Postop Rehabilitation in rTSA

  • Marco Conti
  • Valentina Spunton
  • Roberto Fenini


This paper is focused on the explanation of the key points for a reasoned postop rehabilitation of the shoulders treated with a reverse total shoulder prosthesis (rTSA).

Initially, focus is done on the indications for this type of surgery, on one hand pointing the attention to the clinical motivation that compels the surgeon to offer this solution to his patient and on the other hand the motivation for the patients to accept such radical surgery proposed by the surgeon.

Specific attention is paid to explaining the relevance of a deep, thorough, and correct information for the patient about the postop functionality of the arm to match the expectations with the obtainable goals.

Subsequently, focus is on the biomechanical constraints of a rTSA, that on one hand can limit the use of the, representing a reason of dissatisfaction of the patient, and on the other hand and that can shape the rehabilitation process.

The third and final part of the chapter is dedicated to the guidelines for a reasoned rehabilitation process, dividing the approach in between acute, post-acute, intermediate, and final phase depending on a time scale from the surgery, tissues healing, based on tissue healing.

This part of the chapter is devoted to explaining to therapists not each specific exercise but the strategic line for a safe and effective rehabilitation depending from the timeline of the surgery.

The paper is aimed at soliciting the therapist for a deep interchange of information with the surgeon as well as for a deep comprehension of the key points of the rTSA surgery. These elements are crucial to be able to adopt the correct rehabilitation strategies for each patient in order to provide the most safe and effective guidance of the rehabilitation process.


RTSA rehabilitation Shoulder rehabilitation Reverse prosthesis rehabilitation Shoulder rehabilitation guidelines 


  1. 1.
    Samitier G, Alentorn-Geli E, Torrens C, Wright TW. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 1: systematic review of clinical and functional outcomes. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015;9:24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alentorn-Geli E, Samitier G, Torrens C, Wright TW. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 2: systematic review of reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015;9:60–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Payne C, Jaggi A, Le Leu A, Garofalo R, Conti M. Rehabilitation for shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(5):281–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kennedy D, Wainwright A, Pereira L, Robarts S, Dickson P, Christian J, Webster F. A qualitative study of patient education needs for hip and knee replacement. Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maier MW, Niklasch M, Dreher T, Wolf SI, Zeifang F, Loew M, Kasten P. Proprioception 3 years after shoulder arthroplasty in 3D motion analysis: a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132:1003–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. Neer award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2006;15:527–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wall B, Nové-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;89:1476–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jarrett CD, Brown BT, Schmidt CC. Reverse shoulder Arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am. 2013;23:389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Biase CF, Ziveri G, Delcogliano M, de Caro F, Gumina S, Borroni M, Castagna A, Postacchini R. The use of an eccentric glenosphere compared with a concentric glenosphere in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: two-year minimum follow-up results. Int Orthop. 2013;37(10):1949–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mole D, Wein F, De´zaly C, Valenti P, Sirveaux F. Surgical technique: the anterosuperior approach for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2461–8.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walch G, Bacle G, Lädermann A, Nové-Josserand L, Smithers CJ. Do the indications, results, and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty change with surgeon’s experience? J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21:1470–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langohr GD, Giles JW, Athwal GS, Johnson JA. The effect of glenosphere diameter in reverse shoulder arthroplasty on muscle force, joint load, and range of motion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(6):972–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Favard L, Levigne C, Nerot C, Gerber C, De Wilde L, Mole D. Reverse prostheses in arthropathies with cuff tear: are survivorship and function maintained over time? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2469–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20:146–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Routman HD. The role of subscapularis repair in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Joint Dis. 2013;71:S108–12.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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):121–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alta TD, Bergmann JH, Veeger DJ, Janssen TW, Burger BJ, Scholtes VA, Willems WJ. Kinematic and clinical evaluation of shoulder function after primary and revision reverse shoulder prostheses. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2011;20(4):564–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boudreau S, Boudreau E, Higgings LD, Wilcox RB III. Rehabilitation following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(12):734–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terrier A, Scheuber P, Pioletti DP, Farron A. Activities of daily living with reverse prostheses: importance of scapular compensation for functional mobility of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22:948–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walters JD, Barkoh K, Smith RA, Azar FM, Throckmorton TW. Younger patients report similar activity levels to older patients after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(9):1418–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Postacchini R, Paoloni M, Carbone S, Fini M, Santilli V, Postacchini F, Mangone M. Kinematic analysis of reaching movements of the upper limb after total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Biomech. 2015;48(12):3192–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Toledo JM, Loss JF, Janssen TW, van der Scheer JW, Alta TD, Willems WJ, Veeger DH. Kinematic evaluation of patients with total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty during rehabilitation exercises with different loads. Clin Biomech. 2012;27:793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cutti AG, Parel I, Pellegrini A, Paladini P, Sacchetti R, Porcellini G, Merolla G. The Constant score and the assessment of scapula dyskinesis: proposal and assessment of an integrated outcome measure. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2015;29:81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Röijezon U, Clark NC, Treleaven J. Proprioception in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Part 1: basic science and principles of assessment and clinical interventions. Man Ther. 2015;20(3):368–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clark NC, Röijezon U, Treleaven J. Proprioception in musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Part 2: clinical assessment and intervention. Man Ther. 2015;20(3):378–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Conti
    • 1
  • Valentina Spunton
    • 2
  • Roberto Fenini
    • 2
  1. 1.HumanPerformance & Rehabilitation Lab, MedSportComoItaly
  2. 2.Private Practice Office & Castagna Shoulder TeamMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations