Comparative analysis of the results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the deltopectoral approach with complete or partial subscapularis muscle dissection

Introduction. Indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSA) have increased since their development by Paul Grammont in 1985. The design of the endoprosthesis has been improved, significantly reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. However, the question of how to treat the subscapularis muscle (SSC muscle) during reverse shoulder arthroplasty remains open.

The aim. To compare the functional and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty performed via the deltopectoral approach with either complete or partial subscapularis muscle dissection.

Materials and methods. A randomized clinical trial was conducted for evaluating the outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 49 patients. The cohort was divided into two groups. In the first group, implantation of the reverse endoprosthesis was performed using the standard deltopectoral approach, whereas in the second group a novel surgical approach with partial subscapularis muscle dissection was employed. Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed postoperatively, and at 3 and 12 months of follow-up, using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain.

Results. Patients who underwent a surgical approach with partial subscapularis muscle dissection, in the postoperative period, demonstrated better scores on the ASES scale, a greater degree of anterior flexion and less intensity of pain compared to the group of patients after standard deltopectoral approach.

Conclusion. The surgical approach with partial subscapularis muscle dissection improves functional and clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty also it reduces the probability of joint dislocation.

1. Baulot E, Sirveaux F, Boileau P Grammont>s idea: The story of Paul Grammont>s functional surgery concept and the development of the reverse principle. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(9): 2425-2431. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1757-y

2. Thon SG, Seidl AJ, Bravman JT, McCarty EC, Savoie FH 3rd, Frank RM. Advances and Update on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020; 13(1): 11-19. doi: 10.1007/s12178-019-09582-2

3. Flurin PH, Roche CP, Wright TW, Marczuk Y, Zuckerman JD. A Comparison and Correlation of Clinical Outcome Metrics in Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2015; 73 Suppl 1: S118-S123.

4. Rugg CM, Coughlan MJ, Lansdown DA. Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Biomechanics and Indications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019; 12(4): 542-553. doi: 10.1007/s12178-019-09586-y

5. Wall B, Nove-Josserand L, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(7): 1476-1485. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00666

6. Cherepovsky AV, Odintsov AA. Shoulder replacement for proximal shoulder fractures: opportunities and difficulties. Pacific Medical Journal. 2022; (2): 15-18. (In Russ.). doi: 10.34215/1609-1175-2022-2-15-18

7. Ferle M, Pastor MF, Hagenah J, Hurschler C, Smith T. Effect of the humeral neck-shaft angle and glenosphere lateralization on stability of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(5): 966-973. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.025

8. Werner BC, Wong AC, Mahony GT, et al. Clinical Out-comes after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with and without Subscapularis Repair: The Importance of Considering Glenosphere Lateralization. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018; 26(5): e114-e119. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00781

9. Chalmers PN, Rahman Z, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Early dislocation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(5): 737-744. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.015

10. Clark JC, Ritchie J, Song FS, et al. Complication rates, dislocation, pain, and postoperative range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with and without repair of the subscapularis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012; 21(1): 36-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.009

11. Edwards TB, Williams MD, Labriola JE, Elkousy HA, Gartsman GM, O>Connor DP. Subscapularis insufficiency and the risk of shoulder dislocation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(6): 892-896. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.013

12. Kesyan GA, Karapetyan GS, Shuyskiy AA, Panov AA, Razvalyaev AS. The differentiated approach to the choice of surgical access for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Medical News of North Caucasus. 2023; 18(1): 42-45. (In Russ.). doi: 10.14300/mnnc.2023.18010

13. Friedman RJ, Flurin PH, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD, Roche CP. Comparison of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes with and without subscapularis repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26(4): 662-668. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.027

14. de Boer FA, van Kampen PM, Huijsmans PE. The influence of subscapularis tendon reattachment on range of motion in reversed shoulder arthroplasty: a clinical study. Musculoskelet Surg. 2016; 100(2): 121-126. doi: 10.1007/s12306-016-0401-8

15. Franceschetti E, de Sanctis EG, Ranieri R, Palumbo A, Paciotti M, Franceschi F. The role of the subscapularis tendon in a lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: repair versus non-repair. Int Orthop. 2019; 43(11): 2579-2586. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4275-2

16. Vourazeris JD, Wright TW, Struk AM, King JJ, Farmer KW. Primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes in patients with subscapularis repair versus tenotomy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26(3): 450-457. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.017

17. Oh JH, Shin SJ, McGarry MH, Scott JH, Heckmann N, Lee TQ. Biomechanical effects of humeral neck-shaft angle and subscapularis integrity in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 23(8): 1091-1098. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.003

18. Ladermann A, Denard PJ, Tirefort J, Collin P, Nowak A, Schwitzguebel AJ. Subscapularis- and deltoid-sparing vs traditional deltopectoral approach in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective case-control study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017; 12(1): 112. doi: 10.1186/s13018-017-0617-9

19. Matthewson G, Kooner S, Kwapisz A, Leiter J, Old J, MacDonald P. The effect of subscapularis repair on dislocation rates in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(5): 989-997. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.11.069

20. Pastor MF, Kraemer M, Wellmann M, Hurschler C, Smith T. Anterior stability of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty depending on implant configuration and rotator cuff condition. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016; 136(11): 1513-1519. doi: 10.1007/s00402-016-2560-3

21. Petrosyan AS, Egiazaryan KA, Panin MA, Ratyev AA, Al-bawareed OA. Evolution of shoulder arthroplasty. RUDN Journal of Medicine. 2022; 26(2): 117-128. (In Russ.). doi: 10.22363/2313-0245-2022-26-2-117-128

22. Simovitch R, Fullick R, Zuckerman JD. Use of the subscapularis preserving technique in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2013; 71 (Suppl 2): 94-100.

23. Erickson BJ, Shishani Y, Bishop ME, et al. Subscapularis Repair during Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Stem-Based Double-Row Repair: Sonographic and Clinical Outcomes. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020; 8(3): 2325967120906806. doi: 10.1177/2325967120906806

24. King JJ, Greene AT, Hamilton MA, et al. The over-the-top subscapularis repair in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: biomechanical evaluation of a novel technique. JSES Open Access. 2019; 3(4): 304-310. doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.09.005

25. Suyunov RA, Airapetov GA, Samkovich DA. Deltopectoral approach with partial release of the subscapularis muscle in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bulletin of the Medical Institute “reaviz” (rehabilitation, doctor and health). 2025; 15(1): 46-51. (In Russ.). doi: 10.20340/vmi-rvz.2025.1.CLIN.3

26. Zmistowski B, Cahill SV, Hill JR, et al. The rate and predictors of healing of repaired lesser tuberosity osteotomy in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Int. 2022; 7(1): 10-15. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2022.09.007