Hypothesis:
Both clinical outcomes and early rates of failure will not be associated with glenoid retroversion.

Methods:
All patients who underwent an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with minimal, noncorrective reaming between 2006 and 2016 with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Measurements for retroversion, inclination, and posterior subluxation were obtained from magnetic resonance imaging or computerized tomography. A regression analysis was performed to assess the association between retroversion, inclination and subluxation, and their effect on patient reported outcomes (PROs). Clinical failures and complications were reported.

Results:
One hundred fifty-one anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (90% follow-up) with a mean follow-up of 4.6 years (range, 2-12 years) were assessed. The mean preoperative retroversion was 15.6° (range, 0.2-42.1), the mean posterior subluxation was 15.1% (range, -3.6 to 44.1%), and the mean glenoid inclination was 13.9° (range, -11.3 to 44.3). All median outcome scores improved significantly from pre- to post-operatively (P <  .001). The median satisfaction was 10/10 (1st quartile = 7 and 3rd quartile = 10). Linear regression analysis found no significant association between retroversion and any postoperative PRO. A total of 5 (3.3%) failures occurred due to glenoid implant loosening (3 patients) and Cutibacterium acnes infection (2 patients) with no association between failure causation and increased retroversion or inclination. No correlation could be found between the Walch classification and postoperative PROs.

Conclusion:
Anatomic total shoulder replacement with minimal and noncorrective glenoid reaming demonstrates reliable increases in patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes at a mean of 4.6-year follow-up in patients with up to 40° of native retroversion. Higher values of retroversion were not associated with early deterioration of clinical outcomes, revisions, or failures. Long-term studies are needed to see if survivorship and outcomes hold up over time.





Polls results
1

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

NO change
BIG change
66% Article relates to my practice (16/24)
25% Article does not relate to my practice (6/24)
8% Undecided (2/24)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

54% Yes (13/24)
33% No (8/24)
12% Undecided (3/24)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

8% Yes (2/24)
91% No (22/24)
0% Undecided (0/24)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/24)
4% Level 2 (1/24)
70% Level 3 (17/24)
25% Level 4 (6/24)
0% Level 5 (0/24)