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.

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.

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.

Anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty outcomes after prior contralateral anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with bilateral primary osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff.

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare outcomes in patients that underwent bilateral anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) vs. aTSA/ reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for rotator cuff-intact glenohumeral osteoarthritis (RCI-GHOA) to further elucidate the role of rTSA in this patient population. METHODS: A single-institution prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was reviewed for patients undergoing bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for RCI-GHOA with a primary aTSA and subsequent contralateral aTSA or rTSA. Outcome scores (SPADI, SST, ASES, UCLA, Constant) and active range of motion (abduction, forward elevation [FE], external and internal rotation [ER and IR]) were evaluated. Clinically relevant benchmarks (minimal clinically important difference [MCID], substantial clinical benefit [SCB], and patient acceptable symptomatic state [PASS]) were evaluated against values in prior literature. Incidence of surgical complications and revision rates were examined in qualifying patients as well as those without .05). The 2nd TSAs between groups were similar preoperatively, but aTSA/rTSA had superior outcome scores, overhead motion, and active abduction compared to patients that underwent aTSA/aTSA. There were no differences in active ER and IR scores or complication rates between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with RCI-GHOA have excellent clinical outcomes after either aTSA/aTSA or aTSA/rTSA.

Pain scores and functional outcomes of patients with shoulder labral repair using all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors.

HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare PROMs in patients undergoing anterior glenoid labral repair using all-suture versus conventional anchors. We hypothesized PROMs would be similar between groups. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the Arthrex Global Surgical Outcomes System (SOS) database, querying patients who underwent arthroscopic glenoid labral repair between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2020. Patients aged 18-100, who had isolated glenoid labrum repair with at least 12-month follow-up were included. The visual analog pain scale (VAS), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Veteran's RAND 12-items health survey, single assessment numeric evaluation and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) were compared preoperatively, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively in patients who received all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors in the setting of anterior glenoid labrum repair. Our primary aim was comparison of PROMs between patients receiving all-suture versus conventional suture anchors. Secondarily, a sub-analysis was performed comparing outcomes based on anchor utilization for patients with noted anterior instability. RESULTS: We evaluated 566 patients, 54 patients receiving all-suture anchors and 512 patients receiving conventional anchors. At two-year follow-up there was no significant difference between the two groups in PROMs. In a sub-analysis of isolated anterior labrum repair, there was an improvement in ASES (P = 0.034) and VAS (P = 0.039) with the all-suture anchor at two-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: All-suture anchors provide similar or superior pain and functional outcome scores up to 2 years postoperatively compared to conventional anchors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As all-suture anchors gain popularity among surgeons, this is the largest scale study to date validating their use in the setting of glenoid labrum repair. Institutional Review Board (IRB): IRB202102550.

Survivorship after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and predictors of 1-year and overall mortality.

BACKGROUND: Patient survivorship and risk factors of mortality after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are seldom and inadequately studied. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mortality rates and predictors of 1-year and overall mortality after RTSA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1518 consecutive adult patients who underwent RTSA at our institution. The Social Security Death Index and institutional electronic medical records were queried to verify patient living status. Patients were censored at date of death if deceased, the date that living status was verified if alive, or latest follow-up if living status could not be verified. Mortality rates and risk factors of 1-year and overall mortality after RTSA were identified on univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 5.1 ± 3.8 years. Thirty-day (0.1%), 90-day (0.7%), and 1-year (1.8%) mortality rates were low but increased to 11% at 5 years. Increased odds of 1-year mortality were independently associated with heart disease (odds ratio [OR] 2.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-6.50, P = .035) and use of a cemented stem (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.04-6.69, P = .041). Independent risk factors of overall mortality included older age at surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07, P < .001), minority ethnicity (protective risk factor, HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15-0.91, P = .031), heart disease (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00-2.02, P = .048), diabetes mellitus (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.04-2.08, P = .028), tobacco use (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.08-2.98, P = .025), post renal transplant (HR 12.69, 95% CI 3.92-41.05, P < .001), chronic liver failure (HR 4.40, 95% CI 1.38-14.09, P = .013), and receiving a cemented stem (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.13-2.26, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: RTSA carries a low risk of short-term mortality postoperatively. When counseling patients preoperatively, surgeons should consider the predictors of mortality after RTSA reported herein to ensure appropriate patient selection and counseling.

Survivorship analysis of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has resulted in a rapid increase in the incidence of subsequent revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence and risk factors for re-revision shoulder arthroplasty after first revision RTSA. METHODS: We retrospectively queried our institutional shoulder arthroplasty database of prospectively collected data from 2003 to 2019. To assess revision implant survival, patients were censored on the date of re-revision surgery or, if the revision arthroplasty was not revised, at the most recent follow-up or their date of death. Patients with a prior infection, concern for infection at the time of revision, antibiotic spacer, or oncologic indication for primary arthroplasty were excluded. A total of 186 revision RTSAs were included, with 32 undergoing re-revision shoulder arthroplasty. The Kaplan-Meier method and bivariate Cox regression were used to assess the relationship of patient and surgical characteristics on implant survivorship. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to identify independent predictors of re-revision. RESULTS: Re-revision shoulder arthroplasty was most commonly performed for instability (34%), infection (28%), and glenoid loosening (19%). Overall re-revision rates at 6 months (7%), 1 year (9%), and 2 years (13%) were relatively low; however, the rate of re-revision increased at 5 years (35%). Men underwent re-revision more often than women within the first 6 months after revision RTSA (12% vs. 2%; P = .025), but not thereafter. On multivariate analysis, increased estimated blood loss was associated with a greater risk of undergoing re-revision shoulder arthroplasty (hazard ratio: 41.16 [3.34-506.50]; P = .004). CONCLUSION: The rate of re-revision after revision RTSA is low in the first 2 years postoperatively (13%) but increases to 35% at 5 years. Increased estimated blood loss, which may reflect greater operative complexity, was identified as a risk factor that may confer an increased chance of re-revision after revision RTSA. Knowledge of risk factors for re-revision after revision RTSA can aid surgeons and patients in preoperative counseling.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Periprosthetic humerus fractures after shoulder arthroplasty: an evaluation of available classification systems.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic proximal humerus fractures (PPHFs) are a detrimental complication of shoulder arthroplasty, yet their characterization and management have been poorly studied. We aimed to determine the intra- and interobserver reliability of 4 previously described PPHF classification systems to evaluate which classifications are the most consistent. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients (34 fractures) that were diagnosed with a PPHF between 1990 and 2017. Patient electronic medical records and research electronic data capture (REDCap) were used for data collection. Post-PPHF radiographs in multiple views for all 34 cases were organized into an encrypted, randomized Qualtrics survey. Four blinded fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeons graded each fracture using previously reported classification systems by (1) Wright and Cofield (1995), (2) Campbell et al (1998), (3) Worland et al (1999), and (4) Groh et al (2008), along with selecting a preferred management strategy for each fracture. Grading was performed twice with at least 2 weeks between each randomized attempt. Intraobserver reliability was calculated as an unweighted Cohen kappa coefficient between attempt 1 and attempt 2 for each surgeon. Interobserver reliability and agreeability between surgeons' preferred management strategies were calculated for each classification system using Fleiss kappa coefficient. The kappa coefficients were interpreted using the Landis and Koch criteria. RESULTS: The average intraobserver kappa coefficient for each classification was as follows: Wright and Cofield = 0.703, Campbell = 0.527, Worland = 0.637, Groh = 0.699. The overall Fleiss kappa coefficient for interobserver reliability for each classification was as follows: Wright and Cofield = 0.583, Campbell = 0.488, Worland = 0.496, Groh = 0.483. Interobserver reliability was significantly greater with the Wright and Cofield classification. Using Landis and Koch criteria, all the classification systems assessed demonstrated only moderate interobserver agreement. Additionally, the mean interobserver agreeability kappa coefficient for preferred management strategy was 0.490, indicating only moderate interobserver agreement. CONCLUSION: There is only moderate interobserver reliability among the 4 PPHF classification systems and the preferred management strategy for the fractures assessed. Of the 4 PPHF classification systems, Wright and Cofield demonstrated the greatest mean intraobserver reliability and overall interobserver reliability. Our study highlights a need for the development of a PPHF classification system that can achieve high intra- and interobserver reliability and that can allow for a standardized treatment algorithm in the management of PPHFs.

Clinical outcomes related to glenosphere overhang in reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a lateralized humeral design.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that decreased impingement-free range of motion (ROM) can adversely influence clinical outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Inferior placement of the glenosphere is thought to minimize impingement and its associated sequelae. This study evaluated the relationship between inferior overhang of the glenosphere and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary RSA using a lateralized humeral implant design. METHODS: By use of a prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database, all primary RSAs performed at our institution between 2007 and 2015 with a single implant design (lateralized humerus and medialized glenoid) and minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Glenosphere overhang in relation to the inferior rim of the glenoid was measured in millimeters on postoperative Grashey radiographs of the shoulder and categorized into tertiles (low, <7.1 mm; medium, 7.1 to 9.9 mm; and high, >9.9 mm). Clinical outcomes of interest comprised the changes between preoperative and postoperative values in the following ROM and outcome score measures: active forward elevation (aFE), active external rotation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant-Murley score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, and Simple Shoulder Test score. Random-effects linear models were used to assess univariate and multivariable associations between overhang tertile and change in patient outcomes. Differences in outcomes were further compared using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: The study identified 284 shoulders in 265 patients. The median follow-up period was 36 months (range, 24-108 months). The median glenosphere inferior overhang was 8.4 mm, with an interquartile range of 6.3-10.6 mm. Plots demonstrated nonlinear relationships between overhang and outcome scores and between overhang and ROM. Patients with high overhang experienced a significantly greater improvement in aFE compared with patients with low overhang (P = .019), which exceeded the MCID. No other differences in ROM and outcome scores between overhang groups exceeded the MCID. For other outcome scores and ROM measurements, there was no significant relationship with glenosphere overhang. Increased overhang was associated with a significantly lower incidence of scapular notching (P = .005). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing RSA using a lateralized humerus design with greater inferior overhang of the glenosphere demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in aFE and lower rate of notching compared with those with low overhang. No ideal glenosphere overhang range was identified to maximize function in this study.

The in vivo impact of computer navigation on screw number and length in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Little information exists regarding the benefit of computer navigation in shoulder arthroplasty in the clinical setting. This study aimed to quantify how computer navigation affects the number and length of screws used during in vivo reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) placement. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a research database to identify patients who underwent primary RSA before and after the use of computer navigation between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. One hundred consecutive RSAs were selected from the computer navigation implantation date; then, 100 consecutive sex-matched RSAs were chosen prior to navigation implantation in reverse chronologic order. Baseplate augmentations were chosen based on surgeon discretion, with the goal of restoring version to within 10° of neutral and inclination to neutral or slightly inferior with removal of the smallest amount of subchondral bone possible. Screws were placed with the goal of ≥3 screws with good purchase and were added as needed, with up to 5 screws used. We compared demographic factors, comorbidities, preoperative diagnosis, number of screws, screw length, number of wasted screws, and number of cases with bone graft used behind the baseplate between the 2 groups. We used the χ2 test for bivariate analysis and the Student t test for continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 200 RSAs were included, with 100 primary RSAs (mean age, 69.3 years) performed prior to computer navigation compared with 100 primary RSAs (mean age, 69.7 years) performed using computer navigation. The total number of screws used in RSAs without computer navigation was 414; the total used in the computer navigation cases was 344. RSAs placed with computer navigation used significantly fewer screws per case (3.4 screws vs. 4.1 screws, P < .001) and had a significantly greater average screw length (35.0 mm vs. 32.6 mm, P < .001). Three screws were implanted in 61% of computer navigation cases vs. 1% of cases without computer navigation (P < .001). Screws ≥ 30 mm in length were more commonly used in patients undergoing RSA using computer navigation (84.6% vs. 73.7%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study shows that computer navigation in RSA leads to longer and fewer glenoid baseplate screws being implanted. Computer navigation appears to assist with better screw placement, which may have similar clinical benefits of better glenoid fixation. Additionally, using fewer screws can save glenoid bone stock, avoid added glenoid stress risers, and decrease operative time.

Computer navigation leads to more accurate glenoid targeting during total shoulder arthroplasty compared with 3-dimensional preoperative planning alone.

BACKGROUND: Commercially available preoperative planning software is now widely available for shoulder arthroplasty. However, without the use of patient-specific guides or intraoperative visual guidance, surgeons have little in vivo feedback to ensure proper execution of the preoperative plan. The purpose of this study was to assess surgeons' ability to implement a preoperative plan in vivo during shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Fifty primary shoulder arthroplasties from a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. All surgical procedures were planned using a commercially available software package with both multiplanar 2-dimensional computed tomography and a 3-dimensional implant overlay. Following registration of intraoperative visual navigation trackers, the surgeons (1 attending and 1 fellow) were blinded to the computer navigation screen and attempted to implement the plan by simulating placement of a central-axis guide pin. Malposition was assessed (>4 mm of displacement or >10° error in version or inclination). Data were then blinded, measured, and evaluated. RESULTS: Mean displacement from the planned starting point was 3.2 ± 2.0 mm. The mean error in version was 6.4° ± 5.6°, and the mean error in inclination was 6.6° ± 4.9°. Malposition was observed in 48% of cases after preoperative planning. Malposition errors were more commonly made by fellow trainees vs. attending surgeons (58% vs. 38%, P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Despite preoperative planning, surgeons of various training levels were unable to reproducibly replicate the planned component position consistently. Following completion of fellowship training, significantly less malposition resulted. Even in expert hands, the orientation of the glenoid component would have been malpositioned in 38% of cases. This study further supports the benefit of guided surgery for accurate placement of glenoid components, regardless of fellowship training.

Rotator Cuff Dysfunction after Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Who is at Risk?

We compare posttotal shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) patients with suspected cuff dysfunction to a successfulTSA control group. Thirtynine patients met suspectedcuffdysfunction criteria. Forty matched controls were selected. Radiographic and functional outcomes and demographics were compared preoperatively and postoperatively. Humeral head height above the greater tuberosity and postoperative humeral head translations were significantly greater in the dysfunction group. The dysfunction group demonstrated a significant correlation between higher humeral heads and earlier postoperative dysfunction, significantly more glenoid radiolucencies, and significant deficits in active and passive forward elevation. External rotation did not differ significantly until the final follow up. Functional scores differed significantly by 6 months, with the exception of the 1year American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. PostTSA cuff dysfunction leads to worse functional scores, worse range of motion, and more glenoid radiolucencies. Proper patient selection and humeral head placement may prevent this. Early postoperative forwardelevation stiffness may portend dysfunction. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 29(1):3135, 2020).

Outcomes of Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Younger Than 65 Years Old.

PURPOSE: We compare clinical outcomes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in patients 65 years old or younger with a matched control group of patients 70 years old or older. METHODS: Forty-three patients (17 men and 26 women) 65 years old or younger were retrospectively identified. The mean age was 60 years and average follow-up was 4.0 years. The most common surgical indication was rotator cuff arthropathy. Patients were sex- and diagnosis-matched to control patients 70 years old or older with a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. Active range of motion (ROM) and functional outcomes in the 2 groups were evaluated before and after surgery. RESULTS: Patients 65 years old or younger had significantly lower preoperative functional scores; preoperative ROM, however, was similar in the 2 groups. Both groups significantly improved in postoperative ROM and functional scores (with no difference in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI]-130, Simple Shoulder Test [SST], University of California-Los Angeles [UCLA], and Constant scores); however, the younger cohort had lower functional scores; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) were significantly lower after surgery. The change in ROM and outcome measures before to after surgery was similar between groups. Similar complications and notching rates were seen between the groups at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: An RTSA in patients 65 years old or younger improves ROM comparably with patients 70 years old or older. Younger patients have lower functional scores before and after surgery. An RTSA in younger patients improves pain and function but is associated with worse perceived outcomes. TYPE OF STUDY AND LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

Shoulder arthroplasty after prior anterior stabilization procedures: do reverses have better outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Few studies have focused on shoulder arthroplasty after anterior stabilization procedures. This study compares the outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) after anterior stabilization surgical procedures. METHODS: All primary shoulder arthroplasties from 2000 to 2014 with prior surgery were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective research database. The inclusion criteria were primary TSA or RTSA, a history of anterior stabilization surgery, and minimum 2-year follow-up. Soft-tissue and bony anterior stabilization procedures were included. We compared the following between TSA and RTSA patients: active range of motion (ROM) and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index 130; Simple Shoulder Test; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES); Short Form 12; University of California, Los Angeles; and Constant scores. The RTSA group was also compared with an RTSA control group. RESULTS: The study included 15 TSA and 10 RTSA patients with average follow-up periods of 3.3 and 4.0 years, respectively. RTSA patients experienced greater improvements in all ROMs except internal rotation; these were not statistically significant despite the mean values for RTSA being above the minimal clinically important difference compared with TSA for forward flexion and abduction. RTSA patients had better improvements in all functional outcomes; only the ASES score was statistically significant. TSA patients had a 33% complication rate and a 20% reoperation rate. RTSA patients had no complications or reoperations. The group that underwent RTSA with prior anterior stabilization surgery had similar improvements in ROM and outcome measures to the RTSA control group. CONCLUSION: RTSA patients had better postoperative improvement in most ROMs and all functional scores; only the ASES score was statistically significant. This study suggests better outcomes with a lower complication rate with RTSA after prior anterior stabilization procedures compared with TSA.

Management of infected shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: The study purpose was to determine whether 2-stage revision procedures result in superior outcomes and whether reverse shoulder arthroplasty produced superior outcomes to hemiarthroplasty or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty at the time of reimplantation. METHODS: Our prospectively collected database was retrospectively reviewed for all surgically treated infected shoulder arthroplasties between 2006 and 2014. We included 47 patients in this study: 27 underwent a 2-stage revision, and 20 were treated with an antibiotic spacer as definitive treatment. Preoperative laboratory results, intraoperative cultures and pathology findings, recurrence of infection, complications, and outcome measures were compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: A recurrent infection developed in 3 patients in the antibiotic spacer group and 2 patients in the 2-stage revision group (P = .25). A total of 20 procedure-related complications and 11 medical complications occurred between the 2 groups; however, there was no statistically significant difference between groups. The 2-stage group had statistically significantly better Constant scores (58.1 vs. 33.3, P = .04) and elevation (94.4° vs. 48.6°, P = .02) than the antibiotic spacer group. Subanalysis of the 2-stage revision group showed that reverse total shoulder arthroplasties had statistically superior Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California at Los Angeles, and Constant scores; elevation; and abduction compared with hemiarthroplasties or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. CONCLUSION: Two-stage revision procedures and use of an antibiotic spacer for definitive management of periprosthetic shoulder infections appear to be similar and effective in eradicating infections. Two-stage revisions using a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at the time of reimplantation generate superior range of motion and functional outcome scores.

Early results of augmented anatomic glenoid components.

BACKGROUND: Augmented glenoid components restore the native joint line and preserve bone in shoulders with posterior glenoid bone loss. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of augmented total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) vs. case-matched shoulders with standard implants to assess the early performance of a full-wedge augmented glenoid component. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2015, all TSAs using a full-wedge posteriorly augmented glenoid component with a minimum 2-year follow-up from a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 37 augmented TSAs were matched with 37 control shoulders with unaugmented glenoid components. The primary outcomes were revision and radiographic glenoid lucencies. Secondary outcomes included range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Both augmented and standard TSAs produced similar improvements in all ROM and PRO measures. Patients with augmented glenoid components were more likely to have type B2 or B3 deformities (P = .004). At final follow-up, 54% of augmented glenoids showed implant lucencies compared with 46% of control shoulders (P = .5). The mean Lazarus score remained similar between groups (1.5 vs. 1.2, P = .8). When 8° and 16° augmentations were compared, the 16° augmentation demonstrated a significantly higher mean Lazarus score (4.2 vs. 1.1, P = .03). Reoperation rates were similar between groups (5% vs. 3%, P = .6). DISCUSSION: Patients with posteriorly augmented glenoid components demonstrate similar improvements in ROM and PROs to patients with standard anatomic glenoid components. Radiographic loosening and revision rates were similar. However, a higher failure rate was seen with the 16° full-wedge augmentation, which is no longer used in our practice.