Predictors of adequate pain control after outpatient hand and upper extremity surgery.

PURPOSE: The opioid epidemic has changed practice, though there remains a paucity of data regarding prescribing habits and pain control following outpatient hand surgery. We sought to evaluate patient-related predictors of adequate postoperative pain control. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of a single-center prospectively collected database of elective outpatient surgery on the elbow, forearm, wrist, and/or hand. Patients were asked to complete preoperative and postoperative questionnaires to capture their perception of anticipated pain levels, expected prescription quantity/duration, additional medications used, and overall pain satisfaction. Patient demographics collected included, sex, age, race, tobacco use, and recreational drug use. Further, the questionnaire included the Brief Resilience Score (BRS), EuroQol 5-dimension health-related QOL measure (EQ-5D), and an assessment of patient-reported limitations secondary to their pain. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients completed the pre/postoperative questionnaires and were eligible for analysis. Of these patients, 80% reported adequate pain control. The sex, age, and race of those who reported adequate pain control and inadequate control were not significantly different. BRS scores were not found to be significantly different between groups, although EQ-5D QOL scores were significantly lower in the inadequately controlled group. Tobacco use was more prevalent in the inadequately controlled group. Marijuana use and the presence of a chronic pain diagnosis were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: Preoperative self-reported quality of life measures and tobacco use appear to have significant effects on postoperative opioid use, suggesting further areas of optimization which may ensure patients are safe and minimize the number of opioid pills required.

Does hydrogen peroxide application to the dermis following surgical incision affect Cutibacterium acnes cultures in total shoulder arthroplasty in male patients? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infections occur in 1%-4% of primary total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs). Cutibacterium acnes is the most commonly implicated organism and has been shown to persist in the dermis despite use of preoperative antibiotics and standard skin preparations. Studies have shown decreased rates of cultures positive for C acnes with use of preoperative benzoyl peroxide or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), but even with this positive deep cultures remain common. We sought to determine whether an additional application of H2O2 directly to the dermis following skin incision would further decrease deep culture positivity rates. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial comparing tissue culture results in primary TSA in patients who received a standard skin preparation with H2O2, ethanol, and ChloraPrep (CareFusion, Leawood, KS, USA) vs. an additional application of H2O2 to the dermis immediately after skin incision. Given the sexual dimorphism seen in the shoulder microbiome regarding C acnes colonization rates, only male patients were included. Bivariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare rates of positive cultures based on demographic and surgical factors. RESULTS: Dermal cultures were found to be positive for C acnes at similar rates between the experimental and control cohorts for the initial (22% vs. 28%, P = .600) and final (61% vs. 50%, P > .999) dermal swabs. On bivariable analysis, the rate of positive deep cultures for C acnes was lower in the experimental group, but this difference was not statistically significant (28% vs. 44%, P = .130). However, patients who underwent anatomic TSA were found to have a significantly greater rate of deep cultures positive for C acnes (57% vs. 28%, P = .048); when controlling for this on multivariable analysis, the experimental cohort was found to be associated with significantly lower odds of having positive deep cultures (odds ratio, 0.37 [95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.90], P = .023). There were no wound complications in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: An additional H2O2 application directly to the dermis following skin incision resulted in a small but statistically significant decrease in the odds of having deep cultures positive for C acnes without any obvious adverse effects on wound healing. Given its cost-effectiveness, use of a post-incisional dermal decontamination protocol may be considered as an adjuvant to preoperative use of benzoyl peroxide or H2O2 to decrease C acnes contamination.

Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.

BACKGROUND: When patients require reoperation after primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Furthermore, although the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit are commonly used to assess clinically relevant success, these metrics are limited by ceiling effects that may cause inaccurate estimates of patient success. Our purpose was to define the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement (MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI) for commonly used pain and functional outcome scores after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients who underwent first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcome scores included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), raw and normalized Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores. We used an anchor-based method to calculate the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI. In addition, we calculated the MCI-%MPI using a distribution-based method for historical comparison. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed. The influence of sex, type of primary shoulder arthroplasty, and reason for revision rTSA were also assessed by calculating cohort-specific thresholds. RESULTS: Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 67 years; 56% were female, and the average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n = 47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n = 21), rTSA (n = 15), and humeral head resurfacing (n = 10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n = 24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n = 23) and subluxation and unexplained pain (n = 11 for both). The anchor-based MCI-%MPI thresholds (% of patients achieving) were ASES = 33% (49%), raw Constant = 23% (64%), normalized Constant = 30% (61%), UCLA = 51% (53%), SST = 26% (68%), and SPADI = 29% (58%). The anchor-based SCI-%MPI thresholds (% of patients achieving) were ASES = 55% (31%), raw Constant = 41% (27%), normalized Constant = 52% (22%), UCLA = 66% (37%), SST = 74% (25%), and SPADI = 49% (34%). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to establish thresholds for the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI at minimum 2 years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

Does achieving clinically important thresholds after first shoulder arthroplasty predict similar outcomes of the contralateral shoulder?

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly undergoing bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). At present, it is unknown whether success after the first TSA is predictive of success after contralateral TSA. We aimed to determine whether exceeding clinically important thresholds of success after primary TSA predicts similar outcomes for subsequent contralateral TSA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database for patients undergoing bilateral primary anatomic (aTSA) or reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty since January 2000 with preoperative and 2- or 3-year clinical follow-up. Our primary outcome was whether exceeding clinically important thresholds in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score for the first TSA was predictive of similar success of the contralateral TSA; thresholds for the ASES score were adopted from prior literature and included the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the substantial clinical benefit (SCB), 30% of maximal possible improvement (MPI), and the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). The PASS is defined as the highest level of symptom beyond which patients consider themselves well, which may be a better indicator of a patient's quality of life. To determine whether exceeding clinically important thresholds was independently predictive of similar success after second contralateral TSA, we performed multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age at second surgery, sex, BMI, and type of first and second TSA. RESULTS: Of the 134 patients identified that underwent bilateral shoulder arthroplasty, 65 (49%) had bilateral rTSAs, 45 (34%) had bilateral aTSAs, 21 (16%) underwent aTSA/rTSA, and 3 (2%) underwent rTSA/aTSA. On multivariable logistic regression, exceeding clinically important thresholds after first TSA was not associated with greater odds of achieving thresholds after second TSA when success was evaluated by the MCID, SCB, and 30% MPI. In contrast, exceeding the PASS after first TSA was associated with 5.9 times greater odds (95% confidence interval 2.5-14.4, P < .001) of exceeding the PASS after second TSA. Overall, patients who exceeded the PASS after first TSA exceeded the PASS after second TSA at a higher rate (71% vs. 29%, P < .001); this difference persisted when stratified by type of prosthesis for first and second TSA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who achieve the ASES score PASS after first TSA have greater odds of achieving the PASS for the contralateral shoulder regardless of prostheses type.

Anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes after prior contralateral anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with bilateral primary osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare outcomes in patients that underwent bilateral anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) vs. aTSA/ reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for rotator cuff-intact glenohumeral osteoarthritis (RCI-GHOA) to further elucidate the role of rTSA in this patient population. METHODS: A single-institution prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was reviewed for patients undergoing bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for RCI-GHOA with a primary aTSA and subsequent contralateral aTSA or rTSA. Outcome scores (SPADI, SST, ASES, UCLA, Constant) and active range of motion (abduction, forward elevation [FE], external and internal rotation [ER and IR]) were evaluated. Clinically relevant benchmarks (minimal clinically important difference [MCID], substantial clinical benefit [SCB], and patient acceptable symptomatic state [PASS]) were evaluated against values in prior literature. Incidence of surgical complications and revision rates were examined in qualifying patients as well as those without .05). The 2nd TSAs between groups were similar preoperatively, but aTSA/rTSA had superior outcome scores, overhead motion, and active abduction compared to patients that underwent aTSA/aTSA. There were no differences in active ER and IR scores or complication rates between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with RCI-GHOA have excellent clinical outcomes after either aTSA/aTSA or aTSA/rTSA.

Early outcomes after first reverse total shoulder arthroplasty better prognosticate contralateral success compared with early outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The ideal timing between bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine whether early outcomes after first TSA can be used to predict clinical outcomes after TSA of the contralateral shoulder and to evaluate the ideal time after TSA to perform the contralateral shoulder. METHODS: A single-institution prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was reviewed. Patients who underwent bilateral primary anatomic or reverse TSA (aTSA + rTSA) without an indication of fracture, tumor, or infection were identified. Included patients had minimum 2-year follow-up on their second TSA and postoperative follow-up after their first TSA at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years. Our primary outcome was whether outcome scores and motion at 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up after first TSA predicted clinical success after second TSA at final follow-up, defined as achieving the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS = the highest level of symptoms beyond which patients consider themselves well). Outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant scores, abduction, forward elevation, and external/internal-rotation. Multivariable logistic regression determined whether postoperative outcomes after first TSA were predictive of achieving the PASS after second TSA independent of age, sex, and body mass index. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined cutoffs of postoperative outcomes after first TSA at each time point that best predicted achieving the prosthesis-specific PASS after second TSA. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four patients were included in the final analysis (110 aTSA and 158 rTSA). Range of motion and outcome scores at late (1- or 2-year) follow-up after first aTSA were more predictive of achieving the second TSA PASS compared with early (3- or 6-month) outcomes. In contrast, outcomes after early and late follow-up after first rTSA were similarly predictive of achieving the second TSA PASS. Specifically, the Constant score threshold at 2 years after first aTSA (79.4; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.804) better differentiated achieving the second TSA PASS vs. the 6-month threshold (72.0; AUC = 0.600). In contrast, the Constant score threshold at 2 years after first rTSA (76.4; AUC = 0.703) was similarly discriminant of achieving the second TSA PASS compared with the 6-month threshold (65.8; AUC = 0.711). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with good outcomes after first rTSA can be counseled on contralateral TSA as early as 3 months postoperatively with confidence of a similar result on the contralateral side. In contrast, success after first aTSA does not reliably predict contralateral success until ≥1 year.

Relationship between the prosthesis scapular neck angle and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: Optimal glenosphere positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) remains highly debated. We aimed to characterize the association between the prosthesis scapular neck angle (PSNA) and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and clinical outcome scores. Methods: A retrospective review of 284 RSAs using a single design with minimum 2-year follow-up was performed. Glenosphere tilt was measured postoperatively using PSNA. ROM and functional outcome scores were assessed preoperatively and at latest follow-up. The PSNA was dichotomized to inferior or superior groups (>90° vs ≤ 90°, respectively) and stratified into quartiles; ROM and outcome score measures were compared between groups controlling for inferior glenosphere overhang. Results: No range of PSNA was consistently associated with superior ROM, clinical outcome scores, or rates of complications including scapular notching. However, greater preoperative to postoperative improvement in active FE was found for superiorly (PSNA ≤ 90°) versus inferiorly tilted glenospheres (37° ± 33° vs 53° ± 35°, P = 0.005) and the greater improvement in active FE (57° ± 35°, P = 0.004) was further isolated to the first quartile (mean 85.1° ± 3.5°). Discussion: A lack of variation in clinical outcomes based on PSNA suggests negligible short-term (median follow-up 3.1 years) clinical significance when glenosphere tilt falls within the distribution of this cohort (mean 92.6° ± 6.2°).

Discordance between patient-reported and objectively measured internal rotation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) partly relies on restoring functional internal rotation (IR). Although postoperative assessment of IR includes objective appraisal by the surgeon and subjective report from the patient, these evaluations may not vary together uniformly. We assessed the relationship between objective, surgeon-reported assessments of IR and subjective, patient-reported ability to perform IR-related activities of daily living (IRADLs). METHODS: Our institutional shoulder arthroplasty database was queried for patients undergoing primary RSA with a medialized-glenoid lateralized-humerus design between 2007-2019 and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients who were wheelchair bound or had a preoperative diagnosis of infection, fracture, and tumor were excluded. Objective IR was measured to the highest vertebral level reached with the thumb. Subjective IR was reported based on patients' rating (normal, slightly difficult, very difficult, or unable) of their ability to perform 4 IRADLs (tuck in shirt with hand behind back, wash back or fasten bra, personal hygiene, and remove object from back pocket). Objective IR was assessed preoperatively and at latest follow-up and reported as median and interquartile ranges. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients were included (52% female) at a mean follow-up of 4.4 ± 2.3 years. Objective IR improved pre- to postoperatively from L4-L5 (buttocks to L1-L3) to L1-L3 (L4-L5 to T8-T12) (P < .001). Preoperatively reported IRADLs of "very difficult" or "unable" significantly decreased postoperatively for all IRADLs (P ≤ .004) except those unable to perform personal hygiene (3.2% vs. 1.8%, P > .99). The proportions of patients who improved, maintained, and lost objective and subjective IR was similar between IRADLs; 14%-20% improved objective IR but lost or maintained subjective IR and 19%-21% lost or maintained the same objective IR but improved subjective IR depending on the specific IRADL assessed. When ability to perform IRADLs improved postoperatively, objective IR also increased (P < .001). In contrast, when subjective IRADLs worsened postoperatively, objective IR did not significantly worsen for 2 of 4 IRADLs assessed. When examining patients who reported no change in ability to perform IRADLs pre- vs. postoperatively, statistically significant increases in objective IR were found for 3 of 4 IRADLs assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Objective improvement in IR parallels improvements in subjective functional gains uniformly. However, in patients with worse or equivalent IR, the ability to perform IRADLs postoperatively does not uniformly correlate with objective IR. When attempting to elucidate how surgeons can ensure patients will have sufficient IR after RSA, future investigations may need to use patient-reported ability to perform IRADLs as the primary outcome measure rather than objective measures of IR.

Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state.

BACKGROUND: When patients require revision of primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Our purpose was to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for outcome scores and range of motion (ROM) after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcomes scores included the ASES, raw and normalized Constant, SPADI, SST, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores. ROM measures included abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR) score. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate the MCID, SCB, and PASS. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n = 47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n = 21), rTSA (n = 15), and resurfacing (n = 10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n = 24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n = 23), subluxation and unexplained pain (n = 11 for both). The anchor-based MCID thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 20.1 (42%); normalized Constant, 12.6 (80%); UCLA, 10.2 (54%); SST, 0.9 (78%); SPADI, -18.4 (58%); abduction, 13° (83%); FE, 18° (82%); ER, 4° (49%); and IR, 0.8 (34%). The SCB thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 34.1 (25%); normalized Constant, 26.6 (43%); UCLA, 14.1 (28%); SST, 3.9 (48%); SPADI, -36.4 (33%); abduction, 20° (77%); FE, 28° (71%); ER, 15° (15%); and IR, 1.0 (29%). The PASS thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 63.5 (53%); normalized Constant, 59.1 (61%); UCLA, 25.4 (48%); SST, 7.0 (55%); SPADI, 42.4 (59%); abduction, 98° (61%); FE, 110° (56%); ER, 19° (73%); and IR, 3.3 (59%). CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes thresholds for the MCID, SCB, and PASS at minimum 2-years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to counsel patients and assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: Both anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are being increasingly performed. In the event of a complication necessitating revision, RTSA is more commonly performed in both scenarios. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective single-institution shoulder arthroplasty database. All revision RTSAs performed between 2007 and 2019 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were initially included. After excluding patients with a preoperative diagnosis of infection, an oncologic indication, or incomplete outcomes assessment, we included 45 revision RTSAs performed for failed primary aTSA and 15 for failed primary RTSA. Demographics, surgical characteristics, active range of motion (external rotation [ER], internal rotation, forward elevation [FE], abduction), outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, and University of California, Los Angeles score), and the incidence of postoperative complications was compared between groups. Results: Primary aTSA was most often indicated for degenerative joint disease (82%), whereas primary RTSA was more often indicated for rotator cuff arthropathy (60%). On bivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in any range of motion or clinical outcome measure were found between revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA. On multivariate linear regression analysis, revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA was not found to significantly influence any outcome measure. Humeral loosening as an indication for revision surgery was associated with more favorable outcomes for all four range of motion measures and all five outcome scores assessed. In contrast, an indication for revision of peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with poorer outcomes for three of four range of motion measures (ER, FE, abduction) and four of five outcome scores (Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, University of California, Los Angeles). A preoperative diagnosis of fracture was associated with a poorer postoperative range of motion in ER, FE, and abduction, but was not found to significantly influence any outcome score. However, only two patients in our cohort had this indication. Complication and re-revision rates after revision RTSA for failed primary aTSA and RTSA were 27% and 9% vs. 20% and 14% (P = .487 and P = .515), respectively. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly differ based on whether aTSA or RTSA was initially performed. However, larger studies are needed to definitively ascertain the influence of the primary construct on the outcomes of revision RTSA.

Two-year outcomes of the reverse humeral reconstruction prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Extensive proximal humeral bone loss in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty represents a difficult challenge for the treating surgeon. Achieving adequate fixation with standard humeral prostheses can be problematic. Allograft-prosthetic composites are a viable solution for this problem; however, high rates of complications have been reported. Modular proximal humeral replacement systems are another potential solution, but there is a paucity of outcome data on these implants. This study reports the 2-year minimum follow-up outcomes and complications of a single system reverse proximal humeral reconstruction prosthesis (RHRP) for patients with extensive proximal humeral bone loss. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent implantation of an RHRP for either (1) failed shoulder arthroplasty or (2) proximal humerus fracture with severe bone loss (Pharos 2 and 3) and/or sequelae thereof. Forty-four patients met inclusion criteria (average age 68.3 ± 13.1 years). The average follow-up was 36.2 ± 12.4 months. Demographic information, operative data, and complications were recorded. Pre- and postoperative range of motion (ROM), pain, and outcome scores were assessed and compared to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for primary rTSA where available. RESULTS: Of the 44 RHRPs evaluated, 93% (n = 39) had undergone prior surgery and 70% (n = 30) were performed for failed arthroplasty. ROM improved significantly in abduction by 22° (P = .006) and forward elevation by 28° (P = .003). Average pain on a daily basis and pain at worst improved significantly, by 2.0 points (P < .001) and 2.7 points (P < .001), respectively. Mean Simple Shoulder Test score improved by 3.2 (P < .001), Constant score by 10.9 (P = .030), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score by 29.7 (P < .001), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), score by 10.6 (P < .001), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score by 37.4 (P < .001). A majority of patients achieved the MCID for all outcome measures assessed (56%-81%). The SCB was exceeded by half of patients for forward elevation and the Constant score (50%), and exceeded by the majority of patients for the ASES score (58%) and UCLA score (58%). The complication rate was 28%; the most common complication was dislocation requiring closed reduction. Notably, there were no occurrences of humeral loosening requiring revision surgery. DISCUSSION: These data demonstrate that the RHRP resulted in significant improvements in ROM, pain, and patient-reported outcome measures, without the risk of early humeral component loosening. RHRP represents another potential solution for shoulder arthroplasty surgeons when addressing extensive proximal humerus bone loss.

Survivorship analysis of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has resulted in a rapid increase in the incidence of subsequent revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence and risk factors for re-revision shoulder arthroplasty after first revision RTSA. METHODS: We retrospectively queried our institutional shoulder arthroplasty database of prospectively collected data from 2003 to 2019. To assess revision implant survival, patients were censored on the date of re-revision surgery or, if the revision arthroplasty was not revised, at the most recent follow-up or their date of death. Patients with a prior infection, concern for infection at the time of revision, antibiotic spacer, or oncologic indication for primary arthroplasty were excluded. A total of 186 revision RTSAs were included, with 32 undergoing re-revision shoulder arthroplasty. The Kaplan-Meier method and bivariate Cox regression were used to assess the relationship of patient and surgical characteristics on implant survivorship. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to identify independent predictors of re-revision. RESULTS: Re-revision shoulder arthroplasty was most commonly performed for instability (34%), infection (28%), and glenoid loosening (19%). Overall re-revision rates at 6 months (7%), 1 year (9%), and 2 years (13%) were relatively low; however, the rate of re-revision increased at 5 years (35%). Men underwent re-revision more often than women within the first 6 months after revision RTSA (12% vs. 2%; P = .025), but not thereafter. On multivariate analysis, increased estimated blood loss was associated with a greater risk of undergoing re-revision shoulder arthroplasty (hazard ratio: 41.16 [3.34-506.50]; P = .004). CONCLUSION: The rate of re-revision after revision RTSA is low in the first 2 years postoperatively (13%) but increases to 35% at 5 years. Increased estimated blood loss, which may reflect greater operative complexity, was identified as a risk factor that may confer an increased chance of re-revision after revision RTSA. Knowledge of risk factors for re-revision after revision RTSA can aid surgeons and patients in preoperative counseling.

Influence of humeral lengthening on clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Deltoid tensioning secondary to humeral lengthening after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is commonly theorized to be crucial to improving range of motion (ROM) but may predispose patients to acromial/scapular spine fractures and neurologic injury. Clinical evidence linking patient outcomes to humeral lengthening is limited. This study assesses the relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after RSA. METHODS: A single institution review of 284 RSAs performed in 265 patients was performed. Humeral lengthening was defined as the difference in the subacromial height preoperatively to postoperatively as measured on Grashey radiographs. The subacromial height was measured as the vertical difference between the most inferolateral aspect of the acromion and the most superior aspect of the greater tuberosity. The relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes was assessed on a continuous basis. Secondarily, clinical outcomes were assessed using a dichotomous definition of humeral lengthening (≤25 vs. >25mm) based on prior clinical and biomechanical work purporting a correlation with clinical outcomes. Improvement exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for ROM and outcome scores after RSA were also compared. RESULTS: Humeral lengthening demonstrated a nonlinear relationship with postoperative ROM, clinical outcome scores, and shoulder strength and their improvement preoperatively to postoperatively. Furthermore, there were minimal differences in ROM measures, outcome scores, and shoulder strength when stratified using the dichotomous definition of humeral lengthening. No difference in the proportion of patients exceeding the MCID or SCB when stratified by humeral lengthening ≤25 vs. >25mm was found. There was no difference in humeral lengthening in patients with versus without complications. CONCLUSION: No clear relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes was identified. The previously purported 25mm threshold for humeral lengthening did not predict improved patient outcomes. Outcomes after RSA are multifactorial; the relationship between humeral lengthening and outcomes is likely confounded by other patient and surgical factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; Case Series.

Clinical outcomes related to glenosphere overhang in reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a lateralized humeral design.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that decreased impingement-free range of motion (ROM) can adversely influence clinical outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Inferior placement of the glenosphere is thought to minimize impingement and its associated sequelae. This study evaluated the relationship between inferior overhang of the glenosphere and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary RSA using a lateralized humeral implant design. METHODS: By use of a prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database, all primary RSAs performed at our institution between 2007 and 2015 with a single implant design (lateralized humerus and medialized glenoid) and minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Glenosphere overhang in relation to the inferior rim of the glenoid was measured in millimeters on postoperative Grashey radiographs of the shoulder and categorized into tertiles (low, <7.1 mm; medium, 7.1 to 9.9 mm; and high, >9.9 mm). Clinical outcomes of interest comprised the changes between preoperative and postoperative values in the following ROM and outcome score measures: active forward elevation (aFE), active external rotation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant-Murley score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, and Simple Shoulder Test score. Random-effects linear models were used to assess univariate and multivariable associations between overhang tertile and change in patient outcomes. Differences in outcomes were further compared using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: The study identified 284 shoulders in 265 patients. The median follow-up period was 36 months (range, 24-108 months). The median glenosphere inferior overhang was 8.4 mm, with an interquartile range of 6.3-10.6 mm. Plots demonstrated nonlinear relationships between overhang and outcome scores and between overhang and ROM. Patients with high overhang experienced a significantly greater improvement in aFE compared with patients with low overhang (P = .019), which exceeded the MCID. No other differences in ROM and outcome scores between overhang groups exceeded the MCID. For other outcome scores and ROM measurements, there was no significant relationship with glenosphere overhang. Increased overhang was associated with a significantly lower incidence of scapular notching (P = .005). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing RSA using a lateralized humerus design with greater inferior overhang of the glenosphere demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in aFE and lower rate of notching compared with those with low overhang. No ideal glenosphere overhang range was identified to maximize function in this study.

Influence of glenoid wear pattern on glenoid component placement accuracy in shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Accurate glenoid component placement in shoulder arthroplasty is often difficult even with the use of preoperative planning. Computer navigation and patient-specific guides increase component placement accuracy, but which patients benefit most is unknown. Our purpose was to assess surgeons' accuracy in placing a glenoid component in vivo using 3-dimensional preoperative planning and standard instruments among various glenoid wear patterns. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 170 primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) performed at a single institution. Commercially available preoperative planning software was used in all arthroplasties with multiplanar 2-dimensional computed tomography and a 3-dimensional implant overlay. After registration of intraoperative bony landmarks to the navigation system, participating surgeons with knowledge of the preoperative plan were blinded to the computer screen and attempted to implement their preoperative plan by simulating placement of a central-axis glenoid guide pin. Two hundred thirty-three screenshots of surgeon's simulated guide pin placement were included. Glenoid displacement, error in version and inclination, and overall malposition from the preoperatively planned target point were stratified by posterior wear status (with [Walch B2 or B3] or without [A1, A2, or B1]) and Walch classification (A1, A2, B1, B2, or B3). The glenoid component was considered malpositioned when version or inclination errors exceeded 10° or the starting point displacement exceeded 4 mm. RESULTS: For rTSA, errors in version were greater for glenoids with posterior wear compared with those without (8.1° ± 5.6° vs. 4.7° ± 4.0°; P < .001). On post hoc analysis, B2 glenoids had greater version error than A1, A2, and B1 glenoids. A greater proportion of glenoids undergoing rTSA that possessed posterior wear had an error in version >10° compared with those without (31% vs. 8%; P < .001). Consequently, glenoids undergoing rTSA with posterior wear were malpositioned at a greater rate compared with those without (73% vs. 53%). In contrast, glenoids undergoing aTSA with and without posterior wear did not differ based on displacement error, version error, inclination error, or malposition occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior glenoid bone loss more commonly resulted in glenoid version errors exceeding 10 degrees and component malposition in rTSA, but not for aTSA. Malposition was still relatively high in patients without significant posterior wear for both aTSA (36%) and rTSA (53%). Surgeons should consider alternate techniques beyond preoperative planning and standard instrumentation when performing shoulder arthroplasty in patients with posteriorly worn glenoids.

Revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients 65 years old and younger: outcome comparison with older patients.

BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a procedure growing in prevalence among younger populations. Consequently, its use in revision arthroplasty is growing in this demographic. However, studies examining the functional outcomes of revision RTSA in younger populations compared with older populations are lacking. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the functional outcomes of revision RTSA in patients 65 years old and younger compared with older patients who underwent revision RTSA. We hypothesized that younger patients would have similar outcomes to older patients and both groups would demonstrate improvement in outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on a prospectively collected research database at a single tertiary referral center of all patients who underwent RTSA between 2007 and 2018. Patients 65 years old or younger who underwent a revision RTSA and had minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. A control group of patients ≥70 years old who underwent revision RTSA were also evaluated. Demographics, surgical factors, active range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared. The ROM parameters measured were forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and level of internal rotation. The PROMs collected included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, University of California-Los Angeles score, Constant score, normalized Constant, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index 130. The differences in outcomes were compared against the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit reported for primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients undergoing revision RTSA were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years with 42 patients in the study group and 39 patients in the control group. Both groups demonstrated similar demographics and rates of prior surgeries. Preoperative outcome scores were lower in the study group (≤65 years old) than those in the older control group with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index 130 remaining worse postoperatively. Both groups experienced statistically significant improvements in ROM from before operation to after operation, with slightly higher improvements in overhead motion in the younger cohort. Both the study group and the control group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all PROMs with improvement above the substantial clinical benefit for the Constant and Simple Shoulder Test scores. Despite lower functional outcomes reported in the study group postoperatively, the improvement from before operation to after operation in all PROMs was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Revision RTSA is a viable option for patients ≤65 years old with a poorly functioning shoulder arthroplasty. ROM and outcome improvements are similar compared with older patients undergoing revision RTSA, but the preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes are worse in the younger patients.

Rate of improvement in shoulder strength after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The rate at which patients regain shoulder strength after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unknown. In this study, we aimed to quantify differences in the timeline during which patients gained shoulder strength after primary anatomic and reverse TSA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from 374 shoulders after primary anatomic TSA (aTSA) and 601 shoulders after primary reverse TSA (rTSA). Postoperative improvement in external rotation (ER) strength and forward elevation (FE) strength from baseline was assessed at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Percent change in mean shoulder strength between each time point was determined for anatomic and reverse groups separately. A handheld dynamometer was used to assess ER strength with the involved shoulder in 0° ER, 0° abduction, and the elbow in 90° flexion and FE strength with the involved shoulder in the scapular plane at 30° of flexion and 30° of abduction. RESULTS: Both aTSA and rTSA groups ceased to have statistically significant gains in FE strength after 1 year postoperatively. In contrast, patients continued to have statistically significant gains in ER strength between 1 year and 2 years postoperatively after rTSA (P = .001), but not after aTSA (P = .476). Both aTSA and rTSA groups saw improvement in strength in both ER (+32.1% and +51.4%, respectively) and FE (+38.3% and +90.3%, respectively) at 2-year follow-up. The aTSA group's ER and FE strength increased the most between 3 and 6 months (+16.2% and +35.7%, respectively). In contrast, the rTSA group gained the most ER strength between 6 months and 1 year (+14.8%) and the greatest FE strength between baseline and 3 months (+40.3%). CONCLUSION: Patients gain ER strength earlier and FE strength later after aTSA compared with rTSA. Most gains in strength occurred in the first year. However, statistically significant gains in shoulder ER strength in the rTSA group continued between 1 year and 2 years postoperatively, suggesting that 2-year follow-up may be inadequate to capture the full benefits of rTSA on shoulder strength. The results of this study provide insight into the timeline of strength recovery after aTSA and rTSA that will help inform patient counseling and future study design.

Association Between Preoperative Shoulder Strength and Clinical Outcomes After Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to determine whether preoperative shoulder strength predicts postoperative values and improvement in strength, range of motion (ROM), and outcome scores after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 264 shoulders with a minimum of 2-year follow-up after primary rTSA. Preoperative external rotation (ER) strength, supraspinatus strength, and abduction strength were analyzed to establish their correlation with postoperative values and improvement in strength, ROM, and outcome scores (Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, and the University of California, Los Angeles score). Multiple linear regression models were used to identify the preoperative shoulder strength measures that most affected postoperative outcomes and improvement in outcomes. RESULTS: Preoperative measures of shoulder strength were positively correlated with all measures of postoperative shoulder strength, active abduction and elevation, and all outcome scores studied. On multivariate analysis, greater preoperative ER, supraspinatus, and abduction strength were significantly associated with greater corresponding postoperative values (P = 0.009, P = 0.041, and P = 0.008, respectively); however, they were also associated with less respective improvement (P < 0.001 for all) because the weakest patients tended to see the largest improvements. Notably, preoperative values of ER and supraspinatus strength exceeding 17.5 and 20.5 lbs were associated with a decline in their respective values postoperatively, but no limit was identified for ROM or outcome score measures. On multivariate analysis, reduced preoperative abduction strength was markedly associated with greater improvement in 3 of 4 ROM measures and 4 of 5 outcome scores. CONCLUSION: Preoperative shoulder strength, especially abduction strength, predicts superior postoperative outcomes and greater improvement in shoulder strength, ROM, and outcome scores after primary rTSA. However, a minority of patients with well-preserved strength may lose strength after surgery, and patients who are weaker preoperatively tend to see larger improvements in postoperative outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Ⅳ, prognostic study.

Management of bipolar shoulder injuries with humeral head allograft in patients with active, uncontrolled seizure disorder: case series and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to present surgical outcomes after humeral head allograft augmentation and glenoid-based procedures in patients with active, uncontrolled seizure activity and anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A retrospective review of a surgical database for patients with active seizure disorder and with recurrent shoulder instability managed with humeral head augmentation was performed. All patients underwent surgical intervention. Postoperative outcomes including Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire, and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) were recorded at a minimum of 2 years. We hypothesized that appropriate management of the bony defects in these bipolar injuries would result in low recurrence and satisfactory outcomes. RESULTS: Ten patients including 8 males and 2 females (15 shoulders) with active seizure-related shoulder instability underwent surgical intervention including allograft bone grafting of the Hill-Sachs lesion for anterior shoulder instability. The average age was 27 years. All patients reported recurrent seizures postoperatively, but only one sustained a shoulder dislocation after surgery that was unrelated to seizure activity.Self-reported satisfaction was "much better" or "better" in 92% of shoulders. Average outcome scores were as follows: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score = 67 (33-100), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index = 32.5 (0-83), Simple Shoulder Test = 9.4 (5-12), SF-12 PCS = 44.1 (21-65), and SF-12 MCS = 50.6 (21-61). The average follow-up was 4.8 years. CONCLUSION: Management of bipolar shoulder injuries with humeral head allograft augmentation and glenoid based surgery leads to low recurrence rates and good clinical outcomes in patients with uncontrolled, seizure-related shoulder instability.

Preoperative shoulder strength is associated with postoperative primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes and improvement.

BACKGROUND: Although numerous preoperative factors that influence postoperative outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) have been identified, preoperative shoulder strength has not been studied. The purpose of this study was to determine whether preoperative shoulder strength is predictive of postoperative outcomes and improvement after primary aTSA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from 160 shoulders with minimum 2-year follow-up after primary aTSA. Preoperative external rotation (ER) strength, supraspinatus strength, and abduction strength score were analyzed to determine their correlation with postoperative outcomes and improvement in shoulder strength, range of motion (ROM), and outcome scores. Multiple linear regression models were subsequently used to adjust for covariates and determine the preoperative measures of shoulder strength that most influenced postoperative outcomes and improvement. RESULTS: Preoperative ER strength, supraspinatus strength, and abduction strength score were each moderately correlated with their respective postoperative values and improvement (P < .001 for all). A decrease in ER strength, supraspinatus strength, and abduction strength score postoperatively was identified for preoperative strength values > 8.2 kg, > 6.6 kg, and > 4.5 kg, respectively. In contrast, no upper limit of preoperative shoulder strength led to a decrease in ROM or outcome scores postoperatively. On multivariate analysis, the baseline abduction strength score was a statistically significant predictor of postoperative values and improvement for all 3 measures of shoulder strength, raw and normalized Constant scores, and improvement in active abduction and active elevation. CONCLUSION: Preoperative shoulder strength is moderately associated with postoperative outcomes and improvements in shoulder strength, ROM, and outcome scores after primary aTSA. It is important to note that we identified preoperative strength values that led to a decrease in strength postoperatively but not ROM or outcome scores. The results of our study demonstrate that abduction strength may be a useful indicator of patient outcomes after aTSA. Our findings will provide surgeons with useful prognostic insight to aid in guiding patient expectations.