Publicly Available Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Rehabilitation Protocols Show High Variability and Frequent Divergence from the 2020 ASSET Recommendations.

Background: In 2020, the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists (ASSET) published an evidence-based consensus statement outlining postoperative rehabilitation guidelines following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (1) quantify the variability in online anatomic TSA rehabilitation protocols, and (2) assess their congruence with the ASSET consensus guidelines. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional investigation of publicly available, online rehabilitation protocols for anatomic TSA. A web-based search was conducted in April 2022 of publicly available rehabilitation protocols for TSA. Each collected protocol was independently reviewed by two authors to identify recommendations regarding immobilization, initiation, and progression of passive (PROM) and active range of motion (AROM), as well as the initiation and progression of strengthening and post-operative exercises and activities. The time to initiation of various components of rehabilitation was recorded as the time at which the activity or motion threshold was permitted by the protocol. Comparisons between ASSET start dates and mean start dates from included protocols were performed. Results: Of the 191 academic institutions included, 46 (24.08%) had publicly available protocols online, and a total of 91 unique protocols were included in the final analysis. There were large variations seen among included protocols for the duration and type of immobilization post-operatively, as well as for the initiation of early stretching, PROM, AROM, resistance exercises, and return to sport. Of the 37 recommendations reported by both the ASSET and included protocols, 31 (83.78%) were found to be significantly different between groups (p\<0.05). Conclusion: Considerable variability was found among online post-operative protocols for TSA with substantial deviation from the ASSET guidelines. These findings highlight the lack of standardization in rehabilitation protocols following anatomic TSA. Level of Evidence: 3b.

How Fellowship Training Affects Complication Rate After Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Total shoulder arthroplasty is performed by orthopedic surgeons with various fellowship training backgrounds. Whether surgeons performing shoulder arthroplasty with different types of fellowship training have differing rates of complications and reoperation remains unknown. METHODS: The PearlDiver Mariner database was retrospectively queried from the years 2010-2022. Patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty were selected using the CPT code 23472. Those undergoing revision arthroplasty and those with a history of fracture, infection, or malignancy were excluded. Fellowship was determined and verified via online search. Only surgeons who performed a minimum of 10 cases were selected; and PearlDiver was queried using their provider ID codes. Primary outcome measures included 90-day, 1-year, and 5-year rates of complication and reoperation. A Bonferroni correction was utilized in which the significance threshold was set at p≤0.00023 RESULTS: In total, 150,385 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Analysis of surgical trends revealed that Sports Medicine and Shoulder and Elbow fellowship- trained surgeons are performing an increasing percentage of all shoulder arthroplasty over time, with each cohort exhibiting am 11.3% and 4.2% increase from 2010 to 2022, respectively. The geographic region with the highest proportion of cases performed by Sports Medicine surgeons was the West, while the Northeast has the highest proportion of cases performed by Shoulder and Elbow surgeons. Shoulder and Elbow surgeons operated on patients that were significantly younger and had fewer comorbidities. Both Shoulder and Elbow and Sports Medicine surgeons had lower rates of postoperative complications at 90 days, 1 year and 5 years in comparison to surgeons who completed another type of fellowship or no fellowship. Across each time point, the rates of individual complications between Sports Medicine and Shoulder and Elbow were comparable, but the pooled complication rate was lowest in the Shoulder and Elbow cohort. CONCLUSION: Surgeons who have completed either a Sports Medicine or Shoulder and Elbow fellowship are performing an increasing proportion of shoulder arthroplasty over time. Sports Medicine and Shoulder and Elbow-trained surgeons have significantly lower complication rates at 90 days, 1 year and 5 years postoperatively. The individual complication rates between Sports Medicine and Shoulder and Elbow are comparable, but Shoulder and Elbow has the lowest pooled complication rates overall.

A biomechanical study to optimize superior capsular reconstruction operative technique.

Background: The goals of this study were to optimize superior capsular reconstruction by assessing the relative fixation strength of 4 suture anchors; evaluating 3 glenoid neck locations for fixation strength and bone mineral density (BMD); determining if there is a correlation between BMD and fixation strength; and determining which portal sites have optimal access to the posterosuperior and anterosuperior glenoid neck for anchor placement. Methods: Twenty cadaveric specimens were randomized into 4 groups: all-suture anchor (FiberTak), conventional 3.0-mm knotless suture anchor (SutureTak), 3.9-mm knotless PEEK (polyetheretherketone) Corkscrew anchor, and 4.5-mm Bio-Corkscrew anchor. Each specimen was prepared with 3 anchors into the glenoid: an anterosuperior anchor, superior anchor, and posterosuperior anchor. All anchors were inserted into the superior glenoid neck 5 mm from the glenoid rim. A materials testing system performed cyclic testing (250 cycles) followed by load-to-failure testing at 12.5 mm/s. Cyclic elongation, first cycle excursion, maximum load, and stiffness were recorded. Using custom software, BMD was calculated at each anchor location. This software was also used to assess access to the posterosuperior and anterosuperior glenoid neck from standard arthroscopic portal positions. Results: There was no significant difference in cyclic elongation (P = .546), first cycle excursion (P = .476), maximum load (P = .817), or stiffness (P = .309) among glenoid anchor positions. Cyclic elongation was significantly longer in the PEEK Corkscrew group relative to the other implants (P ≤ .002). First cycle excursion was significantly greater in the FiberTak group relative to all other implants (P ≤ .008). For load-to-failure testing, the Bio-Corkscrew group achieved the highest maximum load (P ≤ .001). No other differences in cyclic or failure testing were observed between the groups. No differences in stiffness testing were observed (P = .133). The superior glenoid rim had the greatest BMD (P = .003), but there was no correlation between BMD and cyclic/load outcomes. The posterior portal (80% of specimens) and the anterior portal (60% of specimens) demonstrated the best access to the posterosuperior and anterosuperior glenoid neck, respectively. Conclusion: The 4.5-mm Bio-Corkscrew anchor provided the most robust fixation to the glenoid during superior capsular reconstruction as it demonstrated the strongest maximum load, had minimal elongation, had minimal first cycle excursion, and did not fail during cyclic testing. The superior glenoid neck had the highest BMD; however, there was no correlation between BMD or glenoid anchor location and biomechanical outcomes. The posterior portal and anterior portal provided optimal access to the posterosuperior glenoid neck and anterosuperior glenoid neck, respectively.

Posterior Shoulder Instability Part II - Glenoid Bone-Grafting, Glenoid Osteotomy, and Rehabilitation/Return to Play - An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements on glenoid bone-grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to one of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their higher risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain. CONCLUSION: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone-grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone-block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V Expert Opinion.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Presentation and management of infection in total disc replacement: A review.

Background: Total disc replacement (TDR) is widely used in the treatment of cervical and lumbar spine pathologies. Although TDR infection, particularly delayed infection, is uncommon, the results can be devastating, and consensus on clinical management remains elusive. In this review of the literature, we asked: (1) What are the reported rates of TDR infection; (2) What are the clinical characteristics of TDR infection; and (3) How has infection been managed for TDR patients? Methods: We performed a search of the literature using PubMed and Embase to identify studies that reported TDR infection rates, the identification and management of TDR infection, or TDR failures with positive cultures. Twenty database studies (17 focusing on the cervical spine and 3 on the lumbar spine) and 10 case reports representing 15 patients were reviewed along with device Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data reports. Results: We found a lack of clarity regarding how infection was diagnosed, indicating a variation in clinical approach and highlighting the need for a standard definition of TDR infection. Furthermore, while reported infection rates were low, the absence of a clear definition prevented robust data analysis and may contribute to underreporting in the literature. We found that treatment strategy and success rely on several factors including patient symptoms and time to onset, microorganism type, and implant positioning/stability. Conclusions: Although treatment strategies varied throughout the extant literature, common practices in eliminating infection and reconstructing the spine emerged. The results will inform future work on the creation of a more robust definition of TDR infection and as well as recommendations for management.

Analysis of patient-directed search content and online resource quality for ulnar collateral ligament injury and surgery.

Background: Patients use the Internet to learn information about injuries, yet online content remains largely unstudied. This study analyzed patient questions posed online regarding ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears or UCL surgical management. Methods: Three separate search strings about UCL tear and UCL surgery were queried on the Google search engine. The 300 most commonly asked questions were compiled for each topic and associated webpage information was collected from the "People also ask" section. Questions were categorized using the Rothwell classification and webpages by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Results: The most frequent UCL tear questions were "how long does it take to heal a torn UCL?" and "what is nonsurgical treatment for the UCL?" The most frequent UCL surgery question was "can you retear your UCL after surgery?" The Rothwell classification of questions for UCL tear/UCL surgery was 55%/32% policy, 38%/57% fact, and 7%/11% value with highest subcategories being indications/management (46%/25%) and technical details (24%/25%). The most common webpages were academic (39%/29%) and medical practice (24%/26%). Mean JAMA score for all 600 webpages was low (1.2), with journals (mean = 3.4) having the highest score. Medical practice (mean = 0.5) and legal websites (mean = 0.0) had the lowest JAMA scores. Only 30% of webpages provided UCL-specific information. Conclusion: Online UCL patient questions commonly pertain to technical details and injury management. Webpages suggested by search engines contain information specific to UCL tears and surgery only one-third of the time. The quality of most webpages provided to patients is poor, with minimal source transparency.

Preoperative planning with three-dimensional CT vs. three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging does not change surgical management for shoulder instability.

Background: This study aims to determine the effect of time and imaging modality (three-dimensional (3D) CT vs. 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) on the surgical procedure indicated for shoulder instability. The hypothesis is there will be no clinical difference in procedure selection between time and imaging modality. Methods: Eleven shoulder surgeons were surveyed with the same ten shoulder instability clinical scenarios at three time points. All time points included history of present illness, musculoskeletal exam, radiographs, and standard two-dimensional MRI. To assess the effect of imaging modality, survey 1 included 3D MRI while survey 2 included a two-dimensional and 3D CT scan. To assess the effect of time, a retest was performed with survey 3 which was identical to survey 2. The outcome measured was whether surgeons made a "major" or "minor" surgical change between surveys. Results: The average major change rate was 14.1% (standard deviation: 7.6%). The average minor change rate was 12.6% (standard deviation: 7.5%). Between survey 1 to the survey 2, the major change rate was 15.2%, compared to 13.1% when going from the second to the third survey (P = .68). The minior change rate between the first and second surveys was 12.1% and between the second to third interview was 13.1% (P = .8). Discussion: The findings suggest that the major factor related to procedural changes was time between reviewing patient information. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that there remains significant intrasurgeon variability in selecting surgical procedures for shoulder instability. Lastly, the findings in this study suggest that 3D MRI is clinically equivalent to 3D CT in guiding shoulder instability surgical management. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that there is significant variability in surgical procedure selection driven by time alone in shoulder instability. Surgical decision making with 3D MRI was similar to 3D CT scans and may be used by surgeons for preoperative planning.

Artificial intelligence in shoulder and elbow surgery: overview of current and future applications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is amongst the most rapidly growing technologies in orthopedic surgery. With the exponential growth in healthcare data, computing power, and complex predictive algorithms, this technology is poised to aid providers in data processing and clinical decision support throughout the continuum of orthopedic care. Understanding the utility and limitations of this technology is vital to practicing orthopedic surgeons, as these applications will become more common place in everyday practice. AI has already demonstrated its utility in shoulder and elbow surgery for imaging-based diagnosis, predictive modeling of clinical outcomes, implant identification, and automated image segmentation. The future integration of AI and robotic surgery represents the largest potential application of AI in shoulder and elbow surgery with the potential for significant clinical and financial impact. This editorial's purpose is to summarize common AI terms, provide a framework to understand and interpret AI model results, and discuss current applications and future directions within shoulder and elbow surgery.

Workload Comparison of Contemporary Interval Throwing Programs and a Novel Optimized Program for Baseball Pitchers.

Background: In the rehabilitation of injured baseball pitchers, there is lack of consensus on how to guide a player back to pitching. It is unknown how different contemporary interval throwing programs (ITPs) progress in the amount of throwing workload. Purposes: To 1) evaluate three prominent ITPs commonly employed in baseball pitcher rehabilitation and assess whether these ITPs produce training loads that increase in a controlled, graduated manner and 2) devise an ITP that produced training loads which increased steadily over time. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Three publicly available ITPs from prominent sports medicine institutions were analyzed. Elbow varus torque per throw was calculated from a 2nd order polynomial regression based upon a relationship between recorded torque measurements and throwing distance measured from a database of 111,196 throws. The relative rate of workload increase was measured as an acute:chronic workload ratio (ACWR). For each ITP, throw counts, daily/acute/chronic workloads, and ACWR were calculated and plotted over time. Finally, an original ITP was devised based upon a computational model that gradually increases ACWR over time and finished with an optimal chronic workload. Results: Each ITP exhibited a unique progression of throwing distances, quantities, and days to create different workload profiles. The three ITPs had throwing schedules ranging from 136 days to 187 days, ACWR spiked above or fell below a literature-defined "safe" range (i.e. 0.7 - 1.3) 19, 21, and 23 times. A novel ITP, predicated on a 146-day schedule and with a final chronic workload of 14.2, was designed to have no spikes outside of the safe range. Conclusion: Existing ITPs widely utilized for rehabilitation of baseball pitchers exhibit significantly inconsistent variation in the rate of throwing load progression. Computational modeling may facilitate more incremental workload progression in ITPs, thereby reducing injury during rehabilitation and more efficiently condition a pitcher for return to competition. Level of Evidence: 3b.

Midterm outcomes of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of studies with minimum 5-year follow-up.

Background: Excellent short-term outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been reported, but longer term outcomes in the existing literature are sparse and vary widely. The purpose of this study is to systematically assess the existing literature to quantify functional outcomes and complication rates after RSA at a minimum of five years of follow-up. Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-compliant systematic literature search of the PubMed and Embase databases was undertaken. Studies reporting outcomes after primary RSA for nontrauma-related indications with a minimum of 5-year follow-up were included. Results: Overall, 20 studies satisfied all inclusion criteria. This represented 1591 shoulders in 1556 patients (32.1% males), with a mean age of 70.2 ± 5.0 years and mean follow-up of 8.8 years, or 106.2 ± 30.1 months (60-243). At final follow-up, the mean reported Constant Murley score was 62.1 ± 5.0 (49.0-83.0). The mean adjusted Constant Murley score was 83.5 ± 12.5 (58-111.9). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81.8 ± 4.6, while the mean subjective shoulder value was 74.6 ± 6.4. Overall, 88% of patients rated their satisfaction as either good or very good. The range of active forward flexion, abduction, external, and internal rotation were respectively, 126° ± 13°, 106° ± 11°, 22° ± 11°, and 6° ± 2°. The overall rate of revision surgery was 4.9% (0%-45.5%). Regarding complications, the rate of prosthetic joint infection was 4.3% (0%-26.7%), shoulder dislocation was 3.7% (0%-20.4%), and acromial fracture was 2.0% (0%-8.8%). At final follow-up, 30.9% of shoulders had some degree of scapular notching. Conclusion: This systematic review shows that RSA results in high satisfaction rates, good clinical outcomes, as well as modest complication and revision rates at minimum 5-year follow-up.

Irreparable Subscapularis Tears: Current Tendon Transfer Options.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Irreparable subscapularis tears, especially in younger patients with higher functional demands, present a challenging entity. Pectoralis major and latissimus dorsi tendon transfers are commonly considered for surgical management of this pathology, yet no consensus exists regarding the superior option. The purpose of this article is to review the most current tendon transfer techniques for irreparable subscapularis tears. RECENT FINDINGS: For decades, transfer of the pectoralis major has been considered the gold standard technique for irreparable subscapularis tears. This transfer was found to reduce pain and improve functional outcome scores, yet range of motion and force of internal rotation were not maintained in long-term follow-up studies. The latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for the same indications has demonstrated biomechanical superiority in recent cadaveric studies with promising short-term results clinically. Both pectoralis major and latissimus dorsi tendon transfers improve outcomes of patients with irreparable subscapularis tears. Future comparative studies are still needed to determine superiority amongst techniques.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Risk Factors for the Increased Incidence of Revision Surgery After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 90% of patients who undergo arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) are satisfied with their pain levels and function after surgery. However, a subset of patients experience continued symptoms that warrant revision surgery. Preoperative risk factors for RCR failure requiring revision surgery have not been clearly defined. PURPOSE: To (1) determine the rate of RCR failure requiring revision surgery and (2) identify risk factors for revision surgery, which will help surgeons to determine patients who are at the greatest risk for RCR failure. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were performed. The initial search resulted in 3158 titles, and 533 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. A total of 10 studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) human clinical studies, (2) arthroscopic RCR, (3) original clinical research, and (4) evaluation of preoperative risk factors for revision. RESULTS: After a full-text review, a total of 16 risk factors were recorded and analyzed across 10 studies. Corticosteroid injection was the most consistent risk factor for revision surgery, reaching statistical significance in 4 of 4 studies, followed by workers' compensation status (2/3 studies). Patients with corticosteroid injections had a pooled increased risk of revision surgery by 47% (odds ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.36-1.52]). Patients with workers' compensation had a pooled increased risk of revision surgery by 133% (odds ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 2.09-2.60]). Age, smoking status, diabetes, and obesity were found to be risk factors in half of the analyzed studies. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid injections, regardless of the frequency of injections, and workers' compensation status were found to be significant risk factors across the literature based on qualitative analysis and pooled analysis. Surgeons should determine ideal candidates for arthroscopic RCR by accounting for corticosteroid injection history, regardless of the frequency, and insurance status of the patient.

How to avoid baseplate failure: the effect of compression and reverse shoulder arthroplasty baseplate design on implant stability.

BACKGROUND: Failure to achieve fixation of the glenoid baseplate will lead to clinical failure. The fixation of the baseplate to the scapula must be able to withstand sufficient shear forces to allow bony ingrowth. The importance of compression to neutralize the forces at the baseplate-bone interface has been assumed to be critical in limiting excessive micromotion. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of compression on implant stability with different baseplate designs. METHODS: Various baseplate designs (1-piece monolithic central screw [1P], 2-piece locking central screw [2PL], and 2-piece nonlocking center screw [2PNL]) were investigated at 3 different compressive forces (high [810 N], medium [640 N], and low [530 N]). Synthetic bone cylinders were instrumented, and peripheral screws were used in all models. The combination of 1 locking and 3 nonlocking peripheral screw fixation was selected as worst-case scenario. Dynamic testing protocol followed the ASTM F2028-17 standard. The baseplate micromotion at high compression was compared to low compression. Additionally, the baseplate micromotion for each design was compared at baseline (first 50 cycles) and at 10,000 cycles for the 3 different compressive forces where motion above 150 µm was defined as failure. RESULTS: Baseplate micromotion was found to negatively correlate with compression (rpb = -0.83, P < .0001). At baseline, all baseplate designs were considered stable, regardless of compression. With high compression, average micromotion at the glenoid baseplate-bone interface remained below the 150-µm threshold for all baseplate designs at 10,000 cycles (1P: 50 ± 10 µm; 2PL: 78 ± 32 µm; 2PNL: 79 ± 8 µm; P = .060). With medium compression, average micromotion at 10,000 cycles for all 3 designs remained below the 150-µm threshold (1P: 88 ± 22 µm; 2PL: 132 ± 26 µm; 2PNL: 107 ± 39 µm). The 2PL design had the highest amount of micromotion (P = .013). With low compression, both 2-piece designs had an average micromotion above the 150-µm threshold whereas the 1-piece design did not (1P: 133 ± 35 µm; 2PL: 183 ± 21 µm; 2PNL: 166 ± 39 µm). The 2PL design had significantly higher micromotion when compared to 1P design (P = .041). DISCUSSION: The stability of a central screw baseplate correlates with the amount of compression obtained and is affected by implant design. For the same amount of compression, more micromotion is observed in a 2-piece design than a 1-piece design.

3-dimensionally printed patient-specific glenoid drill guides vs. standard nonspecific instrumentation: a randomized controlled trial comparing the accuracy of glenoid component placement in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Traditional, commercially sourced patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) systems for shoulder arthroplasty improve glenoid component placement but can involve considerable cost and outsourcing delays. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the accuracy of glenoid component positioning in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) using an in-house, point-of-care, 3-dimensionally (3D) printed patient-specific glenoid drill guide vs. standard nonspecific instrumentation. METHODS: This single-center randomized controlled trial included 36 adult patients undergoing primary aTSA. Patients were blinded and randomized 1:1 to either the PSI or the standard aTSA guide groups. The primary endpoint was the accuracy of glenoid component placement (version and inclination), which was determined using a metal-suppression computed tomography scan taken between 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. Deviation from the preoperative 3D templating plan was calculated for each patient. Blinded postoperative computed tomography measurements were performed by a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon and a musculoskeletal radiologist. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were randomized to the patient-specific glenoid drill guide group, and 17 patients were allocated to the standard instrumentation control group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for native version (P = .527) or inclination (P = .415). The version correction was similar between the 2 groups (P = .551), and the PSI group was significantly more accurate when correcting version than the control group (P = .042). The PSI group required a significantly greater inclination correction than the control group (P = .002); however, the 2 groups still had similar accuracy when correcting inclination (P = .851). For the PSI group, there was no correlation between the accuracy of component placement and native version, native inclination, or the Walch classification of glenoid wear (P > .05). For the control group, accuracy when correcting version was inversely correlated with native version (P = .033), but accuracy was not correlated with native inclination or the Walch classification of glenoid wear (P > .05). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.703 and 0.848 when measuring version and inclination accuracy, respectively. CONCLUSION: When compared with standard instrumentation, the use of in-house, 3D printed, patient-specific glenoid drill guides during aTSA led to more accurate glenoid component version correction and similarly accurate inclination correction. Additional research should examine the influence of proper component position and use of PSI on clinical outcomes.

Changes in in vivo three dimensional shoulder kinematics following latissimus dorsi tendon transfer for irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Latissimus dorsi transfer is a surgical procedure that can be used for treating posterosuperior rotator cuff tears. The procedure leads to improved shoulder function via alterations in the force vector couple around the shoulder. However, there is still no consensus on the biomechanical changes resulting from latissimus dorsi transfer. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature on 3D motion analysis studies evaluating the effects of latissimus dorsi transfer on shoulder kinematics. The available data on segment and joint range of motion was extracted and subject to meta-analysis when consistent across the studies. FINDINGS: Our meta-analysis of pre- and post-operative studies revealed a significant improvement in forward flexion and abduction following latissimus dorsi transfer. When comparing the latissimus transferred shoulder with an uninjured contralateral side the meta-analysis found no significant difference in flexion range of motion, while abduction and external rotation was significantly higher in the uninjured shoulders. The overall risk of bias was moderate to high. High heterogeneity was found in the reporting of data, which limited our ability to perform a meta-analysis across the studies for all interest outcomes. INTERPRETATIONS: Our findings suggest that latissimus dorsi transfer for posterosuperior rotator cuff tears effectively improves shoulder flexion and abduction. External rotation is also expected to improve but at inferior levels as compared to the unaffected side. However, the heterogeneity of the reported data on 3D motion analysis studies highlights the need for better standardization in research and reporting as to conclude the impact of different joints.

Infection in Shoulder Arthroplasty: Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication following shoulder arthroplasty that can lead to pain, poor function, and poor quality of life. With the increasing number of shoulder arthroplasties performed annually, recognition of prosthetic infection and treatment is necessary. The skin surrounding the shoulder has a unique microbiome, and Cutibacterium acnes is the most commonly encountered bacteria causing prosthetic joint infection. C acnes is a low-virulence organism that resides in the subcutaneous layer of the skin. As a result, the clinical presentation is typically less obvious than prosthetic infections seen in other joints such as the hip and knee. Therefore, diagnosis is not always straightforward, and optimal treatment strategy is unclear. Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of shoulder prosthetic joint infection with special emphasis on the consensus definition established at the 2018 International Consensus Meeting is provided.

Predictors of dislocations after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a study by the ASES complications of RSA multicenter research group.

BACKGROUND: Instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is one of the most frequent complications and remains a clinical challenge. Current evidence is limited by small sample size, single-center, or single-implant methodologies that limit generalizability. We sought to determine the incidence and patient-related risk factors for dislocation after RSA, using a large, multicenter cohort with varying implants. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter study was performed involving 15 institutions and 24 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members across the United States. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients undergoing primary or revision RSA between January 2013 and June 2019 with minimum 3-month follow-up. All definitions, inclusion criteria, and collected variables were determined using the Delphi method, an iterative survey process involving all primary investigators requiring at least 75% consensus to be considered a final component of the methodology for each study element. Dislocations were defined as complete loss of articulation between the humeral component and the glenosphere and required radiographic confirmation. Binary logistic regression was performed to determine patient predictors of postoperative dislocation after RSA. RESULTS: We identified 6621 patients who met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of 19.4 months (range: 3-84 months). The study population was 40% male with an average age of 71.0 years (range: 23-101 years). The rate of dislocation was 2.1% (n = 138) for the whole cohort, 1.6% (n = 99) for primary RSAs, and 6.5% (n = 39) for revision RSAs (P < .001). Dislocations occurred at a median of 7.0 weeks (interquartile range: 3.0-36.0 weeks) after surgery with 23.0% (n = 32) after a trauma. Patients with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff had an overall lower rate of dislocation than patients with other diagnoses (0.8% vs. 2.5%; P < .001). Patient-related factors independently predictive of dislocation, in order of the magnitude of effect, were a history of postoperative subluxations before radiographically confirmed dislocation (odds ratio [OR]: 19.52, P < .001), primary diagnosis of fracture nonunion (OR: 6.53, P < .001), revision arthroplasty (OR: 5.61, P < .001), primary diagnosis of rotator cuff disease (OR: 2.64, P < .001), male sex (OR: 2.21, P < .001), and no subscapularis repair at surgery (OR: 1.95, P = .001). CONCLUSION: The strongest patient-related factors associated with dislocation were a history of postoperative subluxations and having a primary diagnosis of fracture nonunion. Notably, RSAs for osteoarthritis showed lower rates of dislocations than RSAs for rotator cuff disease. These data can be used to optimize patient counseling before RSA, particularly in male patients undergoing revision RSA.