Timing and Reported Indications for Revision After Anatomic Versus Reverse Total Shoulder Replacement: A National Joint Registry Study
- 1Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, United Lincolnshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Lincoln LN2 5QY, UK
- 2Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London SW10 9NH, UK
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Although reverse total shoulder replacement (RTSR) is now the predominant shoulder replacement procedure in England and Wales, RTSR and anatomic total shoulder replacement (anatomic TSR) serve mainly different indications and are seldom compared in terms of when and why they are revised. We aimed to describe the timing and reported indications for the first revision of each construct and quantify the between-construct comparison that the National Joint Registry (NJR) describes only qualitatively. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of published aggregate data from the NJR’s 22nd Annual Report for elective primary anatomic TSR (n = 21,180) and RTSR (n = 39,408) performed in England and Wales between 2012 and 2024. We used NJR’s published Kaplan–Meier and prosthesis-time incidence rate (PTIR) estimates to derive the unadjusted between-construct difference (anatomic TSR minus RTSR) in cumulative revision at each time point, with approximate 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and rate ratios for each reported revision indication. Results: In these unadjusted estimates, the between-construct difference was −0.66 percentage points at 1 year (95% CI [−0.85, −0.47]), close to 0 at 3 years, and 3.52 percentage points at 12 years (95% CI [2.19, 4.85]). Revision for infection (rate ratio, 2.43), periprosthetic fracture (1.75) and instability (1.26) was more common after RTSR, whereas cuff insufficiency was markedly less frequent (PTIR 0.01 vs. 0.34 per 100 prosthesis years). Conclusions: The constructs differ in revision timing and reported indications. Because they are used for different indications in patients of different ages, these unadjusted data are descriptive and cannot establish comparative superiority or guide construct selection alone.
Related
- Anatomic Reconstruction of Acute Posterior Shoulder Instability With Reverse Hill-Sachs Lesions: A Report of Two Cases
- Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty projected to increase 20-fold by 2040, outpacing growth in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty
- Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Is Associated With Lower Rates of Adhesive Capsulitis, Bursitis, Shoulder Stiffness, and Revision Shoulder Arthroscopy After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
- Patient‐reported evolution of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool after arthroscopic anatomic lateral ligament reconstruction: A retrospective study of 134 cases
- Acetabular revision surgery revisited: do changing indications influence bone defect management? A comprehensive review
BibTeX
@article{mosaid2026timing,
title = {{Timing and Reported Indications for Revision After Anatomic Versus Reverse Total Shoulder Replacement: A National Joint Registry Study}},
author = {Sedeek Mosaid and Banah Khoshnaw and Nuala Pepper and Omar Salem and Paul Lee and Charles Corbin},
journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcm15218381},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8381},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Timing and Reported Indications for Revision After Anatomic Versus Reverse Total Shoulder Replacement: A National Joint Registry Study
AU - Sedeek Mosaid
AU - Banah Khoshnaw
AU - Nuala Pepper
AU - Omar Salem
AU - Paul Lee
AU - Charles Corbin
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/28
JO - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO - 10.3390/jcm15218381
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/21/8381
AB - Background/Objectives: Although reverse total shoulder replacement (RTSR) is now the predominant shoulder replacement procedure in England and Wales, RTSR and anatomic total shoulder replacement (anatomic TSR) serve mainly different indications and are seldom compared in terms of when and why they are revised. We aimed to describe the timing and reported indications for the first revision of each construct and quantify the between-construct comparison that the National Joint Registry (NJR) describes only qualitatively. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of published aggregate data from the NJR’s 22nd Annual Report for elective primary anatomic TSR (n = 21,180) and RTSR (n = 39,408) performed in England and Wales between 2012 and 2024. We used NJR’s published Kaplan–Meier and prosthesis-time incidence rate (PTIR) estimates to derive the unadjusted between-construct difference (anatomic TSR minus RTSR) in cumulative revision at each time point, with approximate 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and rate ratios for each reported revision indication. Results: In these unadjusted estimates, the between-construct difference was −0.66 percentage points at 1 year (95% CI [−0.85, −0.47]), close to 0 at 3 years, and 3.52 percentage points at 12 years (95% CI [2.19, 4.85]). Revision for infection (rate ratio, 2.43), periprosthetic fracture (1.75) and instability (1.26) was more common after RTSR, whereas cuff insufficiency was markedly less frequent (PTIR 0.01 vs. 0.34 per 100 prosthesis years). Conclusions: The constructs differ in revision timing and reported indications. Because they are used for different indications in patients of different ages, these unadjusted data are descriptive and cannot establish comparative superiority or guide construct selection alone.
SN - 2077-0383
ER -