Analysis of three different reverse shoulder arthroplasty designs for cuff tear arthropathy - the combination of lateralization and distalization provides best mobility.

BACKGROUND: The two major reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) designs are the Grammont design and the lateralized design. Even if the lateralized design is biomechanically favored, the classic Grammont prosthesis continues to be used. Functional and subjective patient scores as well as implant survival described in the literature so far are comparable to the lateralized design. A pure comparison of how the RSA design influences outcome in patients has not yet been determined. The aim of this study was a comparison focused on patients with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). METHODS: We analyzed registry data from 696 CTA patients prospectively collected between 2012 and 2020 in two specialized orthopedic centers up to 2 years post-RSA with the same follow-up time points (6,12 24 months). Complete teres minor tears were excluded. Three groups were defined: group 1 (inlay, 155° humeral inclination, 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (n = 50)), group 2 (inlay, 135° humeral inclination, 36 + 4 mm lateralized glenosphere (n = 141)) and group 3 (onlay, 145° humeral inclination, + 3 mm lateralized base plate, 36 + 2 mm eccentric glenosphere (n = 35)) We compared group differences in clinical outcomes (e.g., active and passive range of motion (ROM), abduction strength, Constant-Murley score (CS)), radiographic evaluations of prosthetic position, scapular anatomy and complications using mixed models adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: The final analysis included 226 patients. The overall adjusted p-value of the CS for all time-points showed no significant difference (p = 0.466). Flexion of group 3 (mean, 155° (SD 13)) was higher than flexion of group 1 (mean, 142° (SD 18) and 2 (mean, 132° (SD 18) (p < 0.001). Values for abduction of group 3 (mean, 145° (SD 23)) were bigger than those of group 1 (mean, 130° (SD 22)) and group 2 (mean, 118° (SD 25)) (p < 0.001). Mean external rotation for group 3 (mean, 41° (SD 23)) and group 2 (mean, 38° (SD 17)) was larger than external rotation of group 1 (mean, 24° (SD 16)) (p < 0.001); a greater proportion of group 2 (78%) and 3 (69%) patients reached L3 level on internal rotation compared to group 1 (44%) (p = 0.003). Prosthesis position measurements were similar, but group 3 had significantly less scapular notching (14%) versus 24% (group 2) and 50% (group 1) (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome scores of different RSA designs for CTA revealed comparable results. However, CTA patients with a lateralized and distalized RSA configuration were associated with achieving better flexion and abduction with less scapular notching. A better rotation was associated with either of the lateralized RSA designs in comparison with the classic Grammont prosthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III.

Outcome of reverse shoulder arthroplasty secondary to rotator cuff arthropathy in a low-income population.

BACKGROUND: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a valuable treatment for rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA) in developed regions. Socioeconomic issues impact access to specialized care and there is a lack of data on RSA outcomes in developing regions. We present our 24-month follow-up on RSA surgeries to treat RCA in our low-income population. METHODS: Prospective evaluation of 26 patients subjected to RSA at Hospital Geral de Fortaleza-CE, Brazil, between January 2018 and December 2020. Literacy [>/≤ 8 school years(SY)] and income were documented. Outcomes considered pain (visual analogue scale; VAS) as well as SSV, SPADI, ASES, and UCLA scoring, and range of motion [forward flexion (FF); external rotation (ER)]. RESULTS: Patients were 68.5 ± 7.6 years-old with 16(61.5%) females; 65% had hypertension and 7 (26.9%) had diabetes. Over 90% declared < 900.00 US$ monthly family earnings and 10 (38.4%) patients declared ≤8 SY with > 80% exerting blue-collar jobs. Pain showed a significant reduction from baseline (8 ± 2) to 24 months (2.1 ± 2.3; p < 0.001). UCLA (10.3 ± 5.6 and 28.6 ± 7.2), ASES (16.7 ± 10.8 and 63.1 ± 28.4), SSV (326 ± 311 and 760 ± 234), and SPADI (98.3 ± 26.5) scores significantly improved from baseline to 24 months, achieving minimal clinically important difference. FF (89.2° ± 51.2° to 140.6 ± 38.3°) and ER (19.2° ± 22.5 to 33.4° ± 20.6°) significantly improved from baseline to 24 months (p = 0.004 and 0.027, respectively). There were 5 non-serious adverse events with one surgical revision. All patients returned to daily life activities. CONCLUSION: This is the first outcome report 2 years following RSA in a low-income population. Data indicate this procedure is justifiable regardless of socioeconomic issues.

A gender and size specific evaluation of Grammont-type inlay versus lateralizing onlay stem designs in achieving lateralization and distalization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: In reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) new designs enable greater amounts of lateralization to prevent instability and scapular notching and increase range of motion, however, excessive lateralization leads to stress upon the acromion that can result in scapular spine fatigue fractures. Aim of this study was to gender- and size-specifically assess the influence of glenosphere size and different humeral designs on lateralization, distalization, and bony impingement-free range of motion (ROM) in patients undergoing RSA. METHODS: Computed tomography scans from 30 osteoarthritic patients (f:15, m:15) and 20 cuff tear arthropathy patients (f:10, m:10) were used to virtually simulate RSA implantation. The efficacy of an inlay Grammont-type system vs. an onlay lateralizing system combined with different glenosphere sizes (36 mm vs. 42 mm) in achieving ROM, lateralization, and distalization was evaluated. Moreover, gender and patient's constitution were correlated to humeral size by radiologically measuring the best-fit circle of the humeral head. RESULTS: A different amount of relative lateralization was achieved in both genders using large glenospheres and onlay designs. Latter yielded a higher ROM in all planes for men and women with a 42 mm glenosphere; with the 36 mm glenosphere, an increased ROM was observed only in men. The 155° inlay design led to joint medialization only in men, whereas all designs led to lateralization in women. When adjusting the absolute amount of lateralization to humerus' size (or patient's height), regardless of implant type, women received greater relative lateralization using 36 mm glenosphere (inlay: 1%; onlay 12%) than men with 42 mm glenosphere (inlay: -3%; onlay: 8%). CONCLUSION: The relative lateralization achieved using onlay design is much higher in women than men. Small glenospheres yield greater relative lateralization in women compared to large glenospheres in men. Humeral lateralization using onlay designs should be used cautiously in women, as they lead to great relative lateralization increasing stress onto the acromion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science Study, Computer Modeling.

Predictive factors for postoperative outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has increased at a greater rate than other shoulder procedures. In general, clinical and functional outcomes after RTSA have been favorable regardless of indication. However, little evidence exists regarding patient specific factors associated with clinical improvement after RTSA. Predicting postoperative outcomes after RTSA may support patients and physicians to establish more accurate patient expectations and contribute in treatment decisions. The aim of this study was to determine predictive factors for postoperative outcomes after RTSA for patients with degenerative shoulder disorders. METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library and PEDro were searched to identify cohort studies reporting on predictive factors for postoperative outcomes after RTSA. Authors independently screened publications on eligibility. Risk of bias for each publication was assessed using the QUIPS tool. A qualitative description of the results was given. The GRADE framework was used to establish the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 1986 references were found of which 11 relevant articles were included in the analysis. Risk of bias was assessed as low (N = 7, 63.6%) or moderate (N = 4, 36.4%). According to the evidence synthesis there was moderate-quality evidence indicating that greater height predicts better postoperative shoulder function, and greater preoperative range of motion (ROM) predicts increased postoperative ROM following. CONCLUSION: Preoperative predictive factors that may predict postoperative outcomes are: patient height and preoperative range of motion. These factors should be considered in the preoperative decision making for a RTSA, and can potentially be used to aid in preoperative decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I; Systematic review.

The effect of cuff arthropathy stage on sleep disturbance and kinesiophobia in reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients.

BACKGROUND: The current study aimed to determine the changes in pre-and post-operative Pittsburg sleep quality index (PSQI) and Tampa scale of kinesiophobia (TSK) values ​​according to the Hamada classification in patients who underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for rotator cuff tear arthropathy (RCTA). METHODS: One hundred and eight patients who underwent RSA for RCTA were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups with low grade (stages 1-2-3) (n = 49) and high grade (stages 4a-4b-5) (n = 59) according to the Hamada classification, which is the radiographic evaluation of RCTA. PSQI and TSK values ​​were calculated preoperatively, and post-operatively at the 6th week, 6th month, and 1st year. The change in PSQI and TSK values ​​between the evaluations and the effect of staging according to the Hamada classification on this change was examined. RESULTS: When compared in preoperative evaluations, PSQI and TSK scores were found to be lower in low-grade group 1 (7.39 ± 1.56, 51.88 ± 4.62, respectively) than in high-grade group 2 (10.47 ± 2.39, 57.05 ± 3.25, respectively) according to Hamada classification (both p < 0.001). In the postoperative evaluations, PSQI and TSK results decreased gradually compared to the preoperative evaluations, and there was a severe decrease in both parameters between the 6th-week and 6th-month evaluations (both p < 0.001). Preoperatively, 102 (95%) patients had sleep disturbance (PSQI ≥ 6), and 108 (100%) patients had high kinesiophobia (TSK > 37). In the 1st year follow-ups, sleep disturbance was observed in 5 (5%) patients and kinesiophobia in 1 (1%) patient. When the Hamada stages were compared, it was seen that there was a significant difference before the operation (both p < 0.001), but the statistically significant difference disappeared in the PSQI value in the 1st year (p = 0.092) and in the TSK value in the 6th month (p = 0.164) post-operatively. It was observed that Hamada staging caused significant differences in PSQI and TSK values ​​in the preoperative period but did not affect the clinical results after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: RSA performed based on RCTA improves sleep quality and reduces kinesiophobia. RCTA stage negatively affects PSQI and TSK before the operation but does not show any effect after the treatment.

Mid- to long-term outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as revision procedure for failed hemiarthroplasty after proximal humerus fracture.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient tuberosity healing is the most common reason for poor outcome after treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) using hemiarthroplasty (HA). In these cases, revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) can improve function and reduce pain in the short term, however, long-term results remain scarce. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological mid- to long-term results in patients with a revision RTSA after failed HA for PHF. METHODS: In this retrospective study all patients that received a revision to RTSA after failed fracture HA between 2006 and 2018 were included. A total of 49 shoulders in 48 patients (38 female, 10 male; mean age 82 ± 9 years) were identified in our database. A total of 20 patients (17 female, 3 male; mean age was 79 ± 9 years) were available for follow-up examination after a mean time period of approximately eight years (3-14 years) after revision surgery. At final follow-up, patients were assessed using a subjective shoulder value (SSV), range of motion (ROM), visual analogue score (VAS), the Constant Score (CS) and the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12). RESULTS: At final follow-up, mean CS was 55 ± 19 (19-91), VAS averaged 3 ± 3 (0-8) and mean SSV was 61 ± 18% (18-90%). Mean SF-12 was 44 (28-57) with a mean physical component summary (PCS) of 38 (21-56) and a mean mental component summary (MCS) of 51 (29-67). On average active forward flexion (FF) was 104° (10-170°), active abduction (ABD) was 101° (50-170°), active external rotation (ER) was 19° (10-30°) and active internal rotation (IR) of the lumbosacral transition was reached. Three patients presented with a periprosthetic humeral fracture after RTSA implantation and underwent a reoperation (15%) during follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Revision RTSA results in promising clinical results in patients after initial failed HA after PHF. A complication and reoperation rate of 15% is tolerable in consideration of satisfactory functional and psychological outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.

Revision of failed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with reverse: short-term clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of failed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is increasing. This can often present a challenging clinical situation with substantial bone loss and limited reconstruction options. This study reports a single tertiary referral center's experience with revision of failed rTSA managed with revision rTSA of bone-interfacing components. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, all revision shoulder arthroplasty cases performed at a single institution between 2012 and 2020 were reviewed. Cases in which rTSA was revised to a new rTSA construct with revision of at least 1 bone-interfacing implant (humeral stem and/or baseplate) with a minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Characteristics of revision cases-including indications, bony stock, revised components, and use of bone graft-were collected. All patients were contacted for patient-reported outcome measures at a minimum of 2 years after surgery. In addition, the incidence and indication for any reoperation after revision were determined. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with an average age of 66 years (range: 46-82 years), with 19 (58%) being female, met the inclusion criteria and had a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range: 2-8 years). The most common indication for revision rTSA included humeral component loosening (33%; 11/33), baseplate loosening (27%; 9/33), and instability (21%; 7/33). Prerevision infectious workup demonstrated no cases of periprosthetic shoulder infection. Thirteen cases had massive bone loss-5 treated with humeral allograft prosthetic composite, 5 with glenoid bone grafting, and 3 with custom glenoid implant. In total, 10 of 33 cases (30%) required reoperation at a mean of 13 months (range: 1-44 months) for instability (4), humeral loosening (2), infection (1), baseplate loosening (1), or periprosthetic fracture (1). The reoperation rate for patients with revised baseplates only, humerus only, or combined was 23% (3/13), 28% (5/18), and 27% (3/11), respectively. Overall, the visual analog scale pain score improved from 6.5 preoperatively to 2.0 (P < .001), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 30.7 to 67.5 (P < .001). However, the postoperative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score averaged only 51.2% (range: 2-100%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that failed rTSA can be salvaged with a revision rTSA. However, patient expectations for functional improvements should be tempered, and a high reoperation rate should be expected.

Structural Bone Grafting with Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis with Severe Glenoid Bone Loss: outcomes using a long post.

INTRODUCTION: Severe posterior glenoid bone loss with glenohumeral osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff can be managed with reverse shoulder arthroplasty but requires lateralization and version correction to avoid potential complications, such as instability, notching and implant failure. Angled bone grafting with humeral head autograft can provide durable glenoid bone stock, but results have been mixed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient-reported and objective outcomes as well as complication and failure rates for patients who underwent angled humeral head autografting for severe retroversion. METHODS: All patients who underwent a primary RSA with angled humeral head autograft and Stryker Tornier long central post baseplate for severe glenoid bone loss in the setting of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff at our institution between November 2018 and February of 2022 were identified. Individuals with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis and preoperative glenoid retroversion of ≥30° were included. Patients undergoing revision procedures, planned two-stage arthroplasty were excluded. Differences in pre- and postoperative range of motion, as well as patient-reported outcomes were assessed. Intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and re-operation rates were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 24 shoulders in 23 patients (61% male), with a mean age of 65.6 years were included. Average preoperative retroversion was 37.4° (range: 30° - 51°). Mean follow-up was 2.9 years (range: 2 - 4.3 years). Significant improvements were found in flexion, abduction, and external rotation. Patient-reported subjective outcomes were excellent, with average ASES score of 93.6 and average SSV 93.8%. Sixteen (67%) shoulders received postoperative CT scans and all were found to have incorporated. Complications included one shoulder hematoma requiring incision and drainage without revision, and a post-traumatic fracture of the inferior glenoid screw at 11 months, requiring revision RSA with bone grafting. No atraumatic catastrophic failures occurred due to component loosening. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that using angled humeral head bone grafting is a good solution for version correction in extreme posterior glenoid bone loss. Significant improvements are reported in ROM, pain, and subjective functional scores, with excellent graft incorporation rates and a low complication profile at early follow-up. Further work should focus on gathering higher levels of evidence, detailed radiographic analyses and exploring humeral head bone grafting for other indications.

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.

Total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged 80 years and older: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients and their surgeons may eschew shoulder arthroplasty due to concerns over patient safety and longevity. The purpose of this study was to review the current literature evaluating the clinical and radiographic outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty performed in patients 80 years and older. METHODS: A literature search of the Embase, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies evaluating the outcomes of primary and revision anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (RSA) total shoulder arthroplasty in patients 80 years and older were included for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies evaluating 1685 primary aTSAs, 1170 primary RSAs, 69 RSAs performed for fracture, and 45 revision RSAs were included for review. The postoperative active forward flexion and external rotation ranged from 138° to 150° and 45° to 48° after aTSA and from 83° to 139° and 16° to 47° after RSA, respectively. Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores ranged from 0 to 1.8 after aTSA and from 0 to 1.4 after RSA. Ninety-day mortality ranged from 0% to 3%, and perioperative complications ranged from 0% to 32%. Late complications ranged from 5.6% to 24% for aTSA patients and 3.5% to 29% for patients undergoing RSA for all indications. Common complications included glenoid loosening (0%-18%) and rotator cuff tear (5.6%-10%) after aTSA and scapular notching (0%-40%) and scapular fracture (4%-9.4%) after RSA. Reoperation rates ranged from 0% to 6% after aTSA and from 0% to 13% after RSA. CONCLUSIONS: aTSA and RSA in this population are safe and effective, demonstrating low rates of perioperative mortality and reoperation, durability that exceeds patient longevity, satisfactory postoperative range of motion, and excellent pain relief. Late complication rates appear to be similar for aTSA and RSA.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: significantly different characteristics and outcomes in shoulders with intact vs. torn rotator cuff.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for primary osteoarthritis (OA) with and without rotator cuff (RC) tears to those with secondary OA due to RC tears. METHODS: We reviewed records of all patients who received RSA for primary OA or secondary OA. All patients had preoperative radiographs, computed tomographic arthrography (CTA), and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of their shoulders to assess their etiology, glenoid morphology, and fatty infiltration. Pre- and postoperative (at minimum follow-up of 2 years) Constant scores and range of motion were compared between patients who had RSA for primary OA with and without RC tears to those with secondary OA due to RC tears. RESULTS: Of the initial cohort of 605 shoulders (583 patients), 153 were lost to follow-up (25.3%), 25 required revision with implant removal (4.1%), and 13 died of causes unrelated to the surgery (2.1%), and left a final cohort of 414 patients. Of the final cohort, 97 had primary OA with intact RC, 62 had primary OA with RC tears, and 255 had secondary OA. Postoperative Constant scores were significantly higher for primary OA with intact RC (73.8 ± 14.3), compared with both primary OA with RC tears (66.1 ± 14.6, P < .001) and secondary OA (64.1 ± 14.8, P < .001). There were no differences in pre- or postoperative scores between primary OA with RC tears and secondary OA. CONCLUSION: At 2 or more years following RSA, Constant scores were significantly higher for primary OA with intact RC, compared to either primary OA with RC tears or secondary OA, whereas there were no differences in pre- or postoperative scores of shoulders that had primary OA with RC tears vs. secondary OA. The authors recommend distinguishing primary OA with intact RC from primary OA with RC tears, as the two have considerably different characteristics and prognosis following RSA.

Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the management of baseplate failure: an analysis of 676 revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures.

BACKGROUND: Baseplate failure in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a rare but potentially catastrophic complication owing to poor patient outcomes and significant glenoid bone loss. The purpose of this study was to report on the prevalence, causes, and outcomes of revision RSA (rRSA) for baseplate failure or loosening. METHODS: A retrospective review of our institutional database was performed to identify all patients treated for a failed RSA from 2006 to 2021 who required revision to another RSA (rRSA) performed by a single surgeon. A total of 676 failed RSA procedures were identified, and further analysis identified 46 patients (6.8%) who underwent rRSA for baseplate failure with a confirmed loose baseplate at the time of rRSA. The primary outcome was repeated failure of the reimplanted baseplate following rRSA. The mode of failure associated with baseplate failure was stratified into 1 of 3 groups: aseptic, septic, or traumatic. Twenty-four patients underwent primary revision, and 22 had undergone >1 previous arthroplasty prior to undergoing re-revision. Five patients underwent previous rRSA for baseplate failure performed by an outside surgeon. The criteria for secondary outcome analysis of final American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and range of motion were met by 32 patients and 23 patients at 1- and 2-year follow-up, respectively. RESULTS: Three patients (6.5%) had repeated baseplate failure requiring re-revision; 2 had baseplate failure at <1 year with associated periprosthetic infections and underwent conversion to hemiarthroplasty. The third patient experienced traumatic failure at 10 years and underwent successful rRSA. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores at 1 and 2 years were 62.3 and 61.7, respectively. There was no significant difference in outcomes based on mode of baseplate failure (P = .232) or total arthroplasty burden (P = .305) at 1 year. There were 13 total complications in 11 patients, 5 of which required reoperation for reasons other than baseplate failure. CONCLUSION: In this study, rRSA for baseplate failure constituted 6.8% of all revisions performed over a period of 15 years. Re-revision for recurrent baseplate failure was required in 3 of 46 patients (6.5%). Complications and reoperation rates were higher than those for primary RSA but outcomes were comparable for revision of failed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty.

Can we separately measure glenoid vs. humeral lateralization and distalization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Lateralization and distalization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) can be measured on anteroposterior (AP) radiographs using 2 previously described angles: lateralization shoulder angle (LSA) and distalization shoulder angle (DSA). However, these 2 angles measure global lateralization and distalization but do not allow to differentiate how much lateralization or distalization are attributable to the glenoid and the humerus. We hypothesized that new angles could allow us to separately measure glenoid vs. humeral lateralization and distalization. A more precise understanding of independent glenoid and humeral contributions to lateralization and distalization may be beneficial in subsequent clinical research. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of postoperative AP radiographs of 100 patients who underwent primary RSA for cuff-tear arthropathy, massive cuff tear, or glenohumeral osteoarthritis were analyzed. The new angles that we proposed use well-known bony landmarks (the acromion, glenoid, and humerus) and the most lateral point of the glenosphere, which we termed the "glenoid pivot point" (GPP). For lateralization, we used the GPP to split LSA into 2 new angles: glenoid lateralization angle (GLA) and humeral lateralization angle (HLA). For distalization, we introduced the modified distalization shoulder angle (mDSA) that can also be split into 2 new angles: glenoid distalization angle (GDA) and humeral distalization angle (HDA). Three orthopedic surgeons measured the new angles, using the online tool Tyche. Mean values with overall and individual standard deviations as well as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. RESULTS: Because the angles form a triangle, the following equations can be made: LSA = GLA + HLA, and mDSA = GDA + HDA. All angles showed excellent inter- and intraobserver reliability (ICC = 0.92-0.97) with low means of individual standard deviations that indicate a precision of 2° for each angle. CONCLUSION: Use of the most lateral part of the glenosphere (termed glenoid pivot point) allows us to separately measure glenoid vs. humeral lateralization and distalization. The 4 new angles (HLA, GLA, GDA, HDA) described in the present study can be used on true AP radiographs, routinely obtained after shoulder replacement, and the measured angles may be used with all types of reverse prostheses available.

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.

Lateralization and distalization shoulder angles do not predict outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: In reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), there are a plethora of measurements regarding implant lateralization and distalization to optimize the center of rotation. Two specific measurements known as the "lateralization shoulder angle" (LSA) and "distalization shoulder angle" (DSA) have been the recent focus of studies to assess their association with RSA and postoperative function. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic clinical value of the LSA and DSA in a large cohort of patients with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) who were treated with different RSA systems. METHODS: Two local shoulder arthroplasty registries were reviewed for all RSA patients documented to have undergone a radiologic assessment and complete 2-year follow-up examination. The main inclusion criterion was primary RSA in patients with CTA. Patients with either a complete teres minor tear, os acromiale, or acromial stress fracture reported between the time of surgery and the 24-month follow-up were excluded. Five RSA implant systems with 4 neck-shaft angles (NSAs) were assessed. The Constant score, Subjective Shoulder Value, and range of motion at 2 years were correlated with both the LSA and DSA assessed on 6-month anteroposterior radiographs. Linear and parabolic univariable regressions were calculated for both shoulder angles, for each prosthesis system, and for the entire patient cohort. RESULTS: Between May 2006 and November 2019, there were a total of 630 CTA patients who had undergone primary RSA. Of this large cohort of patients, 270 were treated with the Promos Reverse prosthesis system (NSA, 155°); 44, Aequalis Reversed II (NSA, 155°); 62, Lima SMR Reverse (NSA, 150°); 25, Aequalis Ascend Flex (NSA, 145°); and 229, Univers Revers (NSA, 135°). The mean LSA was 78° (standard deviation [SD], 10°; range, 6°-107°), and the mean DSA was 51° (SD, 10°; range, 7°-91°). The average Constant score at 24 months' follow-up was 68.1 points (SD, 13 points; range, 13-96 points). Neither the linear nor parabolic regression calculations for the LSA or DSA revealed significant associations with any of the clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Different patients may achieve different clinical outcomes despite having identical LSA and DSA values. There is no association between angular radiographic measurements and 2-year functional outcomes after RSA.

Incidence, risk factors, and complications of acromial stress fractures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: An acromial stress fracture (ASF) is an uncommon complication after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) that can have severe clinical consequences on shoulder function. Although patient-specific factors have been identified to influence the risk of ASF, it is unclear whether modifying these factors can minimize risk. Moreover, there is limited information on the treatment outcomes of these fractures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine modifiable risk factors for ASFs and the complication and revision rates of conservatively and operatively managed ASFs. METHODS: The PearlDiver database was queried to identify a cohort of patients who underwent RTSA with minimum 2-year follow-up. Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes were used to compare the demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use of patients with and without ASFs. Surgical complication and revision rates were compared between operatively and conservatively treated fractures. RESULTS: The overall incidence of ASFs was 1.4%. Patient-specific factors that were independently associated with the occurrence of an ASF included osteoporosis, rheumatologic disease, shoulder corticosteroid injection within 3 months before surgery, and chronic oral corticosteroid use. Among patients with osteoporosis, the initiation of physical therapy within 6 weeks after surgery also increased the risk of ASF. Patients who underwent surgical treatment of ASFs had a revision arthroplasty rate of 7.0% compared to a rate of 3.2% among those with conservatively managed fractures. CONCLUSION: ASFs are infrequent complications that can occur after RTSA. Preoperative factors that affect the quality of bone independently increase the fracture risk. Moreover, this risk can be minimized by avoiding shoulder corticosteroid injections 3 months before surgery and delaying physical therapy exercises among patients with osteoporosis. Surgical fixation of these fractures should be reserved for instances when conservative management has failed given high rates of infection, instability, and revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Is preoperative 3D planning reliable for predicting postoperative clinical differences in range of motion between two stem designs in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: We aim to predict a clinical difference in the postoperative range of motion (RoM) between 2 reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) stem designs (Inlay-155° and Onlay-145°) using preoperative planning software. We hypothesized that preoperative 3D planning could anticipate the differences in postoperative clinical RoM between 2 humeral stem designs and by keeping the same glenoid implant. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients (14 men and 23 women, 76 ± 7 years) underwent a BIO-RSA (bony increased offset-RSA) with the use of preoperative planning and an intraoperative 3-dimensional-printed patient-specific guide for glenoid component implantation between January 2014 and September 2019 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Two types of humeral implants were used: Inlay with a 155° inclination (Inlay-155°) and Onlay with a 145°inclination (Onlay-145°). Glenoid implants remained unchanged. The postoperative RSA angle (inclination of the area in which the glenoid component of the RSA is implanted) and the lateralization shoulder angle were measured to confirm the good positioning of the glenoid implant and the global lateralization on postoperative X-rays. A correlation between simulated and clinical RoM was studied. Simulated and last follow-up active forward flexion (AFE), abduction, and external rotation (ER) were compared between the 2 types of implants. RESULTS: No significant difference in RSA and lateralization shoulder angle was found between planned and postoperative radiological implants' position. Clinical RoM at the last follow-up was always significantly different from simulated preoperative RoM. A low-to-moderate but significant correlation existed for AFE, abduction, and ER (r = 0.45, r = 0.47, and r = 0.57, respectively; P < .01). AFE and abduction were systematically underestimated (126° ± 16° and 95° ± 13° simulated vs. 150° ± 24° and 114° ± 13° postoperatively; P < .001), whereas ER was systematically overestimated (50° ± 19° simulated vs. 36° ± 19° postoperatively; P < .001). Simulated abduction and ER highlighted a significant difference between Inlay-155° and Onlay-145° (12° ± 2°, P = .01, and 23° ± 3°, P < .001), and this was also retrieved clinically at the last follow-up (23° ± 2°, P = .02, and 22° ± 2°, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to evaluate the clinical relevance of predicted RoM for RSA preoperative planning. Motion that involves the scapulothoracic joint (AFE and abduction) is underestimated, while ER is overestimated. However, preoperative planning provides clinically relevant RoM prediction with a significant correlation between both and brings reliable data when comparing 2 different types of humeral implants (Inlay-155° and Onlay-145°) for abduction and ER. Thus, RoM simulation is a valuable tool to optimize implant selection and choose RSA implants to reach the optimal RoM.

Reverse Versus Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis with Intact Cuff: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, RSA) have surged in popularity in recent years. While RSA is Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for cases of rotator cuff tear arthropathy, indications have expanded to include, among others, primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA). METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were queried through November 2023. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies that compared the utility of TSA to that of RSA for the treatment of GHOA with intact rotator cuff with respect to adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included non-randomized studies, and Review Manager 5.4 was used for statistical analysis. P-values <0.05 were deemed significant. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the above inclusion criteria. Twelve studies reported adverse outcomes, with the RSA group having a lower rate of complications (odds-ratio=0.54, p=0.004) and reoperations (odds-ratio=0.31, p<.001) relative to TSA at an average follow-up of 3.4 years. Four studies reported SPADI and UCLA scores, while five reported SST scores. These studies showed superior SPADI (p=0.040), UCLA(p=0.006), and SST(p=0.040) scores among the RSA group. No significant differences were seen with regards to other patient reported outcomes. Ten studies reported on range of motion, and the RSA group had a significantly lower external rotation relative to the TSA group (p<.001) while other range of motion parameters did not show statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: The present study provides support for RSA as a reasonable surgical option for patients with GHOA and an intact rotator cuff, with lower rates of adverse events and better outcomes relative to TSA, although at the expense of decreased external rotation. Patient education and counseling is key in order to decide optimal treatment as part of a shared decision-making process, as well as setting appropriate expectations.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fracture has comparable 10-year outcomes to elective indications: results from the New Zealand Joint Registry.

HYPOTHESIS AND BACKGROUND: Recently, the indication of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has expanded beyond rotator cuff arthropathy to include treatment of complex acute proximal humeral fracture (PHF). Limited previous studies have compared the long-term clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing RTSA for PHF vs. elective indications for degenerative conditions. The purpose of this study was to compare implant survivorship, reasons for revision and functional outcomes in patients undergoing RTSA for acute PHF with those undergoing elective RTSA in a population-based cohort study. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the New Zealand Joint Registry from 1999 to 2021 and identified 6862 patients who underwent RTSA. Patients were categorized by preoperative indication, including PHF (10.8%), rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA) (44.5%), osteoarthritis (OA) (34.1%), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (5.5%), and old traumatic sequelae (5.1%). Revision-free implant survival and functional outcomes (Oxford Shoulder Scores [OSSs] at the 6-month, 5-year, and 10-year follow-ups) were adjusted by age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and surgeon experience and compared. RESULTS: Revision-free implant survival at 10 years for RTSA for PHF was 97.3%, compared with 96.1%, 93.7%, 92.8%, and 91.3% for OA, RCA, RA and traumatic sequelae, respectively. When compared with RTSA for PHF, the adjusted risk of revision was significantly higher for traumatic sequelae (hazard ratio = 2.3, P = .023) but not for other elective indications. The most common reason for revision in the PHF group was dislocation or instability (42.9%), which was similar to the OA (47.6%) and traumatic sequelae (33.3%) groups. At 6 months post-surgery, OSSs were significantly lower for the PHF group compared with the RCA, OA, and RA groups (31.1 vs. 35.6, 37.7, and 36.5, respectively, P < .001), and similar to traumatic sequelae (31.7, P = .431). At 5 years, OSSs were only significantly lower for PHF compared with OA (37.4 vs. 41.0, P < .001) and there was no difference between the PHF and other groups. At 10 years, there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: RTSA for PHF demonstrated reliable long-term survivorship and functional outcomes compared with elective indications. Despite lower functional outcomes in the early postoperative period for the PHF group, implant survivorship was similar in patients undergoing RTSA for the primary indication of acute PHF compared with RCA, OA, and RA and superior compared to the primary indication of traumatic sequelae.

Inverted-bearing reverse shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, complications, clinical, and radiological outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Inverted-bearing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (IB-RSA) is characterized by a polyethylene glenosphere and a metallic humeral liner to minimize polyethylene wear and debris secondary to impingement between the humerus and glenoid neck. IB-RSA long-term survivorship, complication and revision rates, as well as clinical and radiographic outcomes have not been reported yet. METHODS: This is a monocentric retrospective study on a consecutive series of 151 patients who underwent primary IB-RSA from January 2009 to September 2015 and were evaluated clinically and radiologically at the minimum 8-year follow-up. All complications and reoperations were recorded. Survivorship analysis with any revision surgery as endpoint was done using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients (follow-up rate 51.7%) were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 10.1 ± 1.9 years. At 10 years, the revision-free survival was 98.7% (95% confidence interval: 94.8-99.7). Sixteen complications (10.6%) were observed: 2 axillary nerve injuries, 2 infections, 2 glenoid loosening (which stabilized within 1 year), 2 cases of otherwise unexplained painful stiffness, 4 acromial fractures, 1 post-traumatic scapular pillar fracture, and 3 post-traumatic humeral periprosthetic fractures. Two patients were revised due to infection. No cases of late glenoid loosening and humeral loosening were observed. The revision rate was 1.3%. All the clinical scores and range of motion significantly improved at the last follow-up compared with preoperative status: final Constant score was 66.1 ± 17.4, Subjective Shoulder Value 79.1 ± 20.9, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons 82.2 ± 17.7. Scapular notching was observed in 51.4% of patients: only 1 case of grade 3 notching was observed in an early glenoid subsidence case. CONCLUSIONS: Primary IB-RSA appears to be a safe and effective procedure and does not present specific implant-associated complications at long-term follow-up. Radiographic analysis showed that inverting the biomaterials leads to a distinct kind of notching with mainly mechanical features.