Prospective case-control study from UCSF comparing major complications, revision rates, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion between TSA (n=47, glenohumeral arthritis with intact cuff) and RTSA (n=53, rotator cuff tear arthropathy) at mean 2-year follow-up, using standardized outcome measures and blinded radiographic review.
When counseling a patient choosing between TSA and RTSA for their respective indications, this study supports equivalent safety profiles and functional outcomes at 2 years — the key trade-off to communicate is that RTSA patients should expect roughly 15° less external rotation (38° vs. 53°) compared to anatomic reconstruction, while overhead motion will be comparable.
Prospective case-control study from UCSF comparing major complications, revision rates, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion between TSA (n=47, glenohumeral arthritis with intact cuff) and RTSA (n=53, rotator cuff tear arthropathy) at mean 2-year follow-up, using standardized outcome measures and blinded radiographic review.
When counseling a patient choosing between TSA and RTSA for their respective indications, this study supports equivalent safety profiles and functional outcomes at 2 years — the key trade-off to communicate is that RTSA patients should expect roughly 15° less external rotation (38° vs. 53°) compared to anatomic reconstruction, while overhead motion will be comparable.