Analysis of patient characteristics and outcomes related to distance traveled to a tertiary center for primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The reasons for referral and travel patterns are lacking for patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study was to compare comorbidities, surgical time, cost and complications between local and distant primary RSA patients. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2015, 1,666 primary RSAs were performed at our institution. Patients were divided into two cohorts, local patients (from within Olmstead county and surrounding counties, 492 RSAs) and those from a distance (1,174 RSAs). RESULTS: Local patients were older (74 vs 71 years, p < .001), more likely to have RSA for fracture, had a higher Charlson comorbidity score (3.8 vs 3.2, p < .001) and longer hospital stays (2.0 vs 1.8 days, p < 0.001) compared to referred patients. Referral patients required longer operative times (95 vs 88 min, p = .002), had higher hospitalization costs ($19,101 vs $18,735, p < .001), and had a higher rate of prior surgery (32% vs 24%, p < .001). There were no differences between cohorts regarding complications or need for reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients traveling from a distance to undergo primary RSA had longer operative times and were more likely to have had prior surgery than local patients. This may demonstrate the referral bias seen at large academic centers and should be considered when reviewing RSA outcomes, hospital performance, and calculating insurance reimbursement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty using contemporary implants is associated with very low reoperation rates.

BACKGROUND: The early results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) were influenced to some extent by the use of first-generation implants and surgeons' learning curves, resulting in relatively high reoperation rates. The purpose of this study was to quantify the burden of and identify the indications for reoperation after primary RSA using contemporary implants and techniques. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1649 primary RSAs implanted consecutively between 2009 and 2015 at a single institution was conducted. All arthroplasties were performed by 5 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons at a tertiary referral center. Demographic characteristics, indications for primary RSA, and reoperations were analyzed and categorized for trends associated with each type of reoperation performed. RESULTS: A total of 39 reoperations (2.37%) were performed for a variety of indications. Overall, only a few patients with infection or instability required reoperation (0.55%). The most common indications for reoperation were related to the humeral component (1.03%); the majority of humeral component complications were related to a specific design flaw of 1 implant system. RSAs performed for proximal humeral fracture sequelae more commonly underwent reoperation owing to instability or humeral component-related issues; all 4 cases of aseptic humeral stem loosening occurred in the setting of proximal humeral fracture sequela treatment. Only 0.36% of all primary RSAs required reoperation because of glenoid complications. CONCLUSIONS: Primary RSA performed with contemporary implants and surgical techniques seems to be associated with a very low rate of reoperation. The most common reasons for reoperation were humeral component fracture for 1 particular implant, humeral loosening, dislocation, infection, and glenoid failure, each occurring at a rate under 1%.

Running Out of Room: Managing Humeral and Glenoid Bone Loss in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Glenoid bone loss is frequently encountered in arthritic conditions. The Walch classification is commonly used to categorize glenoid bone loss into several different types. Preoperative CT can assist in identifying the type and extent of bone loss for development of the appropriate treatment plan. Restoration of glenoid alignment and soft-tissue balancing is essential in shoulder arthroplasty, which can be achieved through a variety of techniques including high side reaming, augmented components, and bone grafting. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, another viable option to address severe bone deficiency, may be performed in conjugation with bone grafting or augmented components. Extensive bone loss may also be addressed in a staged procedure or avoided with isolated humeral head replacement. Humeral bone loss also remains a challenge in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty, which may be addressed with an allograft-prosthesis composite or an isolated metal prosthesis. Further investigation into the use of different biomaterials, ceramics, endosteal fixation, and modular components is needed. There are promising results with computer-assisted component implantation.