**3. Results**

There was no significant difference in the demographic data of patients in both groups. Patient characteristics showed no significant differences in terms of patient age, gender, BMI, tobacco usage, or affected side. There was also no significant difference in the preoperative surgical variables such as history of prior surgery, primary diagnosis, glenoid inclination, or glenoid version (Table 1). Patients in the BMA group presented a different glenoid morphology (*p* < 0.001) and a greater bone loss thickness than patients in the bony augmentation (BA) group (16.3 ± 3.8 mm vs. 12.0 ± 0.0 mm, *p* = 0.020). All patients in the BA group had a B2 glenoid defect. In the BMA group, one patient had a glenoid type B1, one patient had a glenoid type B3 and two patients each had a glenoid type D, E3, and C. Preoperative radiological data of each patient are summarized in Table 2. Compared to the BA group, BMA patients had a lower preoperative anterior forward flexion (55.0◦ ± 38.5◦ vs. 101.3◦ ± 31.8◦, *p* = 0.010) and worse preoperative Constant scores (18.8 ± 7.4 vs. 34.5 ± 11.7, *p* = 0.013).

**Table 1.** Patient characteristics between the Bony-metallic augmentation (BMA) and Bony augmentation (BA) groups.



**Table 1.** *Cont.*

BMA—bony-metallic augmentation, BA—bony augmentation, OA—Osteoarthrosis. Underlined *p*-values indicate those below 0.05.

**Table 2.** Radiological data of each patient.


Both the BMA and BA groups completed at least two years of follow-up, with a mean follow-up of 28.1 ± 15.0 and 30.7 ± 10.8 months, respectively. At the final follow-up, both the BMA and BA groups significantly improved their ROM (anterior forward flexion and external rotation) and clinical scores (Constant, SSV, and ASES scores) (Table 3). A greater improvement could be observed in the BMA group in terms of anterior forward flexion (86.3◦ ± 27.9◦ vs. 43.8◦ ± 25.6◦, *p* = 0.013) and Constant score (56.6 ± 10.1 vs. 38.3 ± 16.7, *p* = 0.021), probably due to their lower preoperative scores compared to BA patients. However, in the absence of significant preoperative differences, the BA group demonstrated greater functional and clinical improvements than BMA patients with higher postoperative active external rotation and ASES results (active external rotation, 49.4◦ ± 17.0◦ vs. 29.4◦ ± 14.7◦, *p* = 0.017; ASES, 89.1 ± 11.3 vs. 76.8 ± 11.0, *p* = 0.045).

At two years follow-up, a bony scapular spur and three inferior graft resorptions were noted in the BA group. In the BMA group, a bony scapular spur, two ossifications in the glenohumeral space, and a grade 1 scapular notching were observed.


**Table 3.** Pre- and postoperative data between the Bony-metallic augmentation (BMA) and Bony augmentation (BA) groups.

\* Between pre- and postoperative measurements; SSV, Subjective Shoulder Value; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow surgeons.Underlined *p*-values indicate those below 0.05.
