Lateralized glenosphere reverse shoulder arthroplasty: inlay and onlay designs have similar clinical outcomes in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis

Background: Whether or how the position of the humeral tray (inlay or onlay) in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) affects outcomes is unclear. Our goal was to compare the clinical and radiographic results of RSA systems with inlay vs. onlay designs but with similar neck shaft angles (NSAs) and lateralized glenospheres. Methods: We screened the institutional database at our tertiary academic center for patients who underwent primary RSA (with a lateralized glenosphere and a 135° NSA) from 2009 through 2017. The indication for surgery was glenohumeral osteoarthritis with glenoid bone loss (Walch classification A2, B2, B3, or C) and an intact rotator cuff. All patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 47 months; range, 24-123 months). The humeral tray design was inlay for 79 patients and onlay for 71. All patients underwent preoperative and postoperative evaluations, including physical examination, radiography, and patient-reported outcome measures (visual analog scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index). Results: Compared with preoperative values, both groups achieved minimal clinically important differences in range of motion and patient-reported outcomes at the final follow-up. We found no significant differences between groups in any of these measures at the final follow-up. Rates of revision (inlay, 3.8% vs. onlay, 1.4%), scapular notching (inlay, 5.1% vs. onlay, 7.0%), acromial stress fracture (inlay, 0% vs. onlay, 2.8%), and tuberosity resorption (inlay, 25% vs. onlay, 27%) were not significantly different between groups (all, P >.05). Conclusion: For patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis with glenoid bone loss and an intact rotator cuff who underwent RSA using a lateralized glenosphere prosthesis with a 135° NSA, there were no significant differences between the inlay and onlay groups for range of motion, patient-reported outcomes, or complication rates. These findings are limited to this off-label indication for RSA.