Optimal combination of arthroplasty type, fixation method and postoperative rehabilitation protocol for complex proximal humerus fractures in the elderly: A network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to define the optimal combination of surgical technique and postoperative rehabilitation protocol for elderly patients undergoing either hemiarthroplasty (HA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for acute proximal humerus fracture (PHF) by performing a network meta-analysis of the comparative studies in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using PRISMA guidelines of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was screened from 2007-2023. Inclusion criteria were level I-IV studies utilizing primary HA and/or rTSA published in a peer-reviewed journal, that specified whether humeral stems were cemented or noncemented, specified postoperative rehabilitation protocol, reported results of HA and/or rTSA performed for PHF. Early range of motion (ROM) was defined as the initiation of active ROM at ≤3 weeks after surgery. Level of evidence was evaluated based on the criteria by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Clinical outcomes were compared using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis with a random-effects model that was performed using the netmeta package version 0.9-6 in R. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies (1,119 patients) were included with an average age of 74±3.7 and mean follow-up of 32±11.1 months. In the early ROM cohort (Early), the mean time to active ROM was 2.4±0.76 weeks compared to 5.9±1.04 weeks in the delayed ROM cohort (Delayed). Overall, rTSA-Pressfit-Early resulted in statistically superior outcomes including postoperative forward elevation (126±27.5), abduction (116±30.6), internal rotation (5.27±0.74, corresponding to L3-L1), ASES score (71.8±17), tuberosity union (89%), and lowest tuberosity nonunion rate (9.6%) in patients ≥65 years old with acute PHF undergoing shoulder arthroplasty (all p≤0.05). In total there were 277 (14.5%) complications across the cohorts, of which 89/277 (34%) were in the HA-Cement-Delayed cohort. HA-Cement-Delayed resulted in 2-times higher odds of experiencing a complication when compared to rTSA-Cement-Delayed (p=0.005). Conversely, rTSA-Cement-Early cohort followed by rTSA-Pressfit-Early resulted in a total complication rate of 4.7% and 5.4% (OR, 0.30; p=0.01 & OR, 0.42; p=0.05), respectively. The total rate of scapular notching was higher in the cemented rTSA subgroups (16.5%) versus (8.91%) in the press fit rTSA subgroups (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that patients ≥65 years of age, who sustain a 3-or 4-part PHF achieve the most benefit in terms of range of motion, postoperative functional outcomes, tuberosity union, and overall complication rate when undergoing rTSA with a noncemented stem and early postoperative range of motion when compared to the mainstream preference-rTSA-Cement-Delayed.

Effect of Spinopelvic Parameters on Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Spinopelvic parameters, including pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and pelvic incidence, have been developed to characterize the relationship between lumbar spine and hip motion, but a paucity of literature is available characterizing differences in spinopelvic parameters among patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) versus patients without FAIS, as well as the effect of these parameters on outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of FAIS. PURPOSE: To (1) identify differences in spinopelvic parameters between patients with FAIS versus controls without FAIS; (2) identify associations between spinopelvic parameters and preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs); and (3) identify differences in PROs between patients with stiff spines (standing-sitting ΔSS ≤10°) versus those without. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The study enrolled patients ≥18 years of age who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAIS with cam, pincer, or mixed (cam and pincer) morphology. Participants underwent preoperative standing-sitting imaging with a low-dose 3-dimensional radiography system and were matched on age and body mass index (BMI) to controls without FAIS who also underwent EOS imaging. Spinopelvic parameters measured on EOS films were compared between the FAIS and control groups. Patients with FAIS completed the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) before surgery and at 1-year follow-up. Outcome scores were compared between patients with stiff spines versus those without. Associations between spinopelvic parameters and baseline outcome scores were assessed with Pearson correlations. Continuous variables were compared with Student t test and/or Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical variables were compared with Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients with FAIS (26 men; 24 women; mean age, 36.1 ± 10.7 years; mean BMI, 25.6 ± 4.2) were matched to 30 controls without FAIS (13 men; 17 women; mean age, 36.6 ± 9.5 years; mean BMI, 26.7 ± 3.6). Age, sex, and BMI were not significantly different between the FAIS and control groups (P > .05). Standing PT was not significantly different between stiff and non-stiff cohorts (P = .73), but sitting PT in the FAIS group was more than double that of the control group (36.5° vs 15.0°; P < .001). Incidence of stiff spine was significantly higher in the FAIS group (62.0% vs 3.3%; P < .001). Among FAIS patients, those with stiff spines had a significantly higher prevalence of cam impingement, whereas those with non-stiff spines had a higher prevalence of mixed impingement (P = .04). No significant differences were seen in preoperative mHHS or NAHS scores or pre- to postoperative improvement in scores between FAIS patients with stiff spines versus those without (P > .05), but a greater sitting SS was found to be positively correlated with a higher baseline mHHS (r = 0.36; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Patients with FAIS were more likely to have a stiff spine (standing-sitting ΔSS ≤10°) compared with control participants without FAIS. FAIS patients with stiff spines were more likely to have isolated cam morphology than patient without stiff spines. Although sitting SS was positively correlated with baseline mHHS, no significant differences were seen in 1-year postoperative outcomes between FAIS patients with versus without stiff spine.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty design-inlay vs. onlay: does it really make a difference?

BACKGROUND: The design of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) implants has evolved significantly over the past 50 years. Today there are many options available that differ in design of the glenoid and humeral components, fixation methods, sizes, and modularity. With respect to the humeral component, the literature has generally focused on the differences between inlay and onlay designs and the potential impact on outcomes. However, inlay and onlay design represents only one factor of many. METHODS: It is our hypothesis that separating onlay and inlay designs into 2 distinct entities is an oversimplification as there can be a wide overlap of the 2 designs, depending on surgical technique and the implant selected. As such, the differences between inlay and onlay designs should be measured in absolute terms-meaning combined distalization and lateralization. RESULTS: By reviewing the many factors that can contribute to the glenosphere-humerus relationship, the role of inlay and onlay humeral designs as an important distinguishing feature is shown to be limited. Preliminary studies suggest that the amount of distalization and lateralization of the construct may be the most accurate method of describing the differences in the constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Inlay and onlay humeral component design represents only one factor of many that may impact outcomes. A more accurate method of defining specific design and technique factors in RSA is the degree of lateralization and distalization.

Utility of Superior Augments in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (Exactech, Equinoxe GPS) without Significant Glenoid Deformity.

INTRODUCTION: Superior augment use may help avoid superior tilt while minimizing removal of inferior glenoid bone. Therefore, our goal is to compare superior augments versus no augment baseplates in RSA for patients with rotator cuff dysfunction and no significant superior glenoid erosion. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 145 patients who underwent RSA with intraoperative navigation (Exactech, Equinoxe GPS) and three-year follow-up (mean 32-month follow-up, range 20 to 61 months) who had preoperative superior inclination less than 10 degrees and retroversion less than 15 degrees. Patient demographics, radiographic measurements, surgical characteristics, patient-reported outcomes at preoperative and postoperative visit closest to three years, and adverse events at final follow-up were obtained. Operative time, planned inclination, and planned version of the baseplate were obtained. Chi-square test used to compare categorical variables and student t-test used to compare augment and no augment cohorts. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 54 superior augment patients and 91 no augment patients. The augment cohort had lower BMI (27.2 vs. 29.4, p-0.023), higher native superior inclination (5.9 vs. 1.4 degrees, p<0.001). No difference between the augment and no augment cohorts was found regarding age (p=0.643), gender (p=0.314), medical comorbidities (p>0.05), surgical indication (p=0.082), and native glenoid version (p=0.564). The augment cohort had higher internal rotation score (4.6 vs. 3.9, p=0.023), all remaining ROM and PROs preoperatively were not significantly different. At final follow-up, active ROM in all planes was not different between the cohorts. Regarding PROs, the postoperative SAS score was significantly higher (78.0 vs. 73.6, p=0.042), and ASES score trended towards higher (83.6 vs. 77.5, p=0.063) in the augment cohort. The augment cohort had significantly lower proportion of patients planned to have superior baseplate tilt (1.9% vs. 14.3%, p=0.012), and had greater mean inclination correction (6.3 vs. 1.3 degrees, p<0.001), compared to no augment cohort. Adverse events were rare, and there was no significant difference found between the augment and no augment cohorts (5.6% vs. 3.3%, p=0.509). DISCUSSION: Superior augmented baseplate in RSA with minimal superior glenoid erosion is associated with similar ROM and adverse events with somewhat improved postoperative PROs compared to non-augmented baseplates at 3-year follow-up. Additionally, superior augments resulted in a greater proportion of baseplates planned to avoid superior tilt, and trended toward shorter operative times. Further investigation of long-term glenoid baseplate loosening is imperative to fully understand the cost-effectiveness of superior augments in the setting of minimal glenoid deformity.

Stratification of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State after Total Shoulder Arthroplasty by Implant Type, Preoperative Diagnosis, and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Clinical significance, as opposed to statistical significance, has increasingly been utilized to evaluate outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to identify thresholds of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for TSA outcome metrics and determine if these thresholds are influenced by prosthesis type (anatomic or reverse TSA), sex, or preoperative diagnosis. METHODS: A prospectively collected international multicenter database inclusive of 38 surgeons was queried for patients receiving a primary aTSA or rTSA between 2003 and 2021. Prospectively, outcome metrics including ASES, shoulder function score (SFS), SST, UCLA, Constant, VAS Pain, shoulder arthroplasty smart (SAS) score, forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation was recorded preoperatively and at each follow-up. A patient satisfaction question was administered at each follow-up. Anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as defined previously overall and according to implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. The percentage of patients achieving thresholds was also quantified. RESULTS: A total of 5,851 total shoulder arthroplasties including aTSA (n=2,236) and rTSA (n=3,615) were included in the study cohort. The following were identified as MCID thresholds for the overall (aTSA + rTSA irrespective of diagnosis or sex) cohort: VAS Pain (-1.5), SFS (1.2), SST (2.1), Constant (7.2), ASES (13.9), UCLA (8.2), SPADI (-21.5), and SAS (7.3), Abduction (13°), Forward elevation (16°), External rotation (4°), Internal rotation score (0.2). SCB thresholds for the overall cohort were: VAS Pain (-3.3), SFS (2.9), SST 3.8), Constant (18.9), ASES (33.1), UCLA (12.3), SPADI (-44.7), and SAS (18.2), Abduction (30°), Forward elevation (31°), External rotation (12°), Internal rotation score (0.9). PASS thresholds for the overall cohort were: VAS Pain (0.8), SFS (7.3), SST (9.2), Constant (64.2), ASES (79.5), UCLA (29.5), SPADI (24.7), and SAS (72.5), Abduction (104°), Forward elevation (130°), External rotation (30°), Internal rotation score (3.2). MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds varied depending on preoperative diagnosis and sex. CONCLUSION: MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds vary depending on implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. A comprehensive understanding of these differences as well as identification of clinically-relevant thresholds for legacy and novel metrics is essential to assist surgeons in evaluating their patient's outcomes, interpreting the literature, and counseling their patients preoperatively regarding expectations for improvement. Given that PASS thresholds are fragile and vary greatly depending on cohort variability, caution should be exercised in conflating them across different studies.

High Rate of Patient Satisfaction with Either Telemedicine or Traditional Office-Based Follow-Up Visit After Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine if any differences exist in patient satisfaction with office-based visits versus telemedicine visits following arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Methods: Patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy were prospectively enrolled for 1 year. Patient demographic and clinical data (including complication events) and second postoperative visit satisfaction data were recorded and analyzed for statistical significance. Results: Ninety-six (n = 96) patients met inclusion criteria. Fifty-four patients (56.3%) participated in a traditional in-person office visit, and 42 participated in a video visit (43.8%). No significant differences were found between office and video appointments in terms of overall care satisfaction (9.46 ± 0.9 vs. 9.55 ± 1.0, p = 0.67). Females were significantly less satisfied with their second postoperative visit compared with males (8.3 ± 2.3 vs. 9.3 ± 1.5, p = 0.035). Significantly more females would also have preferred a traditional in person office visit compared with males (91% vs. 67%, p = 0.009). Video appointment patients spent significantly more time with their surgeon than office visit patients (57.64 mean rank vs. 41.39 mean rank, p = 0.003). Discussion: Video visit patients required significantly less time overall for their visit and spent significantly more time with their surgeon, although did not demonstrate differences in satisfaction.

Gender does not impact clinical outcomes following SLAP repair.

Background: The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether pain, function, satisfaction, return to play (RTP), or psychological readiness to RTP differ between sexes post-operatively following SLAP repair. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of a SLAP tear was performed. The American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, revisions, and return to play (RTP) were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were compared between male and female patients. Results: Our study included 169 patients treated with SLAP repair, 133 of them male (78.7%) and 36 of them female (21.3%), with an average age of 32.3 ± 8.3 and 33.4 ± 6.8 respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 5.8 years. At final follow up, there was no difference between treatment groups in any of the functional outcome measures assessed (p > 0.05). Conclusion: There is no difference in clinical outcomes, function, satisfaction, or revision procedures in mid- to long-term follow-up after SLAP repair between male and female patients. This data is useful in the preoperative counselling of patients undergoing arthroscopic management of symptomatic superior labral pathology. Level of evidence: III.

Patients aged 50-75 years take longer to achieve the patient acceptable symptom state than patients aged 20-34 years following primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

PURPOSE: Though an increasing number of adults older than 50 years are undergoing hip arthroscopy for treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome (FAIS), it is unclear how their timeline for functional outcome improvement compares to that of younger patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of age on time to achieving the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID), Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) following primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS. METHODS: A retrospective comparative single-surgeon cohort study of primary hip arthroscopy patients with minimum 2-year follow-up was conducted. Age categories were 20-34 years, 35-49 years, and 50-75 years. All subjects completed the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) prior to surgery and at 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up. MCID and SCB cutoffs were defined as pre-to-postoperative increases in mHHS by ≥ 8.2 and ≥ 19.8, respectively. PASS cutoff was set at postoperative mHHS ≥ 74. Time to achievement of each milestone was compared using interval-censored survival analysis. The effect of age was adjusted for Body Mass Index (BMI), sex, and labral repair technique using an interval-censored proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five patients were included in the analysis with 115 (40.4%) aged 20-34 years, 92 (32.3%) aged 35-49 years, and 78 (27.4%) aged 50-75 years. There were no significant differences between groups in time to achievement for the MCID (n.s.) or SCB (n.s.). However, patients in the oldest group had significantly longer time to PASS than those in the youngest group, both in the unadjusted analysis (p = 0.02) and after adjusting for BMI, sex, and labral repair technique (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Achievement of the PASS, but not the MCID or SCB, is delayed among FAIS patients aged 50-75 years who undergo primary hip arthroscopy compared to those aged 20-34 years. Older FAIS patients should be counseled appropriately about their longer timeline to achieving hip function comparable to their younger counterparts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Return to Play After Non-Operative Management of Primary Anterior Shoulder Instability A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to system-atically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the rate of return to play and subsequent recurrence rates after first-time anterior shoulder instability in athletes. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating the outcomes of athletes with primary anterior shoulder dislocation were included. Return to play and subsequent recurrent instability were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with 1,310 patients were included. The mean age of included patients was 30.1 years, 83.1% were male, and the mean follow-up was 68.9 months. Overall, 76.5% were able to return to play, with 51.5% able to return to play at their pre-injury level. The pooled recurrence rate was 54.7%, with best-case and worst-case analysis revealing the recurrence rate to be between 50.7% to 67.7% in those able to return to play. Among collision athletes, 88.1% were able to return to play, with 78.7% experiencing a recurrent instability event. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates that non-operative management of athletes with primary anterior shoulder dislocation results in a low rate of success. While the majority of athletes are able to return to play, there is a low rate of return to their pre-injury level of play, and there is a high rate of recurrent instability.

Poor Psychological Readiness Inhibits Return to Play Following Operative Management of Superior-Labrum Anterior-Posterior Tears.

Purpose: The purposes of this study were to determine why athletes did not return to play (RTP) following operative management of superior-labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears, compare these athletes to those who did RTP, and evaluate the SLAP-Return to Sport after Injury (SLAP-RSI) score to assess the psychological readiness of athletes to RTP after operative management of SLAP tears. Methods: A retrospective review of athletes who underwent operative management of SLAP tears with a minimum of 24-month follow-up was performed. Outcome data, including visual analog scale (VAS) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, patient satisfaction, and whether they would undergo the same surgery again was collected. Additionally, the rate and timing of return to work (RTW), the rate and timing of RTP, SLAP-RSI score, and VAS during sport were evaluated, with subgroup analysis among overhead and contact athletes. The SLAP-RSI is a modification of the Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SI-RSI) score, with a score >56 considered to be a passing score for being psychologically ready to RTP. Results: The study included 209 athletes who underwent operative management of SLAP tears. A significantly higher percentage of patients who were able to return to play passed the SLAP-RSI benchmark of 56 compared to those who were unable to return (82.3% vs 10.1%; P < .001), and the mean overall SLAP-RSI scores were also significantly higher among those capable of returning to play (76.8 vs 50.0; P < .0001). Additionally, there was a significant difference between the two groups in every component of the SLAP-RSI score (P < .05 for all). Fear of reinjury and the feeling of instability were the most common reasons for not returning to play among contact athletes. Residual pain was the most common complaint among overhead athletes. A binary regression model predicting return to sports was performed, which demonstrated ASES score (odds ratio [OR]: 1.04, 95%; (confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.07; P = .009), RTW within 1 month after surgery (OR: 3.52, 95%; CI: 1.01-12.3; P = .048), and SLAP-RSI score (OR: 1.03, 95%; CI: 1.01-1.05; P = .001) were all associated with greater likelihood of return to sports at final follow-up. Conclusions: Following the operative management of SLAP tears, patients who are unable to RTP exhibit poor psychological readiness to return, which may be due to residual pain in overhead athletes or fear of reinjury in contact athletes. Lastly, the SLAP-RSI tool in combination with ASES proved to be useful in identifying patients' psychological and physical readiness to RTP. Level of Evidence: Level IV, prognostic case series.

International consensus statement on the management of glenohumeral arthritis in patients ≤ 50 years old.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to implement a modified Delphi technique among a group of experts affiliated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow (SECEC) to determine areas of consensus regarding what factors influence their decision to manage a patient surgically and what specific treatment modalities they utilize for patients ≤50 years of age with glenohumeral arthritis. METHODS: The panel of experts comprised 168 shoulder and elbow specialists, 138 ASES and 30 SECEC members. In the first round, an open-ended questionnaire was utilized to solicit features that are important in making decisions regarding treatment. The second round involved ranking the features identified in the first round as to their importance in helping decision making for surgery. The results of round 2 were then utilized and 18 complex surgical cases previously treated by one of the lead authors were provided for the study. One additional case was included to address the management of Cutibacterium acne infection. RESULTS: A total of 159 (95.0%) participants completed the round one survey, 142 (89%) responded to the second and third round surveys. In total 50 individual factors were positively associated with the decision to proceed with surgery. Ten of these were strongly supportive of surgery. Eight out of 18 clinical cases demonstrated > 80% agreement on the surgical treatment modality chosen. Over 90% of respondents chose reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to manage pathology when an incompetent rotator cuff was present. Over 90% of respondents managed avascular necrosis with hemiarthroplasty. Over 70% of respondents chose anatomic TSA for inflammatory arthritis with low demand on their shoulder. Overall, 79% of respondents chose a stemless humeral component when a hemiarthroplasty or anatomic TSA was chosen in response to the proposed surgical cases. If arthroscopy was chosen then there was good agreement on 5 core procedures. There was only fair consensus on the approach to C. acnes in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis ≤ 50 years of age. CONCLUSION: The optimal treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in patients ≤ 50 years of age remains controversial, and there are many treatment options to consider when responding to the variety of clinical presentations and anatomic pathologies. While physicians and patients engage in the shared decision-making process regarding the final choice for management, this consensus statement serves as a basis for discussion amongst colleagues and between patients and surgeons though it clearly demonstrates that the topic must be further investigated prospectively and with large cohorts.

Primary versus conversion reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for complex proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes of shoulders undergoing conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) following previous open reduction-internal fixation vs. shoulders undergoing rTSA as a primary treatment modality for acute proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) in patients aged ≥65 years. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of patients who underwent primary rTSA for PHFs vs. a cohort who underwent conversion arthroplasty with rTSA following fracture repair between 2009 and 2020. Outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at latest follow-up. Demographic characteristics and outcomes were analyzed between cohorts using conventional statistics, as well as stratification by minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds where applicable. RESULTS: In total, 406 patients met the study criteria, of whom 322 underwent primary rTSA for PHF and 84 underwent conversion rTSA after failed PHF open reduction-internal fixation. The conversion rTSA cohort was, on average, 7 years younger than the primary rTSA cohort (65 ± 10 years vs. 72 ± 9 years, P < .001). The follow-up periods were similar between the cohorts, with an average of 47.1 months (range, 24-138 months). The percentages of Neer 3-part (41.9% vs. 45.2%) and 4-part (49.1% vs. 46.4%) PHFs were similar (P > .99). The primary rTSA cohort achieved higher forward elevation, external rotation, and patient-reported outcome measurements including Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles, Constant, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index scores at a minimum of 24 months postoperatively (P < .05 for all). Patient satisfaction was higher in the primary rTSA group than in the conversion rTSA cohort (P = .002). Patient-reported outcome measures uniformly favored the primary rTSA cohort, rising to the level of statistical significance for forward elevation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score (P < .05) relative to substantial clinical benefit. The adverse event rate and revision rate in the conversion rTSA cohort were higher than those in the primary rTSA cohort (26.2% vs. 2.5% [P < .001] and 8.3% vs. 1.6% [P = .001], respectively). At 10 years postoperatively, the revision-free implant survival rate was significantly lower in the conversion cohort compared with the primary cohort (66% vs. 94%, P = .012). Finally, the hazard ratio of revision was 3.69 in the conversion rTSA cohort compared with only 1.0 in the primary rTSA cohort. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that elderly patients who undergo rTSA as a conversion procedure following previous osteosynthesis do not fare as well as those treated with rTSA for acute displaced PHFs. Conversion rTSA patients report lower patient satisfaction and have significantly restricted range of shoulder motion, a higher risk of complications, a higher risk of revision, poorer patient-reported outcomes, and a shorter implant survival rate at 10 years compared with patients undergoing acute rTSA.

Impact of mental health on outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are the 2 most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in the United States. The effect of these disorders on total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) outcomes must be appreciated. The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between a preoperative diagnosis of anxiety and depression and postoperative outcomes after TSA. The secondary goals were to determine whether patients contemporaneously treated with medication for their mental health diagnosis fared better than a cohort treated without medication and to examine the degree to which Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Mental Health (PROMIS-MH) scores correlate with patient outcomes. Our hypothesis was that a history of anxiety and/or depression would negatively impact patient outcomes after TSA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort at a single institution. Patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with anxiety and/or depression were identified and compared with a cohort of patients without a mental health diagnosis enrolled in an institutional registry from 2011 to 2020. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, implant types, range of motion, adverse events, and clinical outcome metric scores-PROMIS-MH score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart Score-were recorded. Outcomes between cohorts were analyzed using conventional statistics, as well as stratification by the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds where applicable. RESULTS: The study comprised 218 patients (114 rTSA and 95 aTSA patients) with a diagnosis of either anxiety and/or depression and 378 patients (153 rTSA and 217 aTSA patients) with no history. Although both cohorts achieved the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, the cohort with anxiety and/or depression showed lower postoperative outcome scores (P < .05), higher AE rates, and significantly lower preoperative-to-postoperative differences in all variables when compared with the cohort without anxiety and/or depression. There were no differences in outcome scores after rTSA or aTSA between patients being treated for anxiety and/or depression and those not receiving treatment. The PROMIS-MH score was positively correlated with postoperative outcomes and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: This study shows that patients with anxiety and/or depression who underwent TSA had inferior postoperative outcomes and higher rates of AEs compared with a cohort without a mental health diagnosis. In addition, patients taking medication for treatment of depression and/or anxiety did not gain any significant benefit in terms of their postoperative shoulder outcomes or satisfaction rate compared with those with this diagnosis but not taking medication. Additionally, we found that, independent of a patient's underlying shoulder pathology or psychiatric diagnosis, lower PROMIS-MH scores were correlated with worse postoperative outcomes.

Augmented baseplates yield optimum outcomes when compared with bone graft augmentation for managing glenoid deformity during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) using glenoid bone grafting (BG rTSA) with primary rTSA using augmented glenoid baseplates (Aug rTSA) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: A total of 520 primary rTSA patients treated with 8° posterior glenoid augments (n = 246), 10° superior glenoid augments (n = 97), or combined 10° superior/8° posterior glenoid augments (n = 177) were compared with 47 patients undergoing glenoid bone grafting for glenoid bone insufficiency. The mean follow-up was 37.0(±16) and 53.0(±27) months, respectively. Outcomes were analyzed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using conventional statistics and stratification by minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) thresholds where applicable. Radiographs were analyzed for baseplate failure, and the incidences of postoperative complications and revisions were recorded. RESULTS: The glenoid Aug rTSA cohort had greater improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and range of motion when compared with the BG rTSA group at a minimum of 2-year follow-up, including Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, shoulder function, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score, abduction, and external rotation (P < .05). Patient satisfaction was higher in the Aug rTSA group compared with the BG rTSA group (P = .006). The utilization of an augmented glenoid component instead of glenoid bone grafting resulted in approximately 50% less total intraoperative time (P < .001), nearly 33% less intraoperative blood loss volume (P < .001), approximately 3-fold less scapular notching (P < .01), and approximately 8-fold less adverse events requiring revision (P < .01) when compared with the BG rTSA cohort. Aside from SCB for abduction, the Aug rTSA cohort achieved higher rates of exceeding MCID and SCB for every PROM compared with BG rTSA. More specifically, 77.6% and 70.2% of the Aug rTSA achieved SCB for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index vs. 55% and 48.6% in the BG rTSA, respectively (P = .003 and P = .013). CONCLUSION: The present midterm clinical and radiographic study demonstrates that the utilization of an augmented baseplate for insufficient glenoid bone stock is superior as judged by multiple PROMs and range of motion metrics when compared with bone graft augmentation at minimum 2-year follow-up. In addition, when analyzed according to MCID and SCB thresholds, the use of augmented baseplates outperforms the use of glenoid bone grafting. Complication and revision rates also favor the use of augmented glenoid baseplates over glenoid bone grafting. Long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up is necessary to confirm that these promising midterm results are durable.

Impact of cervical spine pathology on outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spine pathology can affect the supporting muscles and function of the shoulder and contribute to shoulder and arm pain and hence may impact postoperative outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a history of cervical spine arthrodesis and its timing, before or after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), on the outcomes of TSA. Our hypothesis is that a history of cervical arthrodesis (CA) will negatively impact patient outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively collected cohort at a single institution. Anatomic (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA) patients with CA were identified and compared to a cohort of patients without CA (NCA) enrolled in an institutional registry from 2011 to 2020. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, implant type, range of motion, adverse events, and clinical outcome metric scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES], Constant, Shoulder Function score, patient satisfaction) were recorded. Outcomes between cohorts were analyzed using conventional statistics as well as stratification by minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) thresholds where applicable. RESULTS: Of the 573 TSAs evaluated, 48 (20a CA-aTSA and 28 CA-rTSA) had a history of CA and 525 (280 NCA-aTSA and 245 NCA-rTSA) had no history of CA. The CA-TSA (aTSA and rTSA) had lower Constant, ASES, and Shoulder Function scores postoperatively as well as less improvement in active external rotation and an overall lower satisfaction rating (P < .05 for all) compared with NCA-TSA. The adverse event rate in the CA-TSA cohort was higher compared with the NCA-TSA cohort (25% vs. 6.5% [rTSA; P = .004] and 24.5% vs. 11% [aTSA; P = .068]). Optimal cutoff analysis showed that a time from CA to TSA of greater than 1.33 years had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 75.0% in predicting achievement of SCB for ASES score. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates that patients with a history of CA undergoing shoulder arthroplasty results in lower postoperative functional outcomes, lower satisfaction, and higher rates of postoperative adverse events requiring surgical revision when compared to a cohort without a history of CA. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a time interval of at least 16 months between CA and shoulder arthroplasty optimizes the chances of achieving SCB for ASES score.

Primary Biceps Tenodesis Is Superior to Revision Following Failed SLAP Repair.

Purpose: To compare satisfaction and return to play (RTP) rates between patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis for a symptomatic SLAP tear and patients undergoing secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent subpectoral mini-open biceps tenodesis following failed SLAP repair between January 2011 and October 2019 was performed. Inclusion criteria included age older than 16 years, skeletal maturity, and a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Both athletes and nonathletes were included across all types of sport. Patients who had anterior or posterior instability or rotator cuff tears were excluded; in addition, those requiring concomitant procedures were excluded. Case-control matching was performed using age, sex, indication, follow-up, and type of sport, to generate a 3:1 control group for the primary biceps tenodesis cohort. Primary outcome measurements were collected via telephone in 2020 and included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score, Subjective Shoulder Value score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and revisions. RTP and timing of RTP were evaluated as secondary outcomes. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: The current study included 76 patients in total; 57 patients with primary biceps tenodesis, and 19 patients with secondary biceps tenodesis. The mean age was 39 years (19-48 years), 100% were male, and the mean follow-up was 54 months (16-99 months). Patient reported outcomes were obtained postoperatively via telephone survey. Overall, we found that primary biceps tenodesis patients reported greater American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (89.9 vs 76.4, P = .0162), lower visual analog scale scores (1.0 vs 3.1, P = .0034), and greater Subjective Shoulder Value scores (86.7 vs 64.7, P = .0004). Overall, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTP (84% vs 75%, P = .5025), or timing of RTP (8.2 months vs 8.1 months, P = .9529) between patient groups. Patients reported playing tennis, swimming, golf, rock climbing, and basketball. No patients required a further shoulder surgery after undergoing biceps tenodesis. Conclusions: In this study, patients undergoing primary biceps tenodesis had significantly better functional outcomes compared with secondary biceps tenodesis following a failed SLAP repair. Level of Evidence: III, retrospective comparative study.

Concomitant Cervical Spine Stenosis Negatively Affects Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis Outcomes.

Purpose: To determine whether an association exists between the presence of cervical spine pathology and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT). Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing isolated BT from August 2011 to May 2019 was conducted. Cases were defined as patients with concomitant cervical spine disease (disc disease, disc herniations, neuroforaminal/central stenosis). Controls were patients without cervical spine disease. Postoperative PROs were collected from all patients with a minimum of 12-month follow-up. Cases and controls were matched 1:1 using age and body mass index. PROs were compared using the χ2 text, Fisher exact test, or analysis of variance. Results: A total of 23 cases and 23 controls were identified. Cases and controls had similar distributions of age (42.4 ± 4.4 years, 40.4 ± 4.5, P = .15), sex (83% male, 87% male, P = .68), body mass index (28.0 ± 4.0, 27.6 ± 4.3, P = .78), and percentage of athletes (65% athlete, 61% athlete. P = .76). All cases had evidence of neuroforaminal stenosis and multilevel degenerative disc disease, whereas 19 of 23 (83%) had evidence of central canal stenosis. Cases had a greater visual analog scale (VAS) score during Sport score (3.6 ± 0.7 vs 1.2 ± 0.6, P = .013) and lower Subjective Shoulder Value (69.5 ± 5.8 vs 84.1 ± 5.4, P = .070) and Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury score (60.4 ± 5.8 vs 77.4 ± 6.0, P = .046). There were no significant differences between groups' ASES, baseline VAS, overall satisfaction scores, and willingness to undergo the same operation again. No significant differences were found in postoperative rate of return to sport, time to return, and return to preoperative competitiveness. Conclusions: Patients with SLAP tears undergoing isolated BT in the presence of cervical spinal stenosis may have inferior Subjective Shoulder Value, Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury, and VAS during sport scores as compared with controls, although many PROs were similar at follow-up. Athletes undergoing BT, particularly with concomitant cervical spine pathology, should be counseled appropriately before surgery. Level of Evidence: Level III, case-control study.

No Difference in Outcomes After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage or Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability.

Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABRR) compared with the arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) procedure for anterior shoulder instability in patients with a labral tear and a concomitant engaging Hill-Sachs lesion. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent either ABRR or the AL procedure for a diagnosis of anterior shoulder instability with a concomitant engaging Hill-Sachs lesion between 2011 and 2019 was performed. Recurrent instability, the visual analog scale score, the Subjective Shoulder Value, the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and return to work or sport were evaluated. Results: Our study included 41 patients treated with ABRR and 26 treated with the AL procedure. At final follow-up, there was no difference between patients who underwent ABRR and those who underwent the AL procedure in the reported Western Ontario Shoulder Instability score (21.8% vs 28.2%, P = .33) or any of its components, the visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 1.4, P = .32), the Subjective Shoulder Value (78.4 vs 74.5, P = .6062), the rate of satisfaction (81.6% vs 85.6%, P = .54), or whether patients would undergo surgery again (81.6% vs 96.1%, P = .16). Overall, 5 patients in the ABRR group and 2 patients in the AL group had recurrent instability events (12.2% vs 7.8%, P = .70), with no significant difference in the rate of recurrent dislocation (12.2% vs 3.8%, P = .39). Conclusions: In patients with anterior shoulder instability and a concomitant Hill-Sachs lesion, both ABRR and the AL procedure were shown to be reliable treatments, with a low rate of recurrent instability and excellent patient-reported outcomes in appropriately selected patients. However, our study could not determine whether there was critical glenoid bone loss in patients undergoing ABRR, and surgeons should still exercise caution in performing ABRR in patients with high-grade glenoid bone loss or in those with failed prior stabilizations. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Return to Play After Biceps Tenodesis for Isolated SLAP Tears in Overhead Athletes.

BACKGROUND: Performing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis in overhead athletes with a superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tear may affect their ability to return to overhead sports. PURPOSE: To investigate clinical outcomes in overhead athletes undergoing biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic, isolated SLAP tears involving the biceps-labral complex. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A retrospective review of overhead athletes who underwent biceps tenodesis for a SLAP tear was performed. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, subjective shoulder value (SSV), patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, revision procedures, and return to play were evaluated. Psychological readiness to return to sport was evaluated using the SLAP-Return to Sport after Injury (SLAP-RSI) score. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: The current study included 44 overhead athletes. The mean age was 34.9 years (range, 16-46 years), 79.5% were male, and the mean follow-up was 49.0 months (range, 18-107 months). Overall, 81.8% of patients returned to play their overhead sport after biceps tenodesis, and 59.1% of patients returned to the same or higher level of play. It took patients, on average, 8.7 months to return to play after biceps tenodesis. The mean SLAP-RSI score was 69.4, and 70.5% of patients passed the SLAP-RSI threshold of 56. The mean ASES score, VAS score, SSV, and satisfaction were 92.0, 0.8, 80.6, and 87.9%, respectively. No patients in our cohort required revision surgery. CONCLUSION: This study found that athletes undergoing biceps tenodesis for the treatment of a symptomatic, isolated SLAP tear had a high rate of return to play, good functional outcomes, and a low rate of revision surgery.

Joint Hypermobility Is Associated With Increased Risk of Postoperative Iliopsoas Tendinitis After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement.

PURPOSE: To determine whether increased joint hypermobility, quantified by the Beighton score, is associated with a greater incidence of iliopsoas tendinitis (IPT) in postoperative hip arthroscopy patients treated for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for labral repair and FAI from 2016 to 2020 for whom at least 12 months of follow-up data were available. The Beighton score was measured by a blinded, independent reviewer. IPT was clinically diagnosed by a sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon through physical examination. Patients with a diagnosis of IPT were matched at a 1:1 ratio to controls based on age, sex, and body mass index. Demographic characteristics, radiographs and advanced imaging, surgical characteristics, and corticosteroid injection therapy data were obtained via chart review. Statistical analysis was conducted using Mann-Whitney testing and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Forty patients in whom postoperative IPT developed were identified and matched to 40 control patients in whom postoperative tendinitis did not develop. Increased joint hypermobility, quantified by the Beighton score, was associated with an increased risk of IPT. For each 1-point increase in the Beighton score, there was a 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.29; P < .001) increased odds of IPT development postoperatively. A high (≥4) versus low (<4) Beighton score was associated with an increased likelihood of tendinitis (odds ratio, 9.82; 95% confidence interval, 2.79-34.58; P < .001). However, there was no association between greater Beighton scores and patients' likelihood of receiving a corticosteroid injection (P = .173). CONCLUSIONS: Increased joint hypermobility, quantified by the Beighton score, is associated with an increased risk of IPT developing in the hip arthroscopy postoperative period in patients treated for FAI and labral pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.