The purpose of this study was to describe the radiological characteristics of a previously unreported finding: posterior iliac offset at the sacroiliac joint and to assess its association with pelvic instability as measured by initial displacement and early implant loosening or failure. Radiographs from 42 consecutive patients with a mean age of 42 years (18 to 77; 38 men, four women) and mean follow-up of 38 months (3 to 96) with Anteroposterior Compression II injuries, were retrospectively reviewed. Standardised measurements were recorded for the extent of any diastasis of the pubic symphysis, widening of the sacroiliac joint, static vertical ramus offset and a novel measurement (posterior offset of the ilium at the sacroiliac joint identified on axial CT scan). Pelvic fractures with posterior iliac offset exhibited greater levels of initial displacement of the anterior pelvis (anterior sacroiliac widening, pubic symphysis diastasis and static vertical ramus offset, p < 0.001,0.034 and 0.028, respectively). Pelvic fractures with posterior ilium offset also demonstrated higher rates of implant loosening regardless of fixation method (p = 0.05). Posterior offset of the ilium was found to be a reliable and reproducible measurement with substantial inter-observer agreement (kappa = 0.70). Posterior offset of the ilium on axial CT scan is associated with greater levels of initial pelvic displacement and early implant loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1535–9

Because the femoral head/neck junction is preserved in hip resurfacing, patients may be at greater risk of impingement, leading to abnormal wear patterns and pain. We assessed femoral head/neck offset in 63 hips undergoing metal-on-metal hip resurfacing and in 56 hips presenting with non-arthritic pain secondary to femoroacetabular impingement. Most hips undergoing resurfacing (57%; 36) had an offset ratio ≤ 0.15 pre-operatively and required greater correction of offset at operation than the rest of the group. In the non-arthritic hips the mean offset ratio was 0.137 (0.04 to 0.23), with the offset ratio correlating negatively to an increasing α angle. An offset ratio ≤ 0.15 had a 9.5-fold increased relative risk of having an α angle ≥ 50.5°. Most hips undergoing resurfacing have an abnormal femoral head/neck offset, which is best assessed in the sagittal plane

Hip resurfacing is being performed more frequently in the United Kingdom. The possible benefits include more accurate restoration of leg length, femoral offset and femoral anteversion than occurs after total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared anteroposterior radiographs from 26 patients who had undergone hybrid THA (uncemented cup/cemented stem), with 28 who had undergone Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty (BHR). We measured the femoral offset, femoral length, acetabular offset and acetabular height with reference to the normal contralateral hip. The data were analysed by paired t-tests. There was a significant reduction in femoral offset (p = 0.0004) and increase in length (p = 0.001) in the BHR group. In the THA group, there was a significant reduction in acetabular offset (p = 0.0003), but femoral offset and overall hip length were restored accurately. We conclude that hip resurfacing does not restore hip mechanics as accurately as THA

Several factors have been implicated in unsatisfactory results after total hip replacement (THR). We examined whether femoral offset, as measured on digitised post-operative radiographs, was associated with pain after THR. The routine post-operative radiographs of 362 patients (230 women and 132 men, mean age 70.0 years (35.2 to 90.5)) who received primary unilateral THRs of varying designs were measured after calibration. The femoral offset was calculated using the known dimensions of the implants to control for femoral rotation. Femoral offset was categorised into three groups: normal offset (within 5 mm of the height-adjusted femoral offset), low offset and high offset. We determined the associations to the absolute final score and the improvement in the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale scores at three, six, 12 and 24 months, adjusting for confounding variables. The amount of femoral offset was associated with the mean WOMAC pain subscale score at all points of follow-up, with the low-offset group reporting less WOMAC pain than the normal or high-offset groups (six months: 7.01 (. sd. 11.69) vs 12.26 (. sd. 15.10) vs 13.10 (. sd. 16.20), p = 0.006; 12 months: 6.55 (. sd. 11.09) vs 9.73 (. sd. 13.76) vs 13.46 (. sd. 18.39), p = 0.010; 24 months: 5.84 (. sd. 10.23) vs 9.60 (. sd. 14.43) vs 13.12 (. sd. 17.43), p = 0.004). When adjusting for confounding variables, including age and gender, the greatest improvement was seen in the low-offset group, with the normal-offset group demonstrating more improvement than the high-offset group. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:36–42

In a prospective study between 2000 and 2005, 22 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder had a total shoulder arthroplasty with a standard five-pegged glenoid component, 12 with non-offset humeral head and ten with offset humeral head components. Over a period of 24 months the relative movement of the glenoid component with respect to the scapula was measured using radiostereometric analysis. Nine glenoids needed reaming for erosion. There was a significant increase in rotation about all three axes with time (p < 0.001), the largest occurring about the longitudinal axis (anteversion-retroversion), with mean values of 3.8° and 1.9° for the non-offset and offset humeral head eroded subgroups, respectively. There was also a significant difference in rotation about the anteversion-retroversion axis (p = 0.01) and the varus-valgus (p < 0.001) z-axis between the two groups. The offset humeral head group reached a plateau at early follow-up with rotation about the z-axis, whereas the mean of the non-offset humeral head group at 24 months was three times greater than that of the offset group accounting for the highly significant difference between them

Dislocation is one of the most common causes of patient and surgeon dissatisfaction following hip replacement and to treat it, the causes must first be understood. Patient factors include age greater than 70 years, medical comorbidities, female gender, ligamentous laxity, revision surgery, issues with the abductors, and patient education. Surgeon factors include the annual quantity of procedures and experience, the surgical approach, adequate restoration of femoral offset and leg length, component position, and soft-tissue or bony impingement. Implant factors include the design of the head and neck region, and so-called skirts on longer neck lengths. There should be offset choices available in order to restore soft-tissue tension. Lipped liners aid in gaining stability, yet if improperly placed may result in impingement and dislocation. Late dislocation may result from polyethylene wear, soft-tissue destruction, trochanteric or abductor disruption and weakness, or infection. Understanding the causes of hip dislocation facilitates prevention in a majority of instances. Proper pre-operative planning includes the identification of patients with a high offset in whom inadequate restoration of offset will reduce soft-tissue tension and abductor efficiency. Component position must be accurate to achieve stability without impingement. Finally, patient education cannot be over-emphasised, as most dislocations occur early, and are preventable with proper instructions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:67–9

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to identify any difference in femoral offset as measured on pre-operative anteroposterior (AP) radiographs of the pelvis, AP radiographs of the hip and corresponding CT scans in a consecutive series of 100 patients with primary end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip (43 men and 57 women with a mean age of 61 years (45 to 74) and a mean body mass index of 28 kg/m. 2. (20 to 45)). Patients were positioned according to a standardised protocol to achieve reproducible projection and all images were calibrated. Inter- and intra-observer reliability was evaluated and agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. In the entire cohort, the mean femoral offset was 39.0 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 40.6) on radiographs of the pelvis, 44.0 mm (95% CI 42.4 to 45.6) on radiographs of the hip and 44.7 mm (95% CI 43.5 to 45.9) on CT scans. AP radiographs of the pelvis underestimated femoral offset by 13% when compared with CT (p < 0.001). No difference in mean femoral offset was seen between AP radiographs of the hip and CT (p = 0.191). Our results suggest that femoral offset is significantly underestimated on AP radiographs of the pelvis but can be reliably and accurately assessed on AP radiographs of the hip in patients with primary end-stage hip osteoarthritis. We, therefore, recommend that additional AP radiographs of the hip are obtained routinely for the pre-operative assessment of femoral offset when templating before total hip replacement

We have studied the concept of posterior condylar offset and the importance of its restoration on the maximum range of knee flexion after posterior-cruciate-ligament-retaining total knee replacement (TKR). We measured the difference in the posterior condylar offset before and one year after operation in 69 patients who had undergone a primary cruciate-sacrificing mobile bearing TKR by one surgeon using the same implant and a standardised operating technique. In all the patients true pre- and post-operative lateral radiographs had been taken. The mean pre- and post-operative posterior condylar offset was 25.9 mm (21 to 35) and 26.9 mm (21 to 34), respectively. The mean difference in posterior condylar offset was + 1 mm (−6 to +5). The mean pre-operative knee flexion was 111° (62° to 146°) and at one year postoperatively, it was 107° (51° to 137°). There was no statistical correlation between the change in knee flexion and the difference in the posterior condylar offset after TKR (Pearson correlation coefficient r = −0.06, p = 0.69)

At a minimum of one year after operation, we studied 64 patients with 86 total hip arthroplasties (THA) by standard anteroposterior hip and pelvic radiographs and measurement of range of motion and of isometric abduction strength. The femoral offset correlated positively with the range of abduction (p = 0.046). Abduction strength correlated positively with both femoral offset (p = 0.0001) and the length of the abductor lever arm (p = 0.005). Using multiple regression, abduction strength correlated with height (p = 0.017), gender (p = 0.0005), range of flexion (p = 0.047) and the abductor lever arm (p = 0.060). Our findings suggest that greater femoral offset after THA allows both an increased range of abduction and greater abductor strength

We studied wear in the ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene offset bore socket in 54 hips which had had Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. At an average follow-up of 8.1 years, the mean penetration rate was 0.04 mm per year. Correlation between the depth of socket penetration and the incidence of socket migration was confirmed, but socket migration occurred with lower penetration than had been previously reported

The accurate reconstruction of hip anatomy and biomechanics is thought to be important in achieveing good clinical outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). To this end some newer hip designs have introduced further modularity into the design of the femoral component such that neck­shaft angle and anteversion, which can be adjusted intra-operatively. The clinical effect of this increased modularity is unknown. We have investigated the changes in these anatomical parameters following conventional THA with a prosthesis of predetermined neck–shaft angle and assessed the effect of changes in the hip anatomy on clinical outcomes.

In total, 44 patients (mean age 65.3 years (standard deviation (sd) 7); 17 male/27 female; mean body mass index 26.9 (kg/m²) (sd 3.1)) underwent a pre- and post-operative three-dimensional CT scanning of the hip. The pre- and post-operative neck–shaft angle, offset, hip centre of rotation, femoral anteversion, and stem alignment were measured. Additionally, a functional assessment and pain score were evaluated before surgery and at one year post-operatively and related to the post-operative anatomical changes.

The mean pre-operative neck–shaft angle was significantly increased by 2.8° from 128° (sd 6.2; 119° to 147°) to 131° (sd 2.1; 127° to 136°) (p = 0.009). The mean pre-operative anteversion was 24.9° (sd 8; 7.9 to 39.1) and reduced to 7.4° (sd 7.3; -11.6° to 25.9°) post-operatively (p < 0.001). The post-operative changes had no influence on function and pain. Using a standard uncemented femoral component, high pre- and post-operative variability of femoral anteversion and neck–shaft angles was found with a significant decrease of the post-operative anteversion and slight increase of the neck–shaft angles, but without any impact on clinical outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1615–22.

Aims. Registry studies on modified acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner designs are limited. We investigated the influence of standard and modified PE acetabular liner designs on the revision rate for mechanical complications in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We analyzed 151,096 primary cementless THAs from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) between November 2012 and November 2020. Cumulative incidence of revision for mechanical complications for standard and four modified PE liners (lipped, offset, angulated/offset, and angulated) was determined using competing risk analysis at one and seven years. Confounders were investigated with a Cox proportional-hazards model. Results. Median follow-up was 868 days (interquartile range 418 to 1,364). The offset liner design reduced the risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.92)), while the angulated/offset liner increased the risk of revision for mechanical failure (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.38 to 2.36)). The cumulative incidence of revision was lowest for the offset liner at one and seven years (1.0% (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3) and 1.8% (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0)). No difference was found between standard, lipped, and angulated liner designs. Higher age at index primary THA and an Elixhauser Comorbidity Index greater than 0 increased the revision risk in the first year after surgery. Implantation of a higher proportion of a single design of liner in a hospital reduced revision risk slightly but significantly (p = 0.001). Conclusion. The use of standard acetabular component liners remains a good choice in primary uncemented THA, as most modified liner designs were not associated with a reduced risk of revision for mechanical failure. Offset liner designs were found to be beneficial and angulated/offset liner designs were associated with higher risks of revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):801–810

Aims. Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335

Aims. To determine if primary cemented acetabular component geometry (long posterior wall (LPW), hooded, or offset reorientating) influences the risk of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for instability or loosening. Methods. The National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset was analyzed for primary THAs performed between 2003 and 2017. A cohort of 224,874 cemented acetabular components were included. The effect of acetabular component geometry on the risk of revision for instability or for loosening was investigated using log-binomial regression adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, operating surgeon grade, surgical approach, polyethylene crosslinking, and prosthetic head size. A competing risk survival analysis was performed with the competing risks being revision for other indications or death. Results. The distribution of acetabular component geometries was: LPW 81.2%; hooded 18.7%; and offset reorientating 0.1%. There were 3,313 (1.5%) revision THAs performed, of which 815 (0.4%) were for instability and 838 (0.4%) were for loosening. Compared to the LPW group, the adjusted subhazard ratio of revision for instability in the hooded group was 2.31 (p < 0.001) and 4.12 (p = 0.047) in the offset reorientating group. Likewise, the subhazard ratio of revision for loosening was 2.65 (p < 0.001) in the hooded group and 13.61 (p < 0.001) in the offset reorientating group. A time-varying subhazard ratio of revision for instability (hooded vs LPW) was found, being greatest within the first three months. Conclusion. This registry-based study confirms a significantly higher risk of revision after cemented THA for instability and for loosening when a hooded or offset reorientating acetabular component is used, compared to a LPW component. Further research is required to clarify if certain patients benefit from the use of hooded or offset reorientating components, but we recommend caution when using such components in routine clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1669–1677

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine if uncemented acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner geometry, and lip size, influenced the risk of revision for instability or loosening. Methods. A total of 202,511 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with uncemented acetabular components were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset between 2003 and 2017. The effect of liner geometry on the risk of revision for instability or loosening was investigated using competing risk regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, surgeon grade, surgical approach, head size, and polyethylene crosslinking. Stratified analyses by surgical approach were performed, including pairwise comparisons of liner geometries. Results. The distribution of liner geometries were neutral (39.4%; 79,822), 10° (34.5%; 69,894), 15° (21.6%; 43,722), offset reorientating (2.8%; 5705), offset neutral (0.9%; 1,767), and 20° (0.8%; 1,601). There were 690 (0.34%) revisions for instability. Compared to neutral liners, the adjusted subhazard ratios of revision for instability were: 10°, 0.64 (p < 0.001); 15°, 0.48 (p < 0.001); and offset reorientating, 1.6 (p = 0.010). No association was found with other geometries. 10° and 15° liners had a time-dependent lower risk of revision for instability within the first 1.2 years. In posterior approaches, 10° and 15° liners had a lower risk of revision for instability, with no significant difference between them. The protective effect of lipped over neutral liners was not observed in laterally approached THAs. There were 604 (0.3%) revisions for loosening, but no association between liner geometry and revision for loosening was found. Conclusion. This registry-based study confirms a lower risk of revision for instability in posterior approach THAs with 10° or 15° lipped liners compared to neutral liners, but no significant difference between these lip sizes. A higher revision risk is seen with offset reorientating liners. The benefit of lipped geometries against revision for instability was not seen in laterally approached THAs. Liner geometry does not seem to influence the risk of revision for loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1774–1782

Aims. The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases in order to assess the impact of the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and implant placement accuracy on outcomes following TKA. Studies assessing the impact of implant alignment, rotation, size, overhang, or condylar offset were included. Study quality was assessed, evidence was graded (one-star: no evidence, two-star: limited evidence, three-star: moderate evidence, four-star: strong evidence), and recommendations were made based on the available evidence. Results. A total of 49 studies were identified for inclusion. With respect to PROMs, there was two-star evidence in support of mechanical axis alignment (MAA), femorotibial angle (FTA), femoral coronal angle (FCA), tibial coronal angle (TCA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), femoral rotation, tibial and combined rotation/mismatch, and implant size/overhang or offset on PROMs, and one-star evidence in support of tibial sagittal angle (TSA), impacting PROMs. With respect to survival, there was three- to four-star evidence in support FTA, FCA, TCA, and TSA, moderate evidence in support of femoral rotation, tibial and combined rotation/mismatch, and limited evidence in support of MAA, FSA, and implant size/overhang or offset impacting survival. Conclusion. Overall, there is limited evidence to suggest that PROMs are impacted by the accuracy of implant placement, and malalignment does not appear to be a significant driver of the observed high rates of patient dissatisfaction following TKA. However, FTA, FCA, TCA, TSA, and implant rotation demonstrate a moderate-strong relationship with implant survival. Efforts should be made to improve the accuracy of these parameters in order to improve TKA survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1449–1456

Aims. The aims of this study were to investigate the ability to kneel after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) without patellar resurfacing, and its effect on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Secondary aims included identifying which kneeling positions were most important to patients, and the influence of radiological parameters on the ability to kneel before and after TKA. Methods. This prospective longitudinal study involved 209 patients who underwent single radius cruciate-retaining TKA without patellar resurfacing. Preoperative EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and the ability to achieve four kneeling positions were assessed including a single leg kneel, a double leg kneel, a high-flexion kneel, and a praying position. The severity of radiological osteoarthritis (OA) was graded and the pattern of OA was recorded intraoperatively. The flexion of the femoral component, posterior condylar offset, and anterior femoral offset were measured radiologically. At two to four years postoperatively, 151 patients with a mean age of 70.0 years (SD 9.44) were included. Their mean BMI was 30.4 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.36) and 60 were male (40%). They completed EQ-5D, OKS, and Kujala scores, assessments of the ability to kneel, and a visual analogue scale for anterior knee pain and satisfaction. Results. The ability to kneel in the four positions improved in between 29 (19%) and 53 patients (35%) after TKA, but declined in between 35 (23%) and 46 patients (30%). Single-leg kneeling was most important to patients. After TKA, 62 patients (41%) were unable to achieve a single-leg kneel, 76 (50%) were unable to achieve a double-leg kneel, 102 (68%) were unable to achieve a high-flexion kneel and 61 (40%) were unable to achieve a praying position. Posterolateral cartilage loss significantly affected preoperative deep flexion kneeling (p = 0.019). A postoperative inability to kneel was significantly associated with worse OKS, Kujala scores, and satisfaction (p < 0.05). Multivariable regression analysis identified significant independent associations with the ability to kneel after TKA (p < 0.05): better preoperative EQ-5D and flexion of the femoral component for single-leg kneeling; the ability to achieve it preoperatively and flexion of the femoral component for double-leg kneeling; male sex for high-flexion kneeling; and the ability to achieve it preoperatively, anterior femoral offset, and patellar cartilage loss for the praying position. Conclusion. The ability to kneel was important to patients and significantly influenced knee-specific PROMs, but was poorly restored by TKA with equal chances of improvement or decline. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1514–1525

Aims. The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR. Methods. We analyzed 328,737 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem, comprising 34.3% of the 958,869 from the start of the NJR to December 2018. Our exposure was the stem, and the outcome was all-cause construct revision. We stratified analyses into four groups: constructs using the 44/00/125 stem, those using the 44/0/150 stem, those including a 35.5/125 stem, and constructs using any other Exeter V40 stem. Results. In all 328,737 THAs using an Exeter V40 stem, the revision estimate was 2.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 2.8). The 44/00/125 stem was implanted in 2,158 primary THAs, and the ten-year revision estimate was 4.9% (95% CI 3.6 to 6.8). Controlling for age, sex, year of operation, indication, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade demonstrated an increased overall hazard of revision for constructs using the 44/00/125 stem compared to constructs using other Exeter V40 femoral stems (hazard ratio 1.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.3)). Conclusion. Although the revision estimate is within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ten-year benchmark, survivorship of constructs using the 44/00/125 stem appears to be lower than the rest of the range. Adjusted analyses will not take into account ‘confounding by indication’, e.g. patients with complex anatomy who may have a higher risk of revision. Surgeons and patients should be reassured but be aware of the observed increased revision estimate, and only use this stem when other implants are not suitable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):504–510

Aims. This study aimed to assess the impact of using the metal-augmented glenoid baseplate (AGB) on improving clinical and radiological outcomes, as well as reducing complications, in patients with superior glenoid wear undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Methods. From January 2016 to June 2021, out of 235 patients who underwent primary RSA, 24 received a superior-AGB after off-axis reaming (Group A). Subsequently, we conducted propensity score matching in a 1:3 ratio, considering sex, age, follow-up duration, and glenoid wear (superior-inclination and retroversion), and selected 72 well-balanced matched patients who received a standard glenoid baseplate (STB) after eccentric reaming (Group B). Superior-inclination, retroversion, and lateral humeral offset (LHO) were measured to assess preoperative glenoid wear and postoperative correction, as well as to identify any complications. Clinical outcomes were measured at each outpatient visit before and after surgery. Results. There were no significant differences in demographic data and preoperative characteristics between the two groups. Both groups showed significant improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (visual analogue scale for pain, visual analogue scale for function, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant, and Simple Shoulder Test scores) from preoperative to final assessment (p < 0.001). However, AGB showed no additional benefit. Notably, within range of motion, Group B showed significant postoperative decrease in both external rotation and internal rotation, unlike Group A (p = 0.028 and 0.003, respectively). Both groups demonstrated a significant correction of superior-inclination after surgery, while patients in Group B exhibited a significant decrease in LHO postoperatively (p = 0.001). Regarding complications, Group A experienced more acromial stress fractures (3 cases; 12.5%), whereas Group B had a higher occurrence of scapular notching (24 cases; 33.3%) (p = 0.008). Conclusion. Both eccentric reaming with STB and off-axis reaming with AGB are effective methods for addressing superior glenoid wear in RSA, leading to improved clinical outcomes. However, it is important to be aware of the potential risks associated with eccentric reaming, which include excessive bone loss leading to reduced rotation and scapular notching. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):268–276