Loosening and revision rates after total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of cemented all-polyethylene glenoid and three modern designs of metal-backed glenoid

BACKGROUND: Several modern designs of metal-backed glenoids (MBG) have been devised to overcome flaws such as loosening and a high failure rate. This review aimed to compare rates of complications and revision surgeries between cemented polyethylene glenoid (PEG) and three examples of modern MBG designs. METHODS: Literature search was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar using MeSH terms and natural keywords. A total of 1186 articles were screened. We descriptively analyzed numerical data between the groups and statistically analyzed the categorical data, such as the presence of radiolucent line, loosening, and revision surgery (failure). Articles were divided into three groups based on follow-up duration: 72-month subgroups. RESULTS: This study included 35 articles (3769 shoulders); 25 on cemented PEG and ten on the modern MBG. Mean age was 66.4 (21-93) and 66.5 years (31-88). The mean duration of follow-up was 73.1 (12-211) and 56.1 months (24-100). Overall, the rate of the radiolucent line was 354/1302 (27%) and 47/282 (17%), the loosening rate was 465/3185 (15%) and 22/449 (5%), and the failure rate was 189/3316 (6%) and 11/457 (2%), for PEG and MBG, respectively. The results of 72-month subgroup, MBG was better in terms of loosening (P < 0.001) and failure rates (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The modern MBG component, especially TM glenoid, seems to be a promising alternative to cemented PEGs, based on subgroup revision rates according to the follow-up duration and overall results of ROM and clinical scores. All polyethylene glenoids tend to increase loosening and failure over time. Three modern MBG designs seem to have no difference in failure, at least in the < 36-month and 36-72-month subgroups compared to the cemented PEG. More long-term follow-up studies on modern MBG should be ultimately conducted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review.