Proximal Humerus Fractures: How to Achieve Best Outcomes.

The treatment of proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. Although treatment modalities may vary, the goal of obtaining the best outcomes for patients remains the same. Most proximal humerus fractures can be treated nonsurgically but should still be managed actively. Deciding on surgical management requires a good understanding of indications and options. Indications for open reduction and internal fixation include younger or active patients with displaced two-, three-, and four-part fractures as well as fracture-dislocations with head-split patterns. Obtaining ideal outcomes requires anatomic reduction with restoration of the medial calcar as well as optimal position of implants to favor biomechanical stability. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is indicated for patients with severe and displaced fractures in older or low-demand patients. Obtaining the best functional outcomes depends on implant position, tuberosity healing, and early surgical intervention. Regardless of the treatment modality, these fractures can be challenging, and proper patient rehabilitation must be implemented. Future research will focus on patient selection and improving surgical techniques to maximize outcomes.

Methodology and development of a machine learning probability calculator: Data heterogeneity limits ability to predict recurrence after arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and train a machine learning (ML) algorithm to create a clinical decision support tool (i.e., ML-driven probability calculator) to be used in clinical practice to estimate recurrence rates following an arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). METHODS: Data from 14 previously published studies were collected. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients treated with ABR without remplissage for traumatic anterior shoulder instability and (2) a minimum of 2 years follow-up. Risk factors associated with recurrence were identified using bivariate logistic regression analysis. Subsequently, four ML algorithms were developed and internally validated. The predictive performance was assessed using discrimination, calibration and the Brier score. RESULTS: In total, 5591 patients underwent ABR with a recurrence rate of 15.4% (n = 862). Age <35 years, participation in contact and collision sports, bony Bankart lesions and full-thickness rotator cuff tears increased the risk of recurrence (all p < 0.05). A single shoulder dislocation (compared to multiple dislocations) lowered the risk of recurrence (p < 0.05). Due to the unavailability of certain variables in some patients, a portion of the patient data had to be excluded before pooling the data set to create the algorithm. A total of 797 patients were included providing information on risk factors associated with recurrence. The discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve) ranged between 0.54 and 0.57 for prediction of recurrence. CONCLUSION: ML was not able to predict the recurrence following ABR with the current available predictors. Despite a global coordinated effort, the heterogeneity of clinical data limited the predictive capabilities of the algorithm, emphasizing the need for standardized data collection methods in future studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

An in vitro comparison of mixed-reality navigation to traditional freehand and patient-specific instrumentation techniques for glenoid guide pin insertion during shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Accurate insertion of the glenoid guide pin in shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is important for obtaining optimized glenoid component position and orientation. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of 3 glenoid guide pin insertion techniques: (1) traditional software planning using freehand guide pin insertion (freehand), (2) guide pin insertion utilizing patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), and (3) using a mixed-reality navigation (MR-NAV) system. METHODS: Twenty (20) computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained from patients exhibiting glenoid erosion patterns according to the Walch and Favard classifications. Cases were planned using validated 3-dimensional (3D) preoperative planning software. The CT data were then used to 3D print triplicate plastic models of each glenoid to evaluate the 3 guide pin insertion techniques. The first technique employed traditional software planning with freehand guide pin insertion. The second method used preoperatively planned PSI guides, whereas the third used an MR-NAV system, which provided real-time holographic guidance during guide pin insertion. Once all guide pins had been inserted into the models, an independent optical tracking system and custom digitization device was used to quantify the position and orientation of each guide pin relative to the glenoid. The outcomes for this study included the absolute mean error in guide pin inclination, version, and entry point relative to the preoperative plan. The absolute Total Global Error was also assessed, which was defined as the sum of the absolute guide pin orientation and position error relative to the preoperative plan. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between MR-NAV and PSI were found for the inclination error (2° ± 1° vs. 2° ± 1°; P = .056), version error (1° ± 1° vs. 1° ± 1°; P > .99), and Total Global Error (5 ± 1 [mm + deg] vs. 5 ± 1 [mm + deg], P > .99), respectively. The freehand technique produced significantly greater error than MR-NAV and PSI for inclination (5° ± 3°, P ≤ .017), version (4° ± 3°, P ≤ .032), and Total Global Error (8 ± 3 [mm + deg], P < .001). No statistically significant differences in the entry point error were observed between all guide pin insertion methods (P ≥ .058). DISCUSSION: These results demonstrate that the precision and accuracy of MR-NAV is comparable to PSI and superior to a freehand technique for glenoid guide pin insertion in vitro. Further study is needed to compare the accuracy of these techniques intraoperatively, in addition to assessing a potential learning curve between surgeons of varying experience with the MR-NAV system.

Superior Capsular Reconstruction using the Long Head of Biceps Tendon: A Biomechanical Assessment of Tenodesis Location and Angle of Fixation.

BACKGROUND: Massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCT) treated with superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) using the long head of the biceps tendon have shown satisfactory early results. Different techniques and positions for biceps tenodesis have been described. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of tenodesis location and glenohumeral fixation angle for graft tensioning on the biomechanics of a SCR using a single strand biceps technique. METHODS: Eight cadaveric shoulders were mounted to a custom biomechanical simulator which employed static tone loads to the deltoid and rotator cuff muscles. All cadavers were first tested in the intact condition, and then in the simulated MIRCT condition by sectioning the tendinous insertions of the supraspinatus and upper border of the infraspinatus. SCR using the long head of the biceps tendon was then evaluated. Three biceps tenodesis locations relative to the greater tuberosity (anterior, middle, and posterior) and two glenohumeral fixation angles (0° and 30°) for graft tensioning were tested. An optical tracking system was used to quantify superior-inferior (SI) and anterior-posterior (AP) humeral head translation relative to the glenoid, while the functional abduction force was quantified using a load sensor. All tests were conducted at 0°, 30° and 60° of glenohumeral abduction in a randomized fashion. RESULTS: When assessing isolated superior humeral head migration, all biceps tenodesis locations were effective at decreasing superior migration, with no tenodesis location significantly better than the other (P=0.213). However, biceps grafts tensioned at 30° of glenohumeral abduction were significantly better at reducing proximal humeral migration as compared to graft tensioning at 0° abduction (P=0.008). Posterior humeral head translation observed in the MIRCT condition was significantly reduced when tensioning the biceps tendon at 30° of glenohumeral abduction compared to 0° for all tenodesis locations (P≤0.043). Tenodesis location also significantly influenced posterior humeral head translation (P=0.001), with middle and posterior positions restoring near normal humeral head position when fixed at 30° glenohumeral abduction. All SCR techniques using the biceps tendon improved the functional abduction force relative to the MIRCT condition, although no statistically significant differences were observed relative to the intact condition (P≥0.448). DISCUSSION: SCR using the long head biceps tendon is biomechanically effective in reducing posterosuperior translation of the humeral head in the setting of a MIRCT. Graft tensioning and fixation at 30° of glenohumeral abduction combined with either a middle or posterior tenodesis location on the greater tuberosity most effectively restores near normal time-zero humeral head kinematics.

The Kouvalchouk procedure vs. distal tibial allograft for treatment of posterior shoulder instability: the deltoid "hammock" effect exists.

BACKGROUND: In 1993, Kouvalchouk described an acromial bone block with a pedicled deltoid flap for the treatment of posterior shoulder instability. This procedure provides a "double blocking" effect in that the acromial autograft restores posterior glenoid bone loss and the deltoid flap functions as a muscular "hammock" resembling the sling effect of the conjoint in the Latarjet procedure. The primary aim of this study was to compare the Kouvalchouk procedure to distal tibial allograft (DTA) reconstruction for the management of posterior shoulder instability with associated bone loss, while the secondary aim was to evaluate the deltoid hammock effect. METHODS: Ten upper extremity cadavers were evaluated using a validated shoulder testing apparatus in 0° and 60° of glenohumeral abduction in the scapular plane. Testing was first performed on the normal shoulder state and was followed by the creation of a 20% posterior glenoid defect. Subsequently, the Kouvalchouk and DTA procedures were conducted. Forces of 0N, 5N, 10N, and 15N were applied to the posterior deltoid tendinous insertion on the Kouvalchouk graft along the physiological muscle line-of-action to evaluate the 'hammock" effect of this procedure. Testing was additionally performed on the Kouvalchouk bone graft with the deltoid muscle sectioned from its bony attachment. For all test states, a posteriorly directed force was applied to the humeral head perpendicular to the direction of the glenoid bone defect, with the associated translation quantified using an optical tracking system. The outcome variable was posterior translation of the humeral head at an applied force magnitude of 30N. RESULTS: The Kouvalchouk procedure with the loaded deltoid flap (10N: P = .039 and 15N: P < .001) was significantly better at reducing posterior humeral head translation than the DTA. Overall, increased glenohumeral stability was observed with increased force applied to the posterior deltoid flap in the Kouvalchouk procedure. The 15 N Kouvalchouk was most effective at preventing posterior humeral translation, and the difference was statistically significant compared with the 20% glenoid defect (P = .003), detached Kouvalchouk (P < .001), and 0N Kouvalchouk (P < .001). The 15 N Kouvalchouk procedure restored posterior shoulder joint stability to near normal levels, such that it was not significantly different from the intact state (P = .203). CONCLUSIONS: The Kouvalchouk procedure with load applied to the deltoid was found to be biomechanically superior to the DTA for the management of posterior shoulder instability with associated bone loss. Additionally, the results confirmed the presence and effectiveness of the deltoid "hammock" effect.

Bridge plating is an effective adjunct treatment for complex elbow instability.

BACKGROUND: Managing persistent elbow instability and chronic dislocations presents challenges despite traditional treatments. Supplementary methods like immobilization and various fixations, though common, can carry high complication rates. This study assesses the efficacy of bridge plating in treating complex elbow instability through a retrospective review of patients. Data on characteristics, treatment duration, range of motion, complications, and evaluation scores were analyzed, providing insights into outcomes complications associated with bridge plating. RESULTS: Eleven patients were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 80 ± 68 weeks postoperatively. The mean age was 53 ± 14 years and there were 5 females and 6 males. The mean body mass index was 38. Bridge plating was used for a spectrum of complex elbow injuries. The mean time from injury to bridge plating in acute cases was 29 ± 19 days and 344 ± 381 days in chronic cases. The mean duration of bridge plating was 121 ± 72 days. At the time of plate removal, mean intraoperative elbow motion was extension 58° ± 12°, flexion 107° ± 14°, supination 66° ± 23° and pronation 60° ± 26°. At the latest follow-up visit, mean elbow motion was extension 37° ± 22°, flexion 127° ± 17°, supination 72° ± 15°, and pronation 63° ± 18°. There were 6 complications (55%): heterotopic ossification, ulnar neuropathy, wound failure over the plate in a thin patient, an ulnar shaft periprosthetic fracture due to a seizure-induced fall, and persistent elbow subluxation despite bridge plate fixation. Finally, 1 patient sustained a fracture of a 3.5-mm locking bridge plate. One patient required a contracture release for persistent stiffness. Four of these complications can be directly attributed to the use of the bridge plate (36%). At final follow-up, the mean patient-rated elbow evaluation score was 34, with 0 indicating no pain and disability. The mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was 66% for the 8 patients who had this available, with 100% being the best possible attainable score. CONCLUSION: Bridge plating effectively maintains joint reduction in selected complex elbow instability cases. However, patients with bridge plates often require a second surgery for removal and experience high rates of general complications because of the complexity of their condition.

Stemless reverse humeral component neck-shaft angle has an influence on initial fixation.

BACKGROUND: Stemless anatomic humeral components are commonly used and are an accepted alternative to traditional stemmed implants in patients with good bone quality. Presently, little literature exists on the design and implantation parameters that influence primary time-zero fixation of stemless reverse humeral implants. Accordingly, this finite element analysis study assessed the surgical implantation variable of neck-shaft angle, and its effect on the primary time-zero fixation of reversed stemless humeral implants. METHODS: Eight computed tomography-derived humeral finite element models were used to examine a generic stemless humeral implant at varying neck-shaft angles of 130°, 135°, 140°, 145°, and 150°. Four loading scenarios (30° shoulder abduction with neutral forearm rotation, 30° shoulder abduction with forearm supination, a head-height lifting motion, and a single-handed steering motion) were employed. Implantation inclinations were compared based on the maximum bone-implant interface distraction detected after loading. RESULTS: The implant-bone distraction was greatest in the 130° neck-shaft angle implantation cases. All implant loading scenarios elicited significantly lower micromotion magnitudes when neck-shaft angle was increased (P = .0001). With every 5° increase in neck-shaft angle, there was an average 17% reduction in bone-implant distraction. CONCLUSIONS: The neck-shaft angle of implantation for a stemless reverse humeral component is a modifiable parameter that appears to influence time-zero implant stability. Lower, more varus, neck-shaft angles increase bone-implant distractions with simulated activities of daily living. It is therefore suggested that humeral head osteotomies at a higher neck-shaft angle may be beneficial to maximize stemless humeral component stability.

Validation of mixed-reality surgical navigation for glenoid axis pin placement in shoulder arthroplasty using a cadaveric model.

BACKGROUND: Mixed reality may offer an alternative for computer-assisted navigation in shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy and precision of mixed-reality guidance for the placement of the glenoid axis pin in cadaver specimens. This step is essential for accurate glenoid placement in total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Fourteen cadaveric shoulders underwent simulated shoulder replacement surgery by 7 experienced shoulder surgeons. The surgeons exposed the cadavers through a deltopectoral approach and then used mixed-reality surgical navigation to insert a guide pin in a preplanned position and trajectory in the glenoid. The mixed-reality system used the Microsoft Hololens 2 headset, navigation software, dedicated instruments with fiducial marker cubes, and a securing pin. Computed tomography scans obtained before and after the procedure were used to plan the surgeries and determine the difference between the planned and executed values for the entry point, version, and inclination. One specimen had to be discarded from the analysis because the guide pin was removed accidentally before obtaining the postprocedure computed tomography scan. RESULTS: Regarding the navigated entry point on the glenoid, the mean difference between planned and executed values was 1.7 ± 0.8 mm; this difference was 1.2 ± 0.6 mm in the superior-inferior direction and 0.9 ± 0.8 mm in the anterior-posterior direction. The maximum deviation from the entry point for all 13 specimens analyzed was 3.1 mm. Regarding version, the mean difference between planned and executed version values was 1.6° ± 1.2°, with a maximum deviation in version for all 13 specimens of 4.1°. Regarding inclination, the mean angular difference was 1.7° ± 1.5°, with a maximum deviation in inclination of 5°. CONCLUSIONS: The mixed-reality navigation system used in this study allowed surgeons to insert the glenoid guide pin on average within 2 mm from the planned entry point and within 2° of version and inclination. The navigated values did not exceed 3 mm or 5°, respectively, for any of the specimens analyzed. This approach may help surgeons more accurately place the definitive glenoid component.

A scapular statistical shape model can reliably predict premorbid glenoid morphology in conditions of severe glenoid bone loss.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of premorbid glenoid parameters at the time of shoulder arthroplasty, such as inclination, version, joint line position, height, and width, can assist with implant selection, implant positioning, metal augment sizing, and/or bone graft dimensions. The objective of this study was to validate a scapular statistical shape model (SSM) in predicting patient-specific glenoid morphology in scapulae with clinically relevant glenoid erosion patterns. METHODS: Computed tomography scans of 30 healthy scapulae were obtained and used as the control group. Each scapula was then virtually eroded to create 7 erosion patterns (Walch A1, A2, B2, B3, D, Favard E2, and E3). This resulted in 210 uniquely eroded glenoid models, forming the eroded glenoid group. A scapular SSM, created from a different database of 85 healthy scapulae, was then applied to each eroded scapula to predict the premorbid glenoid morphology. The premorbid glenoid inclination, version, height, width, radius of best-fit sphere, and glenoid joint line position were automatically calculated for each of the 210 eroded glenoids. The mean values for all outcome variables were compared across all erosion types between the healthy, eroded, and SSM-predicted groups using a 2-way repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: The SSM was able to predict the mean premorbid glenoid parameters of the eroded glenoids with a mean absolute difference of 3° ± 2° for inclination, 3° ± 2° for version, 2 ± 1 mm for glenoid height, 2 ± 1 mm for glenoid width, 5 ± 4 mm for radius of best-fit sphere, and 1 ± 1 mm for glenoid joint line. The mean SSM-predicted values for inclination, version, height, width, and radius were not significantly different than the control group (P > .05). DISCUSSION: An SSM has been developed that can reliably predict premorbid glenoid morphology and glenoid indices in patients with common glenoid erosion patterns. This technology can serve as a useful template to visually represent the premorbid healthy glenoid in patients with severe glenoid bony erosions. Knowledge of the premorbid glenoid preoperatively can assist with implant selection, positioning, and sizing.

Statistical Shape and Bone Property Models of Clinical Populations as the Foundation for Biomechanical Surgical Planning: Application to Shoulder Arthroplasty.

This work developed, validated, and compared statistical shape, statistical intensity, and statistical shape and intensity models (SSMs, SIMs, SSIMs) of scapulae from a clinical population. SSMs efficiently describe bone shape variation while SIMs describe bone material property variation, and SSIM's combine description of both variables. This work establishes these models' efficacy and whether they can be used in surgical planning. Models were developed using shoulder arthroplasty data of patients with bone erosion, which is challenging to treat and would benefit from improved surgical planning. Models were created using previously validated nonrigid registration and material property assignment processes that were optimized for scapula characteristics. The models were assessed using standard metrics, anatomical measurements, and correlation analyses. The SSM and SIM specificity and generalization error metrics were 3.4 mm and <1 mm and 184 HU and 156 HU, respectively. The SSIM did not achieve the same level of performance as the SSM and SIM in this study (e.g., shape generalization: SSIM-2.2 mm versus SSM-<1 mm). Anatomical correlation analysis showed that the SSM more effectively and efficiently described shape variation compared to the SSIM. The SSM and SIM modes of variation were not strongly correlated (e.g., rmax = 0.56 for modes explaining ≤2.1% of variance). The SSIM is outperformed by the SSM and SIM and the latter two are not strongly correlated; therefore, using the SSM and SIM in conjunction will generate synthetic bone models with realistic characteristics and thus can be used for biomechanical surgical planning applications.

Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair With Remplissage: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To determine the return-to-sport rate following arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage (ABR), including overall rate of return to sport, rate of return to preinjury level of sport, and the rate of return for specific subgroups such as contact or throwing athletes. METHODS: EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE were searched from database inception until February 2022. Studies were screened by 2 reviewers independently and in duplicate for data regarding rates of return to sport following ABR. Data on return to sport and functional outcomes were recorded. Data are presented in a descriptive fashion. RESULTS: Overall, 20 studies were included with a total of 736 patients (738 shoulders) who underwent ABR. These patients had a mean age of 28 years (range 14-72 years) and were 83% male. Mean follow-up time after surgery was 45 months (range 12-127 months). The rate of return to any level of sport ranged from 60% to 100%, whereas the rate of return to the preinjury level ranged from 63% to 100%. When we excluded those who underwent ABR as a revision procedure, the rate of return to any level of sport was 68% to 100%. Lastly, the return to sport rates for contact or collision athletes ranged from 80% to 100%, whereas for overhead or throwing athletes it was 46% to 79%. The rate of recurrence of instability postoperatively ranged from 0% to 20% in included studies. CONCLUSIONS: For athletes with anterior shoulder instability, ABR led to a high rate of return to sport along with a low rate of recurrence of instability. Although most athletes are able to return to the same level of sport, certain groups such as throwing athletes may face greater difficulty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Indomethacin for heterotopic ossification prophylaxis following surgical treatment of elbow trauma: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification is a frequent complication following surgical treatment of elbow trauma. The use of indomethacin to prevent heterotopic ossification is reported in the literature; however, its effectiveness is controversial. The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to determine whether indomethacin is effective in reducing the incidence and severity of heterotopic ossification after surgical management of elbow trauma. METHODS: Between February 2013 and April 2018, 164 eligible patients were randomized to receive postoperative indomethacin or placebo medication. The primary outcome was the incidence of heterotopic ossification on elbow radiographs at 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation score, Mayo Elbow Performance Index score, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score. Range of motion, complications, and nonunion rates were also obtained. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the incidence of heterotopic ossification between the indomethacin group (49%) and the control group (55%) (relative risk, 0.89; P = .52). There were no significant differences in postoperative Patient Rated Elbow Evaluation, Mayo Elbow Performance Index, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores or range of motion (P = .16). The complication rate was 17% in both the treatment and control groups (P > .99). There were no nonunions in either group. CONCLUSION: This Level I study demonstrated that indomethacin prophylaxis against heterotopic ossification in the setting of surgically treated elbow trauma was not significantly different from placebo.

Ultrasound-determined healing rates with subscapularis tenotomy versus peel after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Several techniques have been described for mobilizing the subscapularis tendon in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to compare subscapularis tendon healing rates, as determined by ultrasound, in patients following anatomic TSA with either a subscapularis tenotomy or subscapularis peel. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of patients from a previous randomized controlled trial in which patients underwent anatomic TSA and were randomized to either a tenotomy or peel approach. The primary outcome was postoperative tendon healing rates determined on ultrasound at >12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative tendon thickness measured on ultrasound; elbow position (neutral alignment in the belly-press position vs. posterior); internal rotation function measured with the third and fourth questions of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire; and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index. Radiographs were analyzed in patients with torn tendons. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomized to a tenotomy (n = 47) or peel (n = 53) approach. Postoperative ultrasound results were available in 88 patients. Tendon healing rates were 95% for tenotomy vs. 75% for peel (P = .011). The mean postoperative tendon thickness was 4 mm (standard deviation, 1.0 mm) and 4 mm (standard deviation, 1 mm) in the tenotomy and peel groups, respectively (P = .37). Internal rotation function was not associated with healing status (P = .77 and P = .22 for questions 3 and 4, respectively, of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire), nor was elbow position (P = .2) in the belly-press position. DISCUSSION: We observed that subscapularis tenotomy had a higher healing rate than peel as determined by ultrasound in TSA patients. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative tendon thickness in intact tendons as measured on ultrasound when comparing subscapularis mobilization techniques, nor was there any association between healing status and internal rotation function or elbow position.

Anterior Shoulder Instability Part III-Revision Surgery, Rehabilitation and Return to Play, and Clinical Follow-Up-An International Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on revision surgery, rehabilitation and return to play, and clinical follow-up for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment using a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability. RESULTS: The primary relative indications for revision surgery include symptomatic apprehension or recurrent instability, additional intra-articular pathologies, and symptomatic hardware failure. In revision cases, the differentiating factors that dictate treatment are the degree of glenohumeral bone loss and rotator cuff function/integrity. The minimum amount of time before allowing athletes to return to play is unknown, but other factors should be considered, including restoration of strength, range of motion and proprioception, and resolved pain and apprehension, as these are prognostic factors of reinjury. Additionally, psychological factors should be considered in the rehabilitation process. Patients should be clinically followed up for a minimum of 12 months or until a return to full, premorbid function/activities. Finally, the following factors should be included in anterior shoulder instability-specific, patient-reported outcome measures: function/limitations impact on activities of daily living, return to sport/activity, instability symptoms, confidence in shoulder, and satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Overall, 92% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were indications and factors affecting decisions for revision surgery, as well as how prior surgeries impact procedure choice. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the role of psychological factors in the return to play, considerations for allowing return to play, as well as prognostic factors. Finally, there was a lack of unanimous consensus on recommended timing and methods for clinical follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Anterior Shoulder Instability Part II-Latarjet, Remplissage, and Glenoid Bone-Grafting-An International Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the Latarjet procedure, remplissage, and glenoid-bone grafting for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability. RESULTS: The technical approaches identified in the statements on the Latarjet procedure and glenoid bone-graft were that a subscapularis split approach should be utilized, and that it is unclear whether a capsular repair is routinely required. Furthermore, despite similar indications, glenoid bone-grafting may be preferred over the Latarjet in patients with bone-loss greater than can be treated with a coracoid graft, and in cases of surgeon preference, failed prior Latarjet or glenoid bone-grafting procedure, and epilepsy. In contrast, the primary indications for a remplissage procedure was either an off-track or engaging Hill-Sachs lesion without severe glenoid bone loss. Additionally, in contrast to the bone-block procedure, complications following remplissage are rare, and loss of shoulder external rotation can be minimized by performing the tenodesis via the safe-zone and not over medializing the fixation. CONCLUSION: Overall, 89% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were the prognostic factors that are important to consider in those undergoing a glenoid bone-grafting procedure including age, activity level, Hill-Sachs Lesion, extent of glenoid bone-loss, hyperlaxity, prior surgeries, and arthritic changes. Furthermore, there was unanimous agreement that it is unclear whether a capsular repair is routinely required with a glenoid bone graft, but it may be beneficial in some cases. There was no unanimous agreement on any aspect related to the Latarjet procedure or Remplissage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Anterior Shoulder Instability Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Bankart Repair-An International Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment using a modified Delphi technique was conducted, with 65 shoulder surgeons from 14 countries across 5 continents participating. Experts were assigned to one of 9 working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest within anterior shoulder instability. RESULTS: The independent factors identified in the 2 statements that reached unanimous agreement in diagnosis and nonoperative management were age, gender, mechanism of injury, number of instability events, whether reduction was required, occupation, sport/position/level played, collision sport, glenoid or humeral bone-loss, and hyperlaxity. Of the 3 total statements reaching unanimous agreement in Bankart repair, additional factors included overhead sport participation, prior shoulder surgery, patient expectations, and ability to comply with postoperative rehabilitation. Additionally, there was unanimous agreement that complications are rare following Bankart repair and that recurrence rates can be diminished by a well-defined rehabilitation protocol, inferior anchor placement (5-8 mm apart), multiple small-anchor fixation points, treatment of concomitant pathologies, careful capsulolabral debridement/reattachment, and appropriate indications/assessment of risk factors. CONCLUSION: Overall, 77% of statements reached unanimous or strong consensus. The statements that reached unanimous consensus were the aspects of patient history that should be evaluated in those with acute instability, the prognostic factors for nonoperative management, and Bankart repair. Furthermore, there was unanimous consensus on the steps to minimize complications for Bankart repair, and the placement of anchors 5-8 mm apart. Finally, there was no consensus on the optimal position for shoulder immobilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Treatment of rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing controversy regarding optimal treatment for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Given that the evidence surrounding the use of various treatment options has expanded, an overall assessment is required. OBJECTIVES: The following were compared to determine which resulted in improved patient-reported function, pain, and reoperation rates for each: (1) double-row (DR) fixation and single-row (SR) fixation in arthroscopic cuff repair; (2) latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) with lower trapezius transfer (LTT), partial rotator cuff repair, and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR); and (3) early and late surgical intervention. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane were searched through to April 20, 2021. Additional studies were identified from reviews. The following were included: (1) All English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients ≥18 years of age comparing SR and DR fixation, (2) observational studies comparing LDT with LTT, partial repair, and SCR, and (3) observational studies comparing early vs. late treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. RESULTS: A total of 15 RCTs (n = 1096 randomized patients) were included in the meta-analysis of SR vs. DR fixation. No significant standardized mean differences in function (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09, 0.24) or pain (-0.01, 95% CI -0.52, 0.49) were observed. There was a difference in retear rates in favor of DR compared with SR fixation (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06, 2.29). Four studies were included in the systematic review of LDT compared with a surgical control. LDT and partial repair did not reveal any differences in function (-1.12, 95% CI -4.02, 1.78) on comparison. A single study compared arthroscopically assisted LDT to LTT and observed a nonstatistical difference in the Constant score of 14.7 (95% CI -4.06, 33.46). A single RCT compared LDT with SCR and revealed a trend toward superiority for the Constant score with SCR with a mean difference of -9.6 (95% CI -19.82, 0.62). Comparison of early vs. late treatment revealed a paucity of comparative studies with varying definitions of "early" and "late" treatment, which made meaningful interpretation of the results difficult. CONCLUSION: DR fixation leads to similar improvement in function and pain compared with SR fixation and results in a higher healing rate. LDT transfer yields results similar to those from partial repair, LTT, and SCR in functional outcomes. Further study is required to determine the optimal timing of treatment and to increase confidence in these findings. Future trials of high methodologic quality comparing LDT with LTT and SCR are required.

Bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty vs. metal augments in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is rapidly being adopted as the standard procedure for a growing number of shoulder pathologies. Lateralization of the glenoid component is known to reduce the incidence of scapular notching and possibly improve postoperative range of motion. A number of methods are used for glenoid component lateralization, including bony increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA) and porous metal-augmented baseplates. Presently, there exists little comparative literature on bone vs. metal lateralization. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare BIO-RSA to metal-augmented glenoid baseplates by assessing clinical outcomes and baseplate migration using model-based radiostereometric analysis. METHODS: A power analysis indicated 40 patients would be required for this radiostereometric study. Therefore, 41 shoulders were prospectively randomized to receive either glenoid bone grafting (BIO-RSA) or a porous metal-augmented wedge-shaped titanium baseplate for primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. At the time of primary surgery, all patients also underwent implantation of 8 tantalum marker beads in the glenoid and coracoid. Following surgery, participants were imaged using a calibrated, stereo radiographic technique. Radiographs were acquired at 6 weeks (baseline), 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Migration of the prosthesis was compared between bone and metal lateralization groups at each time point using a mixed effects model with Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons. Outcome measures were acquired preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed along any translation or rotation axis at any time point for either glenoid fixation group (P ≥ .175). Mean total glenoid component translation (± standard deviation) 2 years postoperatively was 0.4 ± 0.2 mm and 0.5 ± 0.3 mm for BIO-RSA and metal-augmented baseplates, respectively (P = .784). No significant differences were observed between groups in active range of motion; pain; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score; Simple Shoulder Test score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score; Constant Shoulder score; or Subjective Shoulder Value (P ≥ .117), with the exception of increased active external rotation in the BIO-RSA cohort (P = .036). CONCLUSION: This randomized clinical trial assessed reverse shoulder arthroplasty glenoid component migration using model-based radiostereometric analysis. At 2-year follow-up, our results indicate both BIO-RSA and porous metal wedge augmented baseplates provide stable initial fixation, which is maintained at 2 years' follow-up, with no substantial differences in clinical outcomes.

Are short press-fit stems comparable to standard-length cemented stems in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A prospective, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The literature comparing humeral implants in reverse shoulder arthroplasty is sparse. With minimal supporting literature, there has been a trend away from standard-length cemented humeral implants to press-fit stems and, recently, to shorter-stem implants. It is known that early implant migration, within the first 2 years postoperatively, is predictive of later implant loosening and possible revision surgery. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and implant migration between cemented standard-length humeral stems and press-fit short stems using model-based radiostereometric analysis. METHODS: After a power analysis, 41 shoulders were prospectively randomized to receive either a cemented standard-length or press-fit short humeral stem for primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty between July 2017 and June 2019. Following surgery, participants were imaged with stereo radiographs acquired at 6 weeks (baseline), 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Migration of the humeral stem at each time point was compared with baseline, with differences in migration between cohorts assessed using a mixed-effects model with the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons. Patient-reported outcome measures (Subjective Shoulder Value; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score; Simple Shoulder Test score; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; and Constant score) were also compared. RESULTS: At 6 months (P = .025), 1 year (P = .004), and 2 years (P = .001) postoperatively, press-fit short stems migrated significantly more than cemented stems along the superior-inferior translation axis; in addition, they showed greater total translation at 2 years (P = .003). Mean total translation (± standard deviation) at 2 years was 0.4 ± 0.2 mm and 1.0 ± 1.1 mm for the cemented and press-fit cohorts, respectively. Mean migration between the 1- and 2-year time points was minimal for both stem fixation groups along all axes (<0.1 mm and 0.6°). There was no difference in active range of motion, pain, or validated outcome measures between the cohorts at 2 years (P ≥ .170). CONCLUSION: This randomized clinical trial shows that press-fit short humeral stems subside substantially more than standard-length cemented stems but ultimately achieve stability from 1 year through 2 years. Conversely, no significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes between cohorts.

Hemi-reverse revision arthroplasty in the setting of severe glenoid bone loss.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid bone loss is one of the main challenges in revision of failed shoulder arthroplasties. The concept of a hemi-reverse procedure is to implant a glenoid baseplate and glenosphere to protect the glenoid reconstruction to allow it to heal and to preserve the joint space for a potential second-stage humeral component implantation. The purpose of this study was to report the results of hemi-reverse procedures. METHODS: Revision to a hemi-reverse procedure was performed in 15 patients: 8 with a failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, 3 with a failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty, 3 with a failed humeral hemiarthroplasty, and 1 with placement of a cement spacer owing to sepsis after a total shoulder arthroplasty. After complete removal of the initial prosthesis, all patients underwent glenoid reconstruction with bone grafting and implantation of a reverse arthroplasty baseplate and glenosphere. A humeral implant was not placed in any case. The patients were prospectively followed up and underwent complete clinical and radiologic studies preoperatively and postoperatively at a minimum of 2 years after the surgical procedure. RESULTS: Thirteen hemi-reverse implants and glenoid bone grafts healed (86%) and remained radiographically stable. One hemi-reverse construct migrated and became mechanically loose, which was attributed to absent fixation of the central post in the native glenoid bone. In 1 patient, an implant-related infection developed; irrigation and debridement were performed, in addition to revision to a resection arthroplasty. After documented radiographic healing of the hemi-reverse glenoid reconstruction, 5 patients underwent a second-stage revision to a reverse procedure with insertion of a humeral component at a median of 6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-8 months). In this group, the median follow-up period was 73 months (IQR, 45-153 months), the median Constant score was 48 (IQR, 41-56), median active forward elevation was 135° (IQR, 100°-150°), and the median Subjective Shoulder Value was 50% (IQR, 50%-60%). In the group of 9 patients with remaining hemi-reverse implants, the median follow-up period was 38 months (IQR, 29-60 months), the median Constant score was 41 (IQR, 38-46), median active forward elevation was 100° (IQR, 80°-100°), and the median Subjective Shoulder Value was 50% (IQR, 40%-60%). CONCLUSION: The hemi-reverse procedure is an effective revision procedure to reconstruct a severely deficient glenoid. The hemi-reverse procedure may function as the definitive procedure, with satisfactory outcomes. Additionally, in patients who undergo the hemi-reverse procedure, second-stage revision to a total reverse procedure can be performed once imaging confirms bone graft and construct stability.