The role of body mass index in survivorship and clinical outcomes in total shoulder arthroplasty

Background: Increased body mass index (BMI) is a potential risk factor for poorer outcomes and complications. However, the influence of BMI on the long-term outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) remains to be fully elucidated.

Methods: Institutional records were queried to identify patients who underwent primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) between 2009 and 2020 with a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow-up. Retrospective review was performed to collect demographic characteristics; comorbidity status; and range-of-motion and strength measurements in forward elevation, external rotation, and internal rotation. Patients were contacted by telephone to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients were stratified into 3 cohorts by BMI: underweight or normal weight (U/NW, BMI ≤25 kg/m²), overweight (OW, BMI >25 to ≤30 kg/m²), and obese (BMI >30 kg/m²).

Results: Among 466 TSA patients, 245 underwent aTSA whereas 221 underwent rTSA. In the aTSA cohort, 40 patients were classified as U/NW; 72, as OW; and 133, as obese. Comparatively, the rTSA cohort was composed of 33 U/NW, 79 OW, and 209 obese patients. Patients in the aTSA and rTSA cohorts had an average follow-up period of 5.8 ± 3.2 years and 4.5 ± 2.3 years, respectively. No differences in age at surgery were found in the aTSA group (U/NW vs. obese, 65.2 ± 7.9 years vs. 61.9 ± 8.9 years; P = .133); however, in the rTSA cohort, BMI was found to be inversely related to age at surgery (U/NW vs. obese, 72.4 ± 8.8 years vs. 65.7 ± 8.3 years; P < .001). Across all BMI cohorts, patients saw great improvements in range of motion and strength. Postoperative PROs after TSA did not vary by BMI in terms of Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Simple Shoulder Test, visual analog scale pain, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. There was no significant difference in survival rates at 10-year follow-up in the aTSA cohort (U/NW vs. obese, 95.8% vs. 93.2%; P = .753) or rTSA cohort (U/NW vs. obese, 94.7% vs. 94.5%; P = .791).

Conclusion: With dramatic improvements in range of motion, minimal differences in PROs, and high rates of implant survival, TSA is a safe and effective treatment option for all patients, including overweight and obese patients.