Overall, 19 studies and 652 patients were included in the study. There were no significant differences in age or gender between the bone grafting (70.3 years; 47.8% female) and augmented baseplate (72.9 years; 59.0% female) groups (p=0.166; p=0.659). Overall complication and revision rates were similar for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using either bone graft (11.7% complication rate; 4.5% revision rate) or augmented baseplates (11.8% complication rate; 3.7% revision rate) for the management of glenoid bone loss and deformity (p=0.968; p=0.562). Furthermore, range of motion as well as patient-reported and functional outcome scores were similar between both techniques. However, infections (0.7% augmented baseplate; 1.9% bone grafting) and notching (4.7% augmented baseplate; 24.6% bone grafting) were found to be more common in the bone grafting group (p=0.012; p=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS:
Glenoid bone grafting and augmented baseplates have similar overall clinical outcomes, complication rates, and revision rates. However, there were some significant differences between groups with respect to notching and infections which deserve consideration and further exploration.





Polls results
1

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

NO change
BIG change
0% Article relates to my practice (0/1)
100% Article does not relate to my practice (1/1)
0% Undecided (0/1)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

0% Yes (0/1)
0% No (0/1)
100% Undecided (1/1)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/1)
100% No (1/1)
0% Undecided (0/1)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/1)
0% Level 2 (0/1)
100% Level 3 (1/1)
0% Level 4 (0/1)
0% Level 5 (0/1)