Toxic effects of local anesthetics on rat fibroblasts: An in-vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Infusion catheters facilitate a controlled infusion of local anesthetic (LA) for pain control after surgery. However, their potential effects on healing fibroblasts are unspecified. METHODS: Rat synovial fibroblasts were cultured in 12-well plates. Dilutions were prepared in a solution containing reduced-serum media and 0.9% sodium chloride in 1:1 concentration. Each well was treated with 500 µl of the appropriate LA dilution or normal saline for 15- or 30-min. LA dilutions included: 0.5% ropivacaine HCl, 0.2% ropivacaine HCl, 1% lidocaine HCl and epinephrine 1:100,000, 1% lidocaine HCl, 0.5% bupivacaine HCl and epinephrine 1:200,000, and 0.5% bupivacaine HCl. This was replicated three times. Dilution of each LA whereby 50% of the cells were unviable (Lethal dose 50 [LD50]) was analyzed. RESULTS: LD50 was reached for lidocaine and bupivacaine, but not ropivacaine. Lidocaine 1% with epinephrine is toxic at 30-min at 1/4 and 1/2 sample dilutions. Bupivacaine 0.5% was found to be toxic at 30-min at 1/2 sample dilution. Bupivacaine 0.5% with epinephrine was found to be toxic at 15- and 30-min at 1/4 sample dilution. Lidocaine 1% was found to be toxic at 15- and 30-min at 1/2 sample dilution. Ropivacaine 0.2% and 0.5% remained below LD50 at all time-points and concentrations, with 0.2% demonstrating the least cell death. CONCLUSIONS: Though pain pumps are generally efficacious, LAs may inhibit fibroblasts, including perineural fibroblast and endoneurial fibroblast-like cells, which may contribute to persistent nerve deficits, delayed neurogenic pain, and negatively impact healing. Should a continuous infusion be used, our data supports ropivacaine 0.2%. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Basic Science Study; Animal model.

Insertion sites of latissimus dorsi tendon transfer performed during reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with concurrent latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) is a potential treatment option for restoration of external rotation (ER). Biomechanical studies have emphasized the importance of the insertion site location for achieving optimal outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe what insertion sites for LDT are utilized during concomitant RSA and their associated clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed per PRISMA guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting on patients who received RSA with LDT to restore ER and specified the site of tendon transfer insertion on the humerus. We first describe reported insertion sites in the literature. Secondarily, we present preoperative and postoperative range of motion and Constant score for different insertion sites as well as reported complications. RESULTS: Sixteen studies, analyzed as 19 separate cohorts (by insertion site and tendon-transfer), reporting on 264 RSAs with LDT (weighted mean age 66 years, follow-up 39 months, 61% female) were evaluated. Of these, 143 (54%) included a concomitant teres major transfer (LDT/TMT) and 121 (46%) were LDT-only. Fourteen cohorts (14/19, 74%) reported insertion at the posterolateral aspect of the greater tuberosity, four cohorts (4/19, 21%) reported insertion site at the lateral bicipital groove, and one cohort (1/19, 5%) reported separate LDT and TMT with insertion of the TMT to the posterolateral aspect of the greater tuberosity and LDT to the lateral bicipital groove. Meta-analysis revealed no differences in range of motion or Constant score based on humeral insertion site or whether the LDT was transferred alone or with TMT. Leading complications included dislocation, followed by infection and neuropraxia. No discernible correlation was observed between postoperative outcomes and the strategies employed for tendon transfer, prosthesis design, or subscapularis management. CONCLUSION: The posterolateral aspect of the greater tuberosity was the most-utilized insertion site for LDT performed with RSA. However, in the current clinical literature, LDT with or without concomitant TMT result in similar postoperative ROM and Constant score regardless of insertion site. Analysis of various proposed transfer sites reinforce the ability of LDT with RSA to restore both FE and ER in patients with preoperative active elevation and external rotation loss. Meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in range of motion and Constant score regardless of humeral insertion site or whether the LDT was transferred alone or with TMT, although future studies are needed to determine whether an ideal tendon transfer technique exists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Variable Return to Play and Sport Performance After Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in Baseball Players: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate return to play (RTP) and return to same level of play (RTSP) rates as well as preoperative and postoperative in-game performance metrics in baseball pitchers who underwent ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR). Secondarily, this review sought to assess outcomes based on primary versus revision UCLR as well as level of competition. METHODS: This review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried to identify articles evaluating UCLR in baseball players between January 2002 and October 2022. Data included RTP, RTSP, and performance metrics including earned run average, innings pitched, walks and hits per inning pitched, batting average against, strikeouts per 9 innings, walks per 9 innings, percentage of fastballs thrown, and average fastball velocity. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies criteria were used for quality assessment. RESULTS: Analysis included 25 articles reporting on 2,100 elbows. After primary UCLR, RTP ranged from 336 to 615 days (57% to 100% achieved) and RTSP ranged from 330 to 513 days (61% to 95%). After revision UCLR, RTP ranged from 381 to 631 days (67% to 98%) and RTSP ranged from 518 to 575 days (42% to 78%). When stratifying primary UCLR outcomes by competitive level, RTP and RTSP ranged respectively from 417 to 615 days (75% to 100%) and 513 days (73% to 87%) for Major League Baseball only, 409 to 615 days (57% to 100%) and 470 to 513 days (61% to 95%) for Major League Baseball plus Minor League Baseball, and 336 to 516 days (73% to 85%) and 330 days (55% to 74%) for college plus high school. Heterogeneity was seen in postoperative sports performance metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Although more than half of baseball players appear able to RTP after primary and revision UCLR, RTSP rates after revision UCLR were as low as 42% in the literature. Preoperative and postoperative performance metrics varied. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review.

Graft choice and techniques used in elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction over the last 20 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament (mUCL) injuries have become increasingly common, leading to a higher number of mUCL reconstructions (UCLR). Various techniques and graft choices have been reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of each available graft choice, the surgical techniques most utilized, and the reported complications associated with each surgical method. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysesguidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify all articles that included UCLR between January 2002 and October 2022. We included all studies that referenced UCLR graft choice, surgical technique, and/or ulnar nerve transposition. Studies were evaluated in a narrative fashion to assess demographics and report current trends in utilization and complications of UCLR as they pertain to graft choice and surgical techniques over the past 20 years. Where possible, we stratified based on graft and technique. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles were included, reporting on 6671 elbows. The cohort was 98% male, had a weighted mean age of 21 years and follow-up of 53 months. There were 6146 UCLRs (92%) performed with an autograft and 152 (2.3%) that utilized an allograft, while 373 (5.6%) were from mixed cohorts of autograft and allograft. Palmaris longus autograft was the most utilized mUCL graft choice (64%). The most utilized surgical configuration was the figure-of-8 (68%). Specifically, the most common techniques were the modified Jobe technique (37%), followed by American Sports Medicine Institute (ASMI) (22%), and the docking (22%) technique. A concomitant ulnar nerve transposition was performed in 44% of all patients, with 1.9% of these patients experiencing persistent ulnar nerve symptoms after ulnar nerve transposition. Of the total cohort, 14% experienced postoperative ulnar neuritis with no prior preoperative ulnar nerve symptoms. Further, meta-analysis revealed a significantly greater revision rate with the use of allografts compared to autograft and mixed cohorts (2.6% vs. 1.8% and 1.9%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeons performed UCLR with palmaris autograft utilizing a figure-of-8 graft configuration, specifically with the modified Jobe technique. The overall rate of allograft use was 2.3%, much lower than expected. The revision rate for UCLR with allograft appears to be greater compared to UCLR with autograft, although this may be secondary to limited allograft literature.

Does hydrogen peroxide application to the dermis following surgical incision affect Cutibacterium acnes cultures in total shoulder arthroplasty in male patients? A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infections occur in 1%-4% of primary total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs). Cutibacterium acnes is the most commonly implicated organism and has been shown to persist in the dermis despite use of preoperative antibiotics and standard skin preparations. Studies have shown decreased rates of cultures positive for C acnes with use of preoperative benzoyl peroxide or hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), but even with this positive deep cultures remain common. We sought to determine whether an additional application of H2O2 directly to the dermis following skin incision would further decrease deep culture positivity rates. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial comparing tissue culture results in primary TSA in patients who received a standard skin preparation with H2O2, ethanol, and ChloraPrep (CareFusion, Leawood, KS, USA) vs. an additional application of H2O2 to the dermis immediately after skin incision. Given the sexual dimorphism seen in the shoulder microbiome regarding C acnes colonization rates, only male patients were included. Bivariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare rates of positive cultures based on demographic and surgical factors. RESULTS: Dermal cultures were found to be positive for C acnes at similar rates between the experimental and control cohorts for the initial (22% vs. 28%, P = .600) and final (61% vs. 50%, P > .999) dermal swabs. On bivariable analysis, the rate of positive deep cultures for C acnes was lower in the experimental group, but this difference was not statistically significant (28% vs. 44%, P = .130). However, patients who underwent anatomic TSA were found to have a significantly greater rate of deep cultures positive for C acnes (57% vs. 28%, P = .048); when controlling for this on multivariable analysis, the experimental cohort was found to be associated with significantly lower odds of having positive deep cultures (odds ratio, 0.37 [95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.90], P = .023). There were no wound complications in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: An additional H2O2 application directly to the dermis following skin incision resulted in a small but statistically significant decrease in the odds of having deep cultures positive for C acnes without any obvious adverse effects on wound healing. Given its cost-effectiveness, use of a post-incisional dermal decontamination protocol may be considered as an adjuvant to preoperative use of benzoyl peroxide or H2O2 to decrease C acnes contamination.

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.

Does achieving clinically important thresholds after first shoulder arthroplasty predict similar outcomes of the contralateral shoulder?

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly undergoing bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). At present, it is unknown whether success after the first TSA is predictive of success after contralateral TSA. We aimed to determine whether exceeding clinically important thresholds of success after primary TSA predicts similar outcomes for subsequent contralateral TSA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database for patients undergoing bilateral primary anatomic (aTSA) or reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty since January 2000 with preoperative and 2- or 3-year clinical follow-up. Our primary outcome was whether exceeding clinically important thresholds in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score for the first TSA was predictive of similar success of the contralateral TSA; thresholds for the ASES score were adopted from prior literature and included the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the substantial clinical benefit (SCB), 30% of maximal possible improvement (MPI), and the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). The PASS is defined as the highest level of symptom beyond which patients consider themselves well, which may be a better indicator of a patient's quality of life. To determine whether exceeding clinically important thresholds was independently predictive of similar success after second contralateral TSA, we performed multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age at second surgery, sex, BMI, and type of first and second TSA. RESULTS: Of the 134 patients identified that underwent bilateral shoulder arthroplasty, 65 (49%) had bilateral rTSAs, 45 (34%) had bilateral aTSAs, 21 (16%) underwent aTSA/rTSA, and 3 (2%) underwent rTSA/aTSA. On multivariable logistic regression, exceeding clinically important thresholds after first TSA was not associated with greater odds of achieving thresholds after second TSA when success was evaluated by the MCID, SCB, and 30% MPI. In contrast, exceeding the PASS after first TSA was associated with 5.9 times greater odds (95% confidence interval 2.5-14.4, P < .001) of exceeding the PASS after second TSA. Overall, patients who exceeded the PASS after first TSA exceeded the PASS after second TSA at a higher rate (71% vs. 29%, P < .001); this difference persisted when stratified by type of prosthesis for first and second TSA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who achieve the ASES score PASS after first TSA have greater odds of achieving the PASS for the contralateral shoulder regardless of prostheses type.

Clinical outcomes of anatomic vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in primary osteoarthritis with preoperative external rotation weakness and an intact rotator cuff: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) are well-established treatments for patients with primary osteoarthritis and an intact cuff. However, it is unclear whether aTSA or rTSA provides superior outcomes in patients with preoperative external rotation (ER) weakness. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was performed between 2007 and 2020. Patients were excluded for preoperative diagnoses of nerve injury, infection, tumor, or fracture. The analysis included 333 aTSAs and 155 rTSAs performed for primary cuff-intact osteoarthritis with 2-year minimum follow-up. Defining preoperative ER weakness as strength <3.3 kilograms (7.2 pounds), 3 cohorts were created and matched: (1) weak aTSAs (n = 74) vs. normal aTSAs (n = 74), (2) weak rTSAs (n = 38) vs. normal rTSAs (n = 38), and (3) weak rTSAs (n = 60) vs. weak aTSAs (n = 60). We compared range of motion, outcome scores, strength, complications, and revision rates at the latest follow-up. RESULTS: Despite weak aTSAs having poorer preoperative strength in forward elevation and ER (P < .001), neither of these deficits persisted postoperatively compared with the normal cohort. Likewise, weak rTSAs had poorer preoperative strength in forward elevation and ER, overhead motion, and Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, and University of California, Los Angeles scores (P < .029). However, no statistically significant differences were found between preoperatively weak and normal rTSAs. When comparing weak aTSA vs. weak rTSA, no differences were found in preoperative and postoperative outcomes, proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit, and complication and rate of revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In preoperatively weak patients with cuff-intact primary osteoarthritis, aTSA leads to similar postoperative strength, range of motion, and outcome scores compared with patients with normal preoperative strength, indicating that preoperative weakness does not preclude aTSA use. Furthermore, patients who were preoperatively weak in ER demonstrated improved postoperative rotational motion after undergoing aTSA and rTSA, with both groups achieving the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit at similar rates.

Clinical outcomes of anatomical versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis, an intact rotator cuff, and limited forward elevation.

Aims: Both anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA and rTSA) provide functional improvements. A reported benefit of aTSA is better range of motion (ROM). However, it is not clear which procedure provides better outcomes in patients with limited foward elevation (FE). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of aTSA and rTSA in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), an intact rotator cuff, and limited FE. Methods: This was a retrospective review of a single institution's prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database for TSAs undertaken between 2007 and 2020. A total of 344 aTSAs and 163 rTSAs, which were performed in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff with a minimum follow-up of two years, were included. Using the definition of preoperative stiffness as passive FE ≤ 105°, three cohorts were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and follow-up: stiff aTSAs (85) to non-stiff aTSAs (85); stiff rTSAs (74) to non-stiff rTSAs (74); and stiff rTSAs (64) to stiff aTSAs (64). We the compared ROMs, outcome scores, and complication and revision rates. Results: Compared with non-stiff aTSAs, stiff aTSAs had poorer passive FE and active external rotation (ER), whereas there were no significant postoperative differences between stiff rTSAs and non-stiff rTSAs. There were no significant differences in preoperative function when comparing stiff aTSAs with stiff rTSAs. However, stiff rTSAs had significantly greater postoperative active and passive FE (p = 0.001 and 0.004, respectively), and active abduction (p = 0.001) compared with stiff aTSAs. The outcome scores were significantly more favourable in stiff rTSAs for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California, Los Angeles score, and the Constant score, compared with stiff aTSAs. When comparing the proportion of stiff aTSAs versus stiff rTSAs that exceeded the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit, stiff rTSAs achieved both at greater rates for all measurements except active ER. The complication rate did not significantly differ between stiff aTSAs and stiff rTSAs, but there was a significantly higher rate of revision surgery in stiff aTSAs (p = 0.007). Conclusion: Postoperative overhead ROM, outcome scores, and rates of revision surgery favour the use of a rTSA rather than aTSA in patients with glenohumeral OA, an intact rotator cuff and limited FE, with similar rotational ROM in these two groups.

Early outcomes after first reverse total shoulder arthroplasty better prognosticate contralateral success compared with early outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The ideal timing between bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine whether early outcomes after first TSA can be used to predict clinical outcomes after TSA of the contralateral shoulder and to evaluate the ideal time after TSA to perform the contralateral shoulder. METHODS: A single-institution prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was reviewed. Patients who underwent bilateral primary anatomic or reverse TSA (aTSA + rTSA) without an indication of fracture, tumor, or infection were identified. Included patients had minimum 2-year follow-up on their second TSA and postoperative follow-up after their first TSA at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years. Our primary outcome was whether outcome scores and motion at 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up after first TSA predicted clinical success after second TSA at final follow-up, defined as achieving the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS = the highest level of symptoms beyond which patients consider themselves well). Outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant scores, abduction, forward elevation, and external/internal-rotation. Multivariable logistic regression determined whether postoperative outcomes after first TSA were predictive of achieving the PASS after second TSA independent of age, sex, and body mass index. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined cutoffs of postoperative outcomes after first TSA at each time point that best predicted achieving the prosthesis-specific PASS after second TSA. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four patients were included in the final analysis (110 aTSA and 158 rTSA). Range of motion and outcome scores at late (1- or 2-year) follow-up after first aTSA were more predictive of achieving the second TSA PASS compared with early (3- or 6-month) outcomes. In contrast, outcomes after early and late follow-up after first rTSA were similarly predictive of achieving the second TSA PASS. Specifically, the Constant score threshold at 2 years after first aTSA (79.4; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.804) better differentiated achieving the second TSA PASS vs. the 6-month threshold (72.0; AUC = 0.600). In contrast, the Constant score threshold at 2 years after first rTSA (76.4; AUC = 0.703) was similarly discriminant of achieving the second TSA PASS compared with the 6-month threshold (65.8; AUC = 0.711). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with good outcomes after first rTSA can be counseled on contralateral TSA as early as 3 months postoperatively with confidence of a similar result on the contralateral side. In contrast, success after first aTSA does not reliably predict contralateral success until ≥1 year.

The Obesity Paradox: A Nonlinear Relationship Between 30-Day Postoperative Complications and Body Mass Index After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: An inverse relationship coined the "obesity paradox" has been propositioned, in which body mass index (BMI) may be contradictorily protective in patients undergoing surgery or treatment of chronic disease. This study sought to investigate the BMI associated with the lowest rate of medical complications after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried to identify adults who underwent elective primary TSA between January 2012 and December 2020. Thirty-day postoperative medical complications were extracted, which included death, readmission, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, renal failure, and cardiac arrest, among others. BMI was classified into five categories (underweight [BMI <18.5 kg/m 2 ], normal weight [BMI ≥18.5 and <25 kg/m 2 ], overweight [BMI ≥25 and <30 kg/m 2 ], obese [BMI ≥30 and <40 kg/m 2 ], and morbidly obese [BMI ≥40 kg/m 2 ]). We examined the risk of any 30-day postoperative complications and BMI categorically and on a continuous basis using multivariable logistic regression controlling for age, sex, procedure year, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of the 31,755 TSAs, 84% were White, 56% were female, and the average age of patients was 69.2 ± 9.3 years. Thirty-day postoperative medical complications occurred in 4.53% (n = 1,440). When assessed on a continuous basis, the lowest risk was in patients with a BMI between 30 and 35 kg/m 2 . Underweight individuals (BMI <18.5 kg/m 2 ) had the highest postoperative complication rates overall. The probability of medical complications increased with age and was greater for female patients. CONCLUSION: The relationship between BMI and complication risk in TSA is nonlinear. A BMI between 30 and 35 kg/m 2 was associated with the lowest risk of medical complications after TSA, and BMI<18.5 kg/m 2 had the highest risk overall, indicating some protective aspects of BMI against 30-day medical complications. Thus, obesity alone should not preclude patients from TSA eligibility, rather surgical candidacy should be evaluated in the context of patients' overall health and likelihood of benefit from TSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Allograft-Prosthetic Composite Reconstruction for Proximal Humerus Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes and Complications.

BACKGROUND: In smaller studies, allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) has been used for proximal humerus bone loss with some success, although with notable complication risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to describe outcomes and complications after proximal humerus APC and how major APC complications are defined in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for articles on APC for proximal humeral bone loss secondary to tumor, fracture, or failed arthroplasty. Primary outcomes included postoperative range of motion, outcome scores (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society [MSTS], Simple Shoulder Test [SST], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Constant, visual analog scale [VAS], and subjective shoulder value [SSV]), and complication incidence. We also described individual study definitions of APC malunion/nonunion, methods of postoperative evaluation, malunion/nonunion rates, allograft fracture/fragmentation rates, and mean union time, when available. Secondarily, we compared hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. RESULTS: Sixteen articles including 375 shoulders were evaluated (average age: 49 years, follow-up: 54 months). Fifty-seven percent of procedures were performed for tumors, 1% for proximal humerus trauma sequelae, and 42% for revision arthroplasty. Average postoperative forward elevation was 82° (69-94°), abduction 60° (30-90°), and external rotation 23° (17-28°). Average MSTS score was 82% (77%-87%), SST score 5.3 (4.5-6.1), ASES score 64 (54-74), Constant score 44 (38-50), VAS score 2.2 (1.7-2.7), and SSV 51 (45-58). There was a 51% complication rate with an 18% nonallograft surgical complication rate, 26% APC nonunion/malunion/resorption rate, and 10% APC fracture/fragmentation rate. Fifteen percent of nonunited APCs underwent secondary bone grafting; 3% required a new allograft; and overall revision rate was 12%. APC nonunion/malunion was defined in 2 of 16, malunion/nonunion rates in 14 of 16, fracture/fragmentation rates in 6 of 16, and mean union time (7 months) in 4 of 16 studies. CONCLUSION: APC reconstruction of the proximal humerus remains a treatment option, albeit with substantial complication rates. In addition, there is a need for APC literature to report institutional definitions of nonunion/malunion, postoperative evaluation, and time to union for a more standardized evaluation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; systematic review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patients with poor early clinical outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty have sustained poor performance at 2 years from surgery.

PURPOSE: We sought to define the risk of persistent shoulder dysfunction after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) beyond the early postoperative period and identify risk factors for persistent poor performance. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 144 primary aTSAs performed for primary osteoarthritis with early poor performance and 2-year minimum follow-up. Early poor performance was defined as a postoperative ASES score below the 20th percentile at 3- or 6-months (62 and 72 points, respectively). Persistent poor performance at 2 years was defined as failing to achieve the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) [ASES = 81.7 points]. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, 51% (n = 74) of patients with early poor performance at either 3- or 6-month follow-up had persistent poor performance. There was no difference in the rate of persistent poor performance if patients were poor performers at the 3-, 6-month follow-up, or both (50% vs. 49% vs. 56%, P = .795). Of aTSAs achieving the PASS at 2-year follow-up, a greater proportion exceeded the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) [Forward elevation, external rotation, and all outcome scores] and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) [external rotation and all outcome scores] compared to persistent poor performers. However, over half of persistent poor performers still exceeded the MCID for all outcome measures (56-85%). Independent predictors of persistent poor performance were hypertension (2.61 [1.01-6.72], P = .044) and diabetes (5.14 [1.00-26.4], P = .039). CONCLUSION: Over half of aTSAs with an ASES score < 20th percentile at early follow-up had continued poor shoulder function at 2-years postoperatively. Persistent poor performance was best projected by preoperative hypertension and diabetes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison using Large Database; Treatment Study.

The association between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with stratification based on measurement method and implant design. METHODS: This systematic review was performed using PRISMA-P guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Trials, and Embase were queried for articles evaluating the relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes inclusive of range of motion (ROM), strength, outcome scores, and pertinent complications (acromial and scapular spine fractures, nerve injury) after RSA. The relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes was reported descriptively overall and stratified by measurement method and implant design (globally medialized vs. lateralized). A positive association was defined as increased humeral lengthening being associated with greater ROM, outcome scores, or a greater incidence of complications, whereas a negative association denoted that increased humeral lengthening was associated with poorer ROM, outcome scores, or a lower incidence of complications. Meta-analysis was performed to compare humeral lengthening between patients with and without fractures of the acromion or scapular spine. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. Humeral lengthening was assessed as the acromiohumeral distance (AHD), the distance from the acromion to the greater tuberosity (AGT), the acromion to the deltoid tuberosity (ADT), and the acromion to the distal humerus (ADH). Of 11 studies that assessed forward elevation, a positive association with humeral lengthening was found in 6, a negative association was found in 1, and 4 studies reported no association. Of studies assessing internal rotation (n = 9), external rotation (n = 7), and abduction (n = 4), all either identified a positive or lack of association with humeral lengthening. Studies assessing outcome scores (n = 11) found either a positive (n = 5) or no (n = 6) association with humeral lengthening. Of the studies that assessed fractures of the acromion and/or scapular spine (n = 6), 2 identified a positive association with humeral lengthening, 1 identified a negative association, and 3 identified no association. The single study that assessed the incidence of nerve injury identified a positive association with humeral lengthening. Meta-analysis was possible for AGT (n = 2) and AHD (n = 2); greater humeral lengthening was found in patients with fractures for studies using the AGT (mean difference 4.5 mm, 95% CI 0.7-8.3) but not the AHD. Limited study inclusion and heterogeneity prohibited identification of trends based on method of measuring humeral lengthening and implant design. CONCLUSION: The relationship between humeral lengthening and clinical outcomes after RSA remains unclear and requires future investigation using a standardized assessment method.

Discordance between patient-reported and objectively measured internal rotation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) partly relies on restoring functional internal rotation (IR). Although postoperative assessment of IR includes objective appraisal by the surgeon and subjective report from the patient, these evaluations may not vary together uniformly. We assessed the relationship between objective, surgeon-reported assessments of IR and subjective, patient-reported ability to perform IR-related activities of daily living (IRADLs). METHODS: Our institutional shoulder arthroplasty database was queried for patients undergoing primary RSA with a medialized-glenoid lateralized-humerus design between 2007-2019 and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients who were wheelchair bound or had a preoperative diagnosis of infection, fracture, and tumor were excluded. Objective IR was measured to the highest vertebral level reached with the thumb. Subjective IR was reported based on patients' rating (normal, slightly difficult, very difficult, or unable) of their ability to perform 4 IRADLs (tuck in shirt with hand behind back, wash back or fasten bra, personal hygiene, and remove object from back pocket). Objective IR was assessed preoperatively and at latest follow-up and reported as median and interquartile ranges. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients were included (52% female) at a mean follow-up of 4.4 ± 2.3 years. Objective IR improved pre- to postoperatively from L4-L5 (buttocks to L1-L3) to L1-L3 (L4-L5 to T8-T12) (P < .001). Preoperatively reported IRADLs of "very difficult" or "unable" significantly decreased postoperatively for all IRADLs (P ≤ .004) except those unable to perform personal hygiene (3.2% vs. 1.8%, P > .99). The proportions of patients who improved, maintained, and lost objective and subjective IR was similar between IRADLs; 14%-20% improved objective IR but lost or maintained subjective IR and 19%-21% lost or maintained the same objective IR but improved subjective IR depending on the specific IRADL assessed. When ability to perform IRADLs improved postoperatively, objective IR also increased (P < .001). In contrast, when subjective IRADLs worsened postoperatively, objective IR did not significantly worsen for 2 of 4 IRADLs assessed. When examining patients who reported no change in ability to perform IRADLs pre- vs. postoperatively, statistically significant increases in objective IR were found for 3 of 4 IRADLs assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Objective improvement in IR parallels improvements in subjective functional gains uniformly. However, in patients with worse or equivalent IR, the ability to perform IRADLs postoperatively does not uniformly correlate with objective IR. When attempting to elucidate how surgeons can ensure patients will have sufficient IR after RSA, future investigations may need to use patient-reported ability to perform IRADLs as the primary outcome measure rather than objective measures of IR.

Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state.

BACKGROUND: When patients require revision of primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Our purpose was to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for outcome scores and range of motion (ROM) after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcomes scores included the ASES, raw and normalized Constant, SPADI, SST, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores. ROM measures included abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR) score. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate the MCID, SCB, and PASS. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n = 47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n = 21), rTSA (n = 15), and resurfacing (n = 10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n = 24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n = 23), subluxation and unexplained pain (n = 11 for both). The anchor-based MCID thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 20.1 (42%); normalized Constant, 12.6 (80%); UCLA, 10.2 (54%); SST, 0.9 (78%); SPADI, -18.4 (58%); abduction, 13° (83%); FE, 18° (82%); ER, 4° (49%); and IR, 0.8 (34%). The SCB thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 34.1 (25%); normalized Constant, 26.6 (43%); UCLA, 14.1 (28%); SST, 3.9 (48%); SPADI, -36.4 (33%); abduction, 20° (77%); FE, 28° (71%); ER, 15° (15%); and IR, 1.0 (29%). The PASS thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 63.5 (53%); normalized Constant, 59.1 (61%); UCLA, 25.4 (48%); SST, 7.0 (55%); SPADI, 42.4 (59%); abduction, 98° (61%); FE, 110° (56%); ER, 19° (73%); and IR, 3.3 (59%). CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes thresholds for the MCID, SCB, and PASS at minimum 2-years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to counsel patients and assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

Glenoid component placement accuracy in total shoulder arthroplasty with preoperative planning and standard instrumentation is not influenced by supero-inferior glenoid erosion.

PURPOSE: Accurate glenoid component placement in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains challenging even with preoperative planning, especially for variable glenoid erosion patterns in the coronal plane. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 170 primary TSAs in which preoperative planning software was used. After registration of intraoperative bony landmarks, surgeons were blinded to the navigation screen and attempted to implement their plan by simulating placement of a central-axis guide pin: 230 screenshots of simulated guide pin placement were included (aTSA = 66, rTSA = 164). Displacement, error in version and inclination, and overall malposition from the preoperatively-planned target point were stratified by the Favard classification describing superior-inferior glenoid wear: E0 (n = 89); E1 (n = 81); E2 (n = 29); E3(n = 29); E4(n = 2). Malposition was considered > 10° for version/inclination errors or > 4 mm displacement from the starting point. RESULTS: Mean displacement error was 3.5 ± 2.7 mm (aTSA = 2.7 ± 2.3 mm, rTSA = 3.8 ± 2.9 mm), version error was 5.7 ± 4.7° (aTSA = 5.8 ± 4.4°, rTSA = 5.7 ± 4.8°), inclination error was 7.1 ± 5.6 (aTSA = 4.8 ± 4.8°, rTSA = 8.1 ± 5.7°), and malposition rate was 53% (aTSA = 38%, rTSA = 59%). When compared by Favard classification, there were no differences in any measure; when stratified by TSA type, version error differed for rTSAs (P = .038), with E1 having the greatest version error (6.9 ± 5.2°) and E3 the least (4.2 ± 3.4°). When comparing glenoids without wear (E0) and glenoids with superior wear (E2 and E3), the only difference was greater version error in glenoids without wear (6.0 ± 4.9° vs. 4.6 ± 3.7°, P = .041). CONCLUSIONS: Glenoid malposition did not differ based on coronal glenoid morphology. Although, malposition was relatively high, suggesting surgeons should consider alternate techniques beyond preoperative planning and standard instrumentation in TSA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: Both anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are being increasingly performed. In the event of a complication necessitating revision, RTSA is more commonly performed in both scenarios. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective single-institution shoulder arthroplasty database. All revision RTSAs performed between 2007 and 2019 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were initially included. After excluding patients with a preoperative diagnosis of infection, an oncologic indication, or incomplete outcomes assessment, we included 45 revision RTSAs performed for failed primary aTSA and 15 for failed primary RTSA. Demographics, surgical characteristics, active range of motion (external rotation [ER], internal rotation, forward elevation [FE], abduction), outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, and University of California, Los Angeles score), and the incidence of postoperative complications was compared between groups. Results: Primary aTSA was most often indicated for degenerative joint disease (82%), whereas primary RTSA was more often indicated for rotator cuff arthropathy (60%). On bivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in any range of motion or clinical outcome measure were found between revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA. On multivariate linear regression analysis, revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA was not found to significantly influence any outcome measure. Humeral loosening as an indication for revision surgery was associated with more favorable outcomes for all four range of motion measures and all five outcome scores assessed. In contrast, an indication for revision of peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with poorer outcomes for three of four range of motion measures (ER, FE, abduction) and four of five outcome scores (Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, University of California, Los Angeles). A preoperative diagnosis of fracture was associated with a poorer postoperative range of motion in ER, FE, and abduction, but was not found to significantly influence any outcome score. However, only two patients in our cohort had this indication. Complication and re-revision rates after revision RTSA for failed primary aTSA and RTSA were 27% and 9% vs. 20% and 14% (P = .487 and P = .515), respectively. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly differ based on whether aTSA or RTSA was initially performed. However, larger studies are needed to definitively ascertain the influence of the primary construct on the outcomes of revision RTSA.

Clinical outcomes of anatomic vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in primary osteoarthritis with preoperative rotational stiffness and an intact rotator cuff: a case control study.

BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has begun to challenge the place of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) as a primary procedure for certain indications. One purported benefit of aTSA is improved postoperative range of motion (ROM) compared to rTSA especially in internal rotation; however, it is unclear whether aTSA can provide patients with significant preoperative stiffness superior ROM compared to rTSA. Our purpose was to compare clinical outcomes of aTSA and rTSA performed in stiff vs. non-stiff shoulders for rotator cuff intact (RCI) glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA). METHODS: A retrospective review of an international shoulder arthroplasty database identified 1608 aTSAs and 600 rTSAs performed for RCI GHOA with minimum 2-year follow-up. Defining preoperative stiffness as ≤ 0° of passive external rotation (ER), we matched: (1) stiff aTSAs (n = 257) 1:3 to non-stiff aTSAs, (2) stiff rTSAs (n = 87) 1:3 to non-stiff rTSAs, and (3) stiff rTSAs (n = 87) 1:1 to stiff aTSAs. We compared ROM, outcome scores, and the rate of complications and revision surgery at latest follow-up. RESULTS: Despite stiff aTSAs having poorer preoperative ROM and functional outcome scores for all measures assessed (P < .001 for all), only poorer postoperative active abduction (113 ± 27° vs. 128 ± 35°; P < .001), active ER (39 ± 18° vs. 50 ± 20°; P < .001), and passive ER (45 ± 17° vs. 56 ± 18°; P < .001) persisted postoperatively compared to the non-stiff cohort. Similarly, stiff rTSAs had poorer preoperative ROM and functional outcome scores for all measures assessed compared to non-stiff rTSAs (P ≤ .044), but only poorer active abduction (108 ± 24° vs. 128 ± 29°, P < .001), active ER (28 ± 17° vs. 42 ± 17°, P < .001), and passive ER (36 ± 15° vs. 48 ± 17°, P < .001) persisted. When comparing stiff rTSAs to matched stiff aTSAs, no significant differences in preoperative ROM or functional outcome scores were found. However, stiff aTSAs had greater postoperative active internal rotation score (4.8 ± 1.5 vs. 4.2 ± 1.7, P = .022), active ER (40 ± 19° vs. 28 ± 17°, P < .001), and passive ER (46 ± 18° vs. 36 ± 15°, P = .001). Postoperative outcome scores were similar across all matched cohort comparisons despite motion differences. The rate of complications and need for revision surgery did not differ between any group comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RCI GHOA who have preoperative rotational stiffness have poorer postoperative ROM compared with non-stiff patients following both aTSA and rTSA, but similar functional outcome scores. Notably, preoperative limitations in passive ER do not appear to be a limitation to utilizing aTSA. Indeed, patients with limited preoperative ER treated with aTSA had greater postoperative internal rotation and ER compared to those treated with rTSA.

Two-year outcomes of the reverse humeral reconstruction prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Extensive proximal humeral bone loss in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty represents a difficult challenge for the treating surgeon. Achieving adequate fixation with standard humeral prostheses can be problematic. Allograft-prosthetic composites are a viable solution for this problem; however, high rates of complications have been reported. Modular proximal humeral replacement systems are another potential solution, but there is a paucity of outcome data on these implants. This study reports the 2-year minimum follow-up outcomes and complications of a single system reverse proximal humeral reconstruction prosthesis (RHRP) for patients with extensive proximal humeral bone loss. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent implantation of an RHRP for either (1) failed shoulder arthroplasty or (2) proximal humerus fracture with severe bone loss (Pharos 2 and 3) and/or sequelae thereof. Forty-four patients met inclusion criteria (average age 68.3 ± 13.1 years). The average follow-up was 36.2 ± 12.4 months. Demographic information, operative data, and complications were recorded. Pre- and postoperative range of motion (ROM), pain, and outcome scores were assessed and compared to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for primary rTSA where available. RESULTS: Of the 44 RHRPs evaluated, 93% (n = 39) had undergone prior surgery and 70% (n = 30) were performed for failed arthroplasty. ROM improved significantly in abduction by 22° (P = .006) and forward elevation by 28° (P = .003). Average pain on a daily basis and pain at worst improved significantly, by 2.0 points (P < .001) and 2.7 points (P < .001), respectively. Mean Simple Shoulder Test score improved by 3.2 (P < .001), Constant score by 10.9 (P = .030), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score by 29.7 (P < .001), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), score by 10.6 (P < .001), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score by 37.4 (P < .001). A majority of patients achieved the MCID for all outcome measures assessed (56%-81%). The SCB was exceeded by half of patients for forward elevation and the Constant score (50%), and exceeded by the majority of patients for the ASES score (58%) and UCLA score (58%). The complication rate was 28%; the most common complication was dislocation requiring closed reduction. Notably, there were no occurrences of humeral loosening requiring revision surgery. DISCUSSION: These data demonstrate that the RHRP resulted in significant improvements in ROM, pain, and patient-reported outcome measures, without the risk of early humeral component loosening. RHRP represents another potential solution for shoulder arthroplasty surgeons when addressing extensive proximal humerus bone loss.