Abstract:PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) can be considered a proven method for the treatment of the most severe shoulder joint affections. In this study, we present 14-year experiences of the authors with the LimaCorporate SMR® RSA system in 496 cases. MATERIAL AND METHODS Included in the study are 496 RSAs performed between 2007 and 2020. We successfully followed up 368 shoulders in 358 patients. This was a prospective study with function being evaluated preoperatively and at the last follow-up in 2020. We evaluated the range of motion in active elevation and the classic Constant Score (CS). According to this score, the pain level was also evaluated. Standard statistical methods were used with a paired t-test used for comparisons of values. RESULTS The mean follow-up in our group was 5.5 years (0.7-13.6, SD 3.22, median 4.96). Indications were: primary osteoarthritis (84), acute trauma (69), posttraumatic sequelae (79), cuff tear arthropathy (37), RA (29), chronic dislocations (18), final treatment of infectious complications (7), avascular necrosis (6), tumours (4) and TSA revisions (9). The mean post-operative CS of all patients was 71.9 (2-94, SD 11.26, median 73). The mean post-operative active elevation was 127.35° (30°-180°, SD 28.36, median 130°). The mean pain level at final follow-up was 0.65 (0-3, SD 0.65, median 1). There was a statistically significant improvement In the CS (26.9 to 71) and the final achieved elevation (48.5° to 127.35°) in all groups except acute traumas for obvious reasons. A significant decrease in pain (2.8 to 0.65) was observed in all groups. We saw no implant failures or UHMWPE component wear. DISCUSSION We compared our results with those published by other authors. When considering the functional outcomes, our results are comparable with those published previously. Compared to other studies, an interesting result is the low incidence of scapular notching. In our cohort of patients, it was only present in 10 (2.7%) cases. We attribute this to the design of the SMR® implant which meets the main criterium of a modern shoulder arthroplasty system: modularity of both glenoid components. The glenospheres are available in 36, 40 and 44mm sizes with standard and distalised options. Furthermore, the system also contains the Axioma® revision glenoid component. Humeral stems are available in a range of sizes and lengths including revision stems. The humeral body is also available in two sizes. The short variant is optimal for revision with hemiarthroplasty to reverse conversion. CONCLUSIONS During a period of 14 years, we performed 496 implantations of RSAs using the SMR® system. We evaluated 368 cases with an average follow-up of 5.5 years. During long-term follow-up we experienced no implant failures or complications indicative of any constructional insufficiencies. We saw no signs of UHMWPE liner wear. The SMR® system allows for treatment of even the most complex shoulder affections due to its high modularity. Key words: shoulder joint replacement, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, SMR®, Axioma®, outcomes, ROM, scapular notching, complication, polyethylene wear, UHMWPE.

Inverted-bearing reverse shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, complications, clinical, and radiological outcomes

Functional and radiographic outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: 14-Year Clinical Experience with 496 Performed Arthroplasties

Surgical Experience and Clinical Outcomes

Assessing the efficacy: mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes of the comprehensive short stem system in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Management of glenoid bone loss with impaction and structural bone grafting in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Early Outcomes, Pitfalls, and Challenges

Clinical Outcomes Do Not Deteriorate Over Time Following Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Minimum 10-Year Follow-up of 135 Shoulders

Stemless reverse arthroplasty: Does the stemless compare to a conventional stemmed implant? Clinical and radiographic evaluation 2 years minimum follow up

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with an inverted-bearing prosthesis as revision procedure for failed anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a long-term multicenter study

Instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective review of thirty one cases

Outcome and revision rate of uncemented humeral head resurfacing: Mid-term follow-up study

Enhanced Outcomes and Safety of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Rotator Cuff Deficiency and Proximal Humerus Fractures: A 22-Patient Retrospective Analysis

Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients with Large Glenoid Defects Using the Stilting Technique and a Baseplate with Central Ingrowth Cage and Peripheral Locking Screws

Posteroinferior Glenosphere Positioning is Associated with Improved Range of Motion Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with a 135° Inlay Humeral Component and Lateralized Glenoid

Primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a patient-matched glenoid implant for severe glenoid bone deficiency

Clinical and radiological outcomes with an augmented baseplate for superior glenoid wear in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Complications and Revisions in Metal-Backed Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Comparative Study of Revision Rates Between Stemless and Stemmed Humeral Components

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in obstetric brachial plexus injury: our experience with shoulder motion analysis

Clinical Results and CT Analysis of ISA Stemless at a Minimum Follow-up of 2 Years

Structural Bone Grafting with Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis with Severe Glenoid Bone Loss: outcomes using a long post