Routine postoperative laboratory tests are unnecessary after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining postoperative laboratory studies after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a common practice. However, justification of this practice remains unclear. This study assesses the utility of routine postoperative laboratory studies in RSA. METHODS: The electronic medical records of 369 patients who underwent RSA over 10 years were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 213 patients qualified for analysis. Primary outcomes were intervention related to abnormal laboratory values, length of stay, and 90-day emergency department visits/readmissions. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with abnormal laboratory values and postoperative visits/readmissions. RESULTS: Of 213 patients analyzed, 188 (88.7%) had abnormal postoperative laboratory values: 69% had an abnormal hemoglobin (Hgb) or hematocrit level, but only 12% underwent interventions. Lower preoperative Hgb was a significant predictor of receiving a transfusion. A significant association existed between abnormal postoperative electrolyte and creatinine levels with lower body mass index (BMI) and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Only 4 patients (1.8%) received non-transfusion related intervention. Emergency department visits were not statistically different between patients with positive or negative laboratory tests (P = .73). CONCLUSION: Because 87.3% of laboratory studies did not influence patient management, we recommend against routine testing for primary RSA. This study demonstrates that the practice of obtaining routine postoperative laboratory studies is not justified. We recommend selectively obtaining a postoperative basic metabolic profile in patients with increased American Society of Anesthesiologists classification and/or CCI with a lower BMI. We also recommend selectively ordering postoperative complete blood count in patients with a lower preoperative Hgb.

Use of the Contralateral Glenoid for Calculation of Glenoid Bone Loss: A Cadaveric Anthropometric Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if there are significant side-to-side anthropometric differences between paired glenoids. METHODS: Forty-six matched-pair cadaver glenoids were harvested, and their glenoid heights (GHs) and glenoid widths (GWs) were measured with digital calipers. The glenoid surface area was calculated using the standard assumption that the inferior two-thirds of the glenoid is a perfect circle. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between matched-pair GHs of 0.96 ± 3.07 mm (P = .020) and GWs of 0.46 ± 1.64 mm (P = .033). There was a significant difference of glenoid cavity area of 20.30 ± 81.53 mm2 (P = .044), or a difference of ∼3%. A total of 4 of 46 pairs of glenoids (8.6%) showed a difference in width >3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the fallacy of use of the contralateral glenoid in measuring glenoid bone loss. Although many paired samples exhibited similar side-to-side glenoid measurements, the number of cadaveric pairs that showed differences of >3 mm was substantial. Caution should be taken when using calculation methods that include this assumption for surgical decision making, as surface area, GW, and GH were all shown to have statistically significant side-to-side differences in their measurements. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many methods exist for measuring glenoid bone loss after anterior shoulder dislocation, but some of the current methods may be inaccurate and lead to unreliable estimations.