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.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes of over-the-top subscapularis repair in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: Biomechanical research demonstrates increased subscapularis abduction range of motion (ROM) when the tendon's upper two-thirds is repaired over-the-top of the center of rotation during reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study compares the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing RSA with over-the-top subscapularis repair (OTTR) to patients without repair. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 97 consecutive RSAs with either OTTR of the subscapularis (N = 75) or no repair (N = 22). Repair was attempted in all patients but not performed if the subscapularis could not be brought to the over-the-top position in 20° of external rotation (ER) and 30° of abduction. Improvements in ROM were compared to the minimal clinically important difference for RSA. Results: The mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 1.6 years. Demographics were similar between groups. Preoperatively, patients undergoing repair had greater ER when compared to those without repair (15 ± 16° vs. 5 ± 12°, P = .003). Postoperatively, patients undergoing repair had greater forward elevation (132 ± 21° vs. 126 ± 22°, P = .268) and abduction (114 ± 26° vs. 106 ± 23°, P = .193) with both exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (-2.9° and -1.9°, respectively); however, not statistically significant. Patients with repair were more frequently able to reach the small of their back postoperatively (65% vs. 21%, P = .006) but had less improvement in ER (13 ± 20° vs. 24 ± 20°, P = .028). Postoperative outcome scores, complications, and reoperations were similar between groups. Discussion: OTTR of the subscapularis in RSA had similar ROM and outcome scores compared to no repair, but a significantly larger proportion of patients with repair achieved functional internal rotation to the small of the back. ER limitations seen after conventional repair may also apply to this novel technique, but without a corresponding detrimental effect on forward elevation or abduction.

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.