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

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

Prognostic value of the Walch classification for patients before and after shoulder arthroplasty performed for osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff.

BACKGROUND: The Walch classification is commonly used by surgeons when determining the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). However, its utility in prognosticating patient clinical state before and after TSA remains unproven. We assessed the prognostic value of the modified Walch glenoid classification on preoperative clinical state and postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). METHODS: A prospectively collected, multicenter database for a single-platform TSA system was queried for patients with rotator cuff-intact OA and minimum 2 year follow-up after anatomic (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA). Differences in patient-reported outcome scores (Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, visual analog scale for pain, Shoulder Function score), combined patient-reported and clinical-input scores (Constant, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart Score), active range of motion values (forward elevation [FE], abduction, external rotation [ER], internal rotation [IR], and radiographic outcomes (humeral and glenoid radiolucency line rates, scapula notching rate) were stratified and compared by glenoid deformity type per the Walch classification for aTSA and rTSA cohorts. Comparisons were performed to assess the ability of the Walch classification to predict the preoperative, postoperative, and improved state after TSA. RESULTS: 1008 TSAs were analyzed including 576 aTSA and 432 rTSA. Comparison of outcomes between Walch glenoid types resulted in 15 pairwise comparisons of 12 clinical outcome metrics, yielding 180 total Walch glenoid pairwise comparisons for each clinical state (preoperative, postoperative, improvement). Of the 180 possible pairwise Walch glenoid type and metric comparisons studied for aTSA and rTSA cohorts, <6% and <2% significantly differed in aTSA and rTSA cohorts, respectively. Significant differences based on Walch type were seen after adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons in the aTSA cohort for FE and ER preoperatively, the Constant score postoperatively, and for abduction, FE, ER, Constant score, and SAS score for pre- to postoperative improvement. In the rTSA cohort, significant differences were only seen in abduction and Constant score both postoperatively and for pre- to postoperative improvement. There were no statistically significant differences in humeral lucency rate, glenoid lucency rate (aTSA), scapular notching rate (rTSA), complication rates, or revision rates between Walch glenoid types after TSA. CONCLUSION: Although useful for describing degenerative changes to the glenohumeral joint, we demonstrate a weak association between preoperative glenoid morphology according to the Walch classification and clinical state when evaluating patients undergoing TSA for rotator cuff-intact OA. Alternative glenoid classification systems or predictive models should be considered to provide more precise prognoses for patients undergoing TSA for rotator cuff-intact OA.

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

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

Impact of accumulating risk factors on the acromial and scapular fracture rate after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with a medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus onlay prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors for acromial and scapular fractures improves our understanding about which variables are relevant to these fracture complications; however, these data are difficult to integrate into clinical practice because the majority of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) patients have ≥1 risk factor. The goal of this study was to better facilitate preoperative identification of patients at risk of acromial and scapular fractures and quantify the impact of accumulating risk factors on the incidence of fracture. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 9079 rTSA patients from a multicenter database of rTSA procedures performed with a single medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus onlay rTSA prosthesis to quantify the rate of acromial and scapular fractures. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for fracture. Next, we quantified the number of patients with 1 or multiple significant risk factors for fracture. Finally, to facilitate preoperative identification of patients most at risk of fracture, we stratified our data set using multiple combinations of age, sex, and diagnosis risk factors and calculated the odds ratio for each cohort to quantify the impact of accumulating risk factors on the incidence of fracture. RESULTS: A fracture of the acromion or scapula was radiographically identified in 138 of 9079 patients, for a rate of 1.52%. Patients with fractures were more likely to be older, of female sex, to have a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and/or cuff tear arthropathy, and were less likely to have a diagnosis of diabetes. Eighty-five percent of rTSA patients had ≥1 fracture risk factor. Individually, age, sex, or diagnosis failed to identify any patient cohort with an odds ratio >2.5. Use of multiple combinations of patient risk factors refined the identification of at-risk patients better than any individual risk factor or 2-risk factor combination and demonstrated that the patients with the greatest fracture risk were female patients with a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis who were aged >70, >75, and >80 years. CONCLUSION: This 9079-rTSA multicenter study demonstrated that 1.52% of patients experienced acromial and/or scapular fractures with a single medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus onlay rTSA prosthesis. Our analysis identified numerous risk factors and quantified the impact of accumulating risk factors on fracture incidence. Patients who are considering rTSA and who have these age, sex, and diagnosis risk factors should be made aware of their elevated complication risk.

Aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with a single prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Early reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) designs had high failure rates, mainly from loosening of the glenoid baseplate. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening after primary rTSA using a contemporary medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus system and identify significant risk factors associated with loosening. METHODS: A total of 7162 patients underwent primary rTSA with a single-platform rTSA system between April 2007 and August 2021; of these primary rTSA patients, 3127 with a minimum 2-year follow-up period were identified. Patients with aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening were compared with all other primary rTSA patients without loosening. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare these cohorts and identify the demographic characteristics, comorbidities, operative parameters, and implant characteristics associated aseptic glenoid loosening after rTSA. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for each significant risk factor and for multiple combinations of risk factors. RESULTS: Irrespective of minimum follow-up, 53 of 7162 primary rTSA shoulders (31 female and 22 male shoulders) experienced aseptic glenoid loosening, for an overall rate of 0.74%. At latest (2-year minimum) follow-up, 30 of 3127 patients experienced aseptic glenoid loosening and showed significantly lower clinical scores, function, and active range of motion and higher pain scores than patients without loosening. Univariate analysis identified rheumatoid arthritis (P = .029; OR, 2.74) and diabetes (P = .028; OR, 1.84) as significant risk factors for aseptic glenoid loosening after rTSA, and multivariate analysis identified Walch glenoid types B2 (P = .002; OR, 4.513) and B3 (P = .002; OR, 14.804), use of expanded lateralized glenospheres (P = .025; OR, 2.57), and use of augmented baseplates (P = .001; OR, 2.50) as significant risk factors. CONCLUSION: The incidence of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening was 0.74% for the evaluated medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus rTSA system. Numerous risk factors for aseptic loosening were identified, including rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, Walch type B2 and B3 glenoids, posteriorly-superiorly augmented baseplates, and expanded lateralized glenospheres. Finally, analysis of multiple combinations of risk factors identified patients and implant configurations with the greatest risk of aseptic glenoid loosening.

Longitudinal analysis of shoulder arthroplasty utilization, clinical outcomes, and value: a comparative assessment of changes in improvement over 15 years with a single platform shoulder prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this longitudinal analysis of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) utilization from 2007 to 2021 is to quantify changes in clinical outcomes, cost, and value, resulting from the introduction and adoption of new shoulder arthroplasty (SA) technologies. METHODS: We analyzed an international database of a single SA prosthesis (Equinoxe; Exactech, Inc.; Gainesville, FL, USA) for all clinical sites that have continuously enrolled cases from 2007 to 2021 to compare changes in primary aTSA and primary rTSA utilization and outcomes across 3, 5-year cohorts based upon the date of implantation. A value analysis was conducted across the 5-year implantation cohorts, with value measured by the ratio of each postoperative outcome measure at 24-36 months and 36-60 months after surgery, and the average implant selling price each year for the U.S. sites in constant 2007 U.S. dollars. These measures of value were compared between cohorts to quantify the impact of new technology introduced over the study period. RESULTS: A dramatic increase in rTSA utilization was observed across the 6 sites over the 15-year study period, along with a rapid adoption of new aTSA and rTSA technologies. The average patient receiving primary aTSA and primary rTSA changed over the 15-year study period, with significant shifts in diagnosis, comorbidities, and preoperative functional status. A comparison of postoperative results demonstrated that both aTSA and rTSA clinical and radiographic outcomes showed improvement relative to 2007-2011. Over this 15-year study period, the average aTSA implant selling price has been relatively stable while the average rTSA implant selling price has significantly declined. As a result, the value associated with the Equinoxe rTSA significantly increased for nearly every outcome measure at 24-36 months and 36-60 months after surgery, while value associated with the Equinoxe aTSA stayed relatively constant from 2007 to 2021. CONCLUSION: Our 6042-patient longitudinal analysis quantified numerous changes in utilization, outcomes, and value across 6 clinical sites over the 15-year study period. Rapid adoption of new aTSA and rTSA technologies was observed and clinical and radiographic outcomes improved relative to 2007-2011. These clinical improvements, in combination with steady aTSA and declining rTSA implant prices, have driven rTSA value to continuously increase while aTSA value has been maintained at a high-level over the 15-year study period with this particular SA system, even when considering the cost and adoption of new technologies.

Two-year clinical outcomes and complication rates in anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty implanted with Exactech GPS intraoperative navigation.

INTRODUCTION: We compared the 2-year clinical outcomes of both anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA and RTSA) using intraoperative navigation compared to traditional positioning techniques. We also examined the effect of glenoid implant retroversion on clinical outcomes. HYPOTHESIS: In both ATSA and RTSA, computer navigation would be associated with equal or better outcomes with fewer complications. Final glenoid version and degree of correction would not show outcome differences. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 216 ATSAs and 533 RTSAs were performed using preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Matched cohorts (2:1) for age, gender, and follow-up for cases without intraoperative navigation were compared using all standard shoulder arthroplasty clinical outcome metrics. Two subanalyses were performed on navigated cases comparing glenoids positioned greater or less than 10° of retroversion and glenoids corrected more or less than 15°. RESULTS: For ASTA, no statistical differences were found between the navigated and non-navigated cohorts for postoperative complications, glenoid implant loosening, or revision rate. No significant differences were seen in any of the ATSA outcome metrics besides higher internal and external rotation in the navigated cohort. For RTSA, the navigated cohort showed an ARR of 1.7% (95% CI 0%, 3.4%) for postoperative complications and 0.7% (95% CI 0.1%, 1.2%) for dislocations. No difference was found in the revision rate, glenoid implant loosening, acromial stress fracture rates, or scapular notching. Navigated RTSA patients demonstrated significant improvements over non-navigated patients in internal rotation, external rotation, maximum lifting weight, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) scores. For the navigated subcohorts, ATSA cases with a higher degree of final retroversion showed significant improvement in pain, Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), SST, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLA), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores. No significant differences were found in the RTSA subcohort. Higher degrees of version correction showed improvement in external rotation, SST, and Constant scores for ATSA and forward elevation, internal rotation, pain, SST, Constant, ASES, UCLA, SPADI, and SAS scores for RTSA. CONCLUSION: The use of intraoperative navigation shoulder arthroplasty is safe, produces at least equally good outcomes at 2 years as standard instrumentation does without any increased risk of complications. The effect of final implant position above or below 10° of glenoid retroversion and correction more or less than 15° does not negatively impact outcomes.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without baseplate wedge augmentation in the setting of glenoid deformity and rotator cuff deficiency-a multicenter investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Glenoid baseplate augments have recently been introduced as a way of managing glenoid monoplanar or biplanar abnormalities in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the difference in clinical outcomes, complications, and revision rates between augmented and standard baseplates in RSA for rotator cuff arthropathy patients with glenoid deformity. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 171 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent RSA with and without augmented baseplates was performed. Preoperative inclusion criteria included minimum follow-up of 2 years and preoperative retroversion of 15°-30° and/or a beta angle 70°-80°. Version and beta angle were measured on computed tomographic scans, when available, and plain radiographs. Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes were obtained from preoperative and multiple postoperative time points. RESULTS: The study consisted of 84 standard baseplate patients and 87 augmented baseplate patients. The augment cohort had greater mean preoperative glenoid retroversion (17° vs. 9°, P < .001). At >5-year follow-up, the increase in postoperative active abduction (52° vs. 31°, P = .023), forward flexion (58° vs. 35°, P = .020), and internal rotation score (2.8° vs. 1.1°, P = .001) was significantly greater in the augment cohort. Additionally, >5-year follow-up American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score (87.0 ± 16.6 vs. 75.9 ± 22.4, P = .022), Constant score (78.0 ± 9.7 vs. 64.6 ± 15.1, P < .001), and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score (81.2 ± 6.5 vs. 71.2 ± 13.6, P = .003) were significantly higher in the augment cohort. Revision rate was low overall, with no difference between the augment and no augment groups (0.7% vs. 3.0%, P = .151). CONCLUSION: In comparing augments to standard nonaugment baseplates in the setting of RSA with glenoid deformity, our results demonstrate greater postoperative improvements in multiple planes of active ROM in the augment cohort. Additionally, the augment cohort demonstrated greater postoperative level and improvement in scores for multiple clinical outcome metrics up to >5 years of follow-up with no difference in complication or revision rates, supporting the use of augmented glenoid baseplates in RSA with glenoid deformity.

Characteristics of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty patients who achieve ceiling scores with 3 common patient-reported outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Legacy shoulder outcome scores have postoperative ceiling scores effects when quantifying clinical outcomes for anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty patients. This study uses data from an international database of a single shoulder prosthesis using data from 30 different clinical sites to quantify and compare the percentage of aTSA and rTSA patients achieving postoperative ceiling scores with multiple outcome measures and defines the patient demographics, comorbidities, implant, and operative parameters associated with ceiling scores for each outcome measure. METHODS: Clinical outcomes for 1817 aTSA and 2635 rTSA patients between 2007 and 2019 were quantified with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Constant, and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) scores. The number of aTSA and rTSA patients with ceiling scores were calculated and sorted into those that achieved ceiling scores with the SST, ASES, and UCLA measures and compared to patients without ceiling scores. A univariate and multivariate analysis then identified the patient demographics, comorbidities, and implant and operative parameters associated with ceiling scores for each outcome measure. RESULTS: aTSA patients achieved ceiling scores at a significantly greater rate than rTSA patients for all outcome measures, except SAS. The SST score was the most susceptible to ceiling scores (aTSA = 43.4%, rTSA = 34.1%, P < .0001), followed by the ASES (aTSA = 23.7%, rTSA = 13.3%, P < .0001) and UCLA (aTSA = 22.2%, rTSA = 10.6%, P < .0001) scores. Ceiling scores were least likely with the Constant (aTSA = 0.4%, rTSA = 0%, P = .0060) and SAS (aTSA = 0.1%, rTSA = 0%, P = .0750) scores. Male patients had a significantly higher ceiling score rate than female patients using the SST and ASES scores, and no differences in ceiling score rates were observed with the UCLA, Constant, or SAS scores. Finally, we identified numerous patient demographic, comorbidity, implant, and operative parameters associated with SST, ASES, and UCLA ceiling scores for aTSA and rTSA patients. DISCUSSION: Postoperative ceiling scores occur at a high rate for aTSA and rTSA patients with the SST, ASES, and UCLA scores. Those most susceptible to ceiling scores are aTSA patients treated with cage glenoids, aTSA patients of lower body mass index, rTSA patients of male gender, rTSA patients with osteoarthritis diagnosis, and rTSA patients with subscapularis repair. Clinical researchers should consider using alternative scores, such as the SAS score, to ensure a more normalized distribution of data and more accurately quantify aTSA and rTSA outcomes.

Using machine learning to predict clinical outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty with a minimal feature set.

BACKGROUND: A machine learning analysis was conducted on 5774 shoulder arthroplasty patients to create predictive models for multiple clinical outcome measures after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The goal of this study was to compare the accuracy associated with a full-feature set predictive model (ie, full model, comprising 291 parameters) and a minimal-feature set model (ie, abbreviated model, comprising 19 input parameters) to predict clinical outcomes to assess the efficacy of using a minimal feature set of inputs as a shoulder arthroplasty clinical decision-support tool. METHODS: Clinical data from 2153 primary aTSA patients and 3621 primary rTSA patients were analyzed using the XGBoost machine learning technique to create and test predictive models for multiple outcome measures at different postoperative time points via the full and abbreviated models. Mean absolute errors (MAEs) quantified the difference between actual and predicted outcomes, and each model also predicted whether a patient would experience clinical improvement greater than the patient satisfaction anchor-based thresholds of the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit for each outcome measure at 2-3 years after surgery. RESULTS: Across all postoperative time points analyzed, the full and abbreviated models had similar MAEs for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (±11.7 with full model vs. ±12.0 with abbreviated model), Constant score (±8.9 vs. ±9.8), Global Shoulder Function score (±1.4 vs. ±1.5), visual analog scale pain score (±1.3 vs. ±1.4), active abduction (±20.4° vs. ±21.8°), forward elevation (±17.6° vs. ±19.2°), and external rotation (±12.2° vs. ±12.6°). Marginal improvements in MAEs were observed for each outcome measure prediction when the abbreviated model was supplemented with data on implant size and/or type and measurements of native glenoid anatomy. The full and abbreviated models each effectively risk stratified patients using only preoperative data by accurately identifying patients with improvement greater than the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds. DISCUSSION: Our study showed that the full and abbreviated machine learning models achieved similar accuracy in predicting clinical outcomes after aTSA and rTSA at multiple postoperative time points. These promising results demonstrate an efficient utilization of machine learning algorithms to predict clinical outcomes. Our findings using a minimal feature set of only 19 preoperative inputs suggest that this tool may be easily used during a surgical consultation to improve decision making related to shoulder arthroplasty.

Validation of a machine learning-derived clinical metric to quantify outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: We propose a new clinical assessment tool constructed using machine learning, called the Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score to quantify outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). METHODS: Clinical data from 3667 TSA patients with 8104 postoperative follow-up reports were used to quantify the psychometric properties of validity, responsiveness, and clinical interpretability for the proposed SAS score and each of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores. RESULTS: Convergent construct validity was demonstrated, with all 6 outcome measures being moderately to highly correlated preoperatively and highly correlated postoperatively when quantifying TSA outcomes. The SAS score was most correlated with the UCLA score and least correlated with the SST. No clinical outcome score exhibited significant floor effects preoperatively or postoperatively or significant ceiling effects preoperatively; however, significant ceiling effects occurred postoperatively for each of the SST (44.3%), UCLA (13.9%), ASES (18.7%), and SPADI (19.3%) measures. Ceiling effects were more pronounced for anatomic than reverse TSA, and generally, men, younger patients, and whites who received TSA were more likely to experience a ceiling effect than TSA patients who were female, older, and of non-white race or ethnicity. The SAS score had the least number of patients with floor and ceiling effects and also exhibited no response bias in any patient characteristic analyzed in this study. Regarding clinical interpretability, patient satisfaction anchor-based thresholds for minimal clinically importance difference and substantial clinical benefit were quantified for all 6 outcome measures; the SAS score thresholds were most similar in magnitude to the Constant score. Regarding responsiveness, all 6 outcome measures detected a large effect, with the UCLA exhibiting the most responsiveness and the SST exhibiting the least. Finally, each of the SAS, ASES, Constant, and SPADI scores had similarly large standardized response mean and effect size responsiveness. DISCUSSION: The 6-question SAS score is an efficient TSA-specific outcome measure with equivalent or better validity, responsiveness, and clinical interpretability as 5 other historical assessment tools. The SAS score has an appropriate response range without floor or ceiling effects and without bias in any target patient characteristic, unlike the age, gender, or race/ethnicity bias observed in the ceiling scores with the other outcome measures. Because of these substantial benefits, we recommend the use of the new SAS score for quantifying TSA outcomes.

Comparison of complication types and rates associated with anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Complications after anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty can be devastating to a patient's quality of life and require revisions that are costly to both the patient and the health care system. The purpose of this study is to determine the types, incidence, and timing of complications following aTSA and rTSA using an international database of patients who received a single-platform total shoulder arthroplasty system, in order to quantify the types of failure modes and the differences that occur between aTSA and rTSA. METHODS: A total of 2224 aTSA (male-female, 1090:1134) and 4158 rTSA (male-female, 1478:2680) patients were enrolled in an international database of primary shoulder arthroplasty performed by 40 different surgeons in the United States and Europe. Adverse events and revisions reported for these 6382 patients were analyzed to identify the most common failure modes associated for both aTSA and rTSA. RESULTS: For the 2224 aTSA patients, 239 adverse events were reported for a complication rate of 10.7% and 124 revisions for a revision rate of 5.6%. The top 3 complications for aTSA were rotator cuff tear/subscapularis failure (n = 69; complication rate = 3.1%, revision rate = 1.9%), aseptic glenoid loosening (n = 55; complication rate = 2.5%, revision rate = 1.9%), and infection (n = 28; complication rate = 1.3%, revision rate = 0.8%). For the 4158 rTSA patients, 372 adverse events were reported for a complication rate of 8.9% and 104 revisions for a revision rate of 2.5%. The top 3 complications for rTSA were acromial/scapular fracture/pain (n = 102; complication rate = 2.5%, revision rate = 0.0%), instability (n = 60; complication rate = 1.4%, revision rate = 1.0%), and pain (n = 49; complication rate = 1.2%, revision rate = 0.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This large database analysis quantified complication and revision rates for aTSA and rTSA. We found aTSA and rTSA complication rates of 10.7% and 8.9%, respectively; with revision surgery rates of 5.6% and 2.5%, respectively. The 2 most common complications for each prosthesis type (aTSA: subscapularis/rotator cuff tears, aseptic glenoid loosening; rTSA: acromial/scapular fractures, instability) were unique to each device. The rate of infection was similar for both. Future prosthesis and technique development should work to mitigate these common complication types in order to reduce their rate of occurrence.

What Is the Accuracy of Three Different Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Clinical Outcomes After Shoulder Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Machine learning techniques can identify complex relationships in large healthcare datasets and build prediction models that better inform physicians in ways that can assist in patient treatment decision-making. In the domain of shoulder arthroplasty, machine learning appears to have the potential to anticipate patients' results after surgery, but this has not been well explored. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the accuracy of machine learning to predict the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (ASES), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Constant, global shoulder function, and VAS pain scores, as well as active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation at 1 year, 2 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, and more than 5 years after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA)? (2) What is the accuracy of machine learning to identify whether a patient will achieve clinical improvement that exceeds the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold for each outcome measure? (3) What is the accuracy of machine learning to identify whether a patient will achieve clinical improvement that exceeds the substantial clinical benefit threshold for each outcome measure? METHODS: A machine learning analysis was conducted on a database of 7811 patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty of one prosthesis design to create predictive models for multiple clinical outcome measures. Excluding patients with revisions, fracture indications, and hemiarthroplasty resulted in 6210 eligible primary aTSA and rTSA patients, of whom 4782 patients with 11,198 postoperative follow-up visits had sufficient preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data to train and test the predictive models. Preoperative clinical data from 1895 primary aTSA patients and 2887 primary rTSA patients were analyzed using three commercially available supervised machine learning techniques: linear regression, XGBoost, and Wide and Deep, to train and test predictive models for the ASES, UCLA, Constant, global shoulder function, and VAS pain scores, as well as active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation. Our primary study goal was to quantify the accuracy of three machine learning techniques to predict each outcome measure at multiple postoperative timepoints after aTSA and rTSA using the mean absolute error between the actual and predicted values. Our secondary study goals were to identify whether a patient would experience clinical improvement greater than the MCID and substantial clinical benefit anchor-based thresholds of patient satisfaction for each outcome measure as quantified by the model classification parameters of precision, recall, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curve. RESULTS: Each machine learning technique demonstrated similar accuracy to predict each outcome measure at each postoperative point for both aTSA and rTSA, though small differences in prediction accuracy were observed between techniques. Across all postsurgical timepoints, the Wide and Deep technique was associated with the smallest mean absolute error and predicted the postoperative ASES score to ± 10.1 to 11.3 points, the UCLA score to ± 2.5 to 3.4, the Constant score to ± 7.3 to 7.9, the global shoulder function score to ± 1.0 to 1.4, the VAS pain score to ± 1.2 to 1.4, active abduction to ± 18 to 21°, forward elevation to ± 15 to 17°, and external rotation to ± 10 to 12°. These models also accurately identified the patients who did and did not achieve clinical improvement that exceeded the MCID (93% to 99% accuracy for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 85% to 94% for pain, function, and ROM measures) and substantial clinical benefit (82% to 93% accuracy for PROMs and 78% to 90% for pain, function, and ROM measures) thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning techniques can use preoperative data to accurately predict clinical outcomes at multiple postoperative points after shoulder arthroplasty and accurately risk-stratify patients by preoperatively identifying who may and who may not achieve MCID and substantial clinical benefit improvement thresholds for each outcome measure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Three different commercially available machine learning techniques were used to train and test models that predicted clinical outcomes after aTSA and rTSA; this device-type comparison was performed to demonstrate how predictive modeling techniques can be used in the near future to help answer unsolved clinical questions and augment decision-making to improve outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes with a posteriorly augmented glenoid for Walch B glenoids in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis of the glenohumeral joint is often associated with posterior glenoid wear. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a posteriorly augmented glenoid in patients who have a Walch B glenoid deformity when treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). METHODS: At total of 68 primary aTSA patients with osteoarthritis and a Walch B glenoid deformity were treated with an 8° posteriorly augmented glenoid. All patients were evaluated and underwent scoring preoperatively and at latest follow-up with 5 clinical outcome scoring metrics; active range of motion (ROM) was also measured. The mean follow-up period was 50 months, with a 2-year minimum follow-up period. RESULTS: All patients experienced significant improvements in pain and function following aTSA with a posteriorly augmented glenoid, and 90% of patients exceeded the minimal clinically important difference threshold for the clinical outcome metric scores and ROM measures. Two-thirds of patients exceeded the substantial clinical benefit threshold for the clinical outcome metrics and ROM. Preoperatively, the humeral head was posteriorly subluxated an average of 73% for each Walch B glenoid type, and at latest follow-up, all humeral heads were re-centered on the posteriorly augmented glenoid. Two patients with augmented glenoids who had Walch B2 glenoids underwent revision for aseptic glenoid loosening. DISCUSSION: Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty patients with Walch B glenoids receiving an 8° posteriorly augmented wedge glenoid experienced excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes with a patient satisfaction rate greater than 97% and a low complication rate at a mean follow-up of 50 months. Humeral head centering was maintained for each type of Walch B glenoid.

Intersurgeon and intrasurgeon variability in preoperative planning of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a quantitative comparison of 49 cases planned by 9 surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative planning software is widely available for most anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) systems. It can be most useful in determining implant selection and placement with advanced glenoid wear. The purpose of this study was to quantify inter- and intrasurgeon variability in preoperative planning of a series of ATSA cases. METHODS: Forty-nine computed tomography scans were planned for ATSA by 9 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons using the ExactechGPS platform (Exactech Inc., Gainesville, FL, USA). Each case was planned a second time between 4 and 12 weeks later. Variability within and between surgeons was measured for implant type, size, version and inclination correction, and implant face position. Interclass correlation coefficients, Pearson, and Light's kappa coefficients were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in the frequency of augment use between surgeons and between rounds for the same surgeon. Thresholds for augment use also varied between surgeons. Interclass correlation coefficients for intersurgeon variability were 0.37 for version, 0.80 for inclination, 0.36 for implant type, and 0.36 for implant size. Pearson coefficients for intrasurgeon variability were 0.17 for version and 0.53 for inclination. Light's kappa coefficient for implant type was 0.64. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates substantial inter- and intrasurgeon variability in preoperative planning of ATSA. Although the magnitude of differences in correction was small, surgeons differed significantly in the use of augments to achieve the resultant plan. Surgeons differed from each other on thresholds for augment use and maximum allowable residual retroversion. This suggests that there may a range of acceptable corrections for each shoulder rather than a single optimal plan.

Assessment of surgeon variability in preoperative planning of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a quantitative comparison of 49 cases planned by 9 surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative planning software is gaining utility in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), particularly when addressing pathologic glenoid wear. The purpose of this study was to quantify inter- and intrasurgeon variability in preoperative planning a series of RTSA cases to identify differences in how surgeons consider optimal implant placement. This may help identify opportunities to establish consensus when correlating plan differences with clinical data. METHODS: A total of 49 computed tomography scans from actual RTSA cases were planned for RTSA by 9 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons using the same platform (Exactech GPS, Exactech Inc., Gainesville, FL, USA). Each case was planned a second time 6-12 weeks later. Variability within and between surgeons was measured for implant selection, version correction, inclination correction, and implant face position. Interclass correlation coefficients, and Pearson and Light's kappa coefficient were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in the frequency of augmented baseplate selection between surgeons and between rounds for the same surgeon. Thresholds for augment use also varied between surgeons. Interclass correlation coefficients for intersurgeon variability ranged from 0.43 for version, 0.42 for inclination, and 0.25 for baseplate type. Pearson coefficients for intrasurgeon variability were 0.34 for version and 0.30 for inclination. Light's kappa coefficient for baseplate type was 0.61. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates substantial variability both between surgeons and between rounds for individual surgeons when planning RTSA. Although average differences between plans were relatively small, there were large differences in specific cases suggesting little consensus on optimal planning parameters and opportunities to establish guidelines based on glenoid pathoanatomy. The correlation of preoperative planning with clinical outcomes will help to establish such guidelines.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes with a posteriorly augmented glenoid for Walch B2, B3, and C glenoids in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to quantify the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with severe posterior glenoid wear who were treated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) and a posterior augmented baseplate. METHODS: A total of 67 primary rTSA patients with osteoarthritis and posterior glenoid wear were treated with an 8° posterior augmented glenoid baseplate. All patients had a Walch B2, B3, or C glenoid, 2-year minimum follow-up, and mean follow-up of 40 months. All patients were scored preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using 5 clinical outcome metrics; active range of motion was also measured. A Student's 2-tailed, unpaired t-test quantified differences in outcomes, where P < .05 denoted significance. RESULTS: All patients experienced significant improvements in pain and function after primary rTSA with a posterior augmented glenoid baseplate. Three complications were reported for a rate of 4.5%; no cases of aseptic glenoid loosening occurred. A total of 90% of patients exceeded the minimal clinically important difference threshold, and 80% of patients exceeded the substantial clinical benefit threshold for each clinical outcome metric and range of motion measure. No differences in outcomes or complications were observed between Walch B2 and B3 patients, demonstrating that this full-wedge posterior augmented baseplate was equally good in each type of glenoid deformity. DISCUSSION: Primary rTSA patients with Walch B2, B3, and C glenoids who received an 8° posterior augmented glenoid baseplate experienced excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes with a low complication rate and no reports of aseptic glenoid loosening at a mean follow-up of 40 months.

Impact of scapular notching on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty midterm outcomes: 5-year minimum follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The impact of scapula notching on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) clinical outcomes is controversial. The purpose of this study was to conduct a sufficiently statistically powered analysis to quantify the impact of scapular notching on midterm rTSA outcomes. METHODS: There were 324 rTSA patients with 5 years of minimum follow-up evaluated. Patients were stratified according to the presence of a scapular notch at latest follow-up; radiographs were also assessed at each time point for patients with notching to determine the time for notch grade development. A 2-tailed, unpaired t-test compared preoperative, postoperative, and preoperative to postoperative outcomes between cohorts. RESULTS: There were 324 patients having an average follow-up of 75.1 months assessed; 47 (14.5%) patients had scapular notching. For scapular notching patients, the average notching grade was 1.7 ± 0.8 (24 grade 1, 15 grade 2, and 8 grade 3). The average time to notch development was 51.4 ± 24.1 months; grade 1, grade 2, and grade 3 notches developed at 49.0 ± 22.1 months, 57.5 ± 22.6 months, and 71.6 ± 15.8 months, respectively. No preoperative differences were observed between cohorts. At latest follow-up, scapular notching patients had significantly worse outcome scores and significantly less active abduction, forward flexion, and strength. Finally, scapular notching patients had significantly more complications, revisions, and humeral radiolucent lines. CONCLUSIONS: Scapular notching patients had significantly worse clinical outcomes and less range of motion than patients without scapular notching; these differences exceeded the minimal clinically important difference threshold for several outcome metrics. Based on these results, we recommend minimizing scapular notching through patient and implant selection and technique modification.

Clinical and radiographic comparison of a hybrid cage glenoid to a cemented polyethylene glenoid in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: This study reports the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a hybrid cage glenoid compared with an age-matched, sex-matched, and follow-up-matched cohort of cemented all-polyethylene peg glenoids in patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with 2 years' minimum follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed 632 primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty patients from an international multi-institutional database; 316 patients received hybrid cage glenoids and were matched for age, sex, and follow-up with 316 patients with cemented all-polyethylene peg glenoids. Each cohort received the same humeral component. Scoring was performed in all patients preoperatively and at latest follow-up using 5 outcome scoring metrics and 4 active range-of-motion measurements. A Student 2-tailed unpaired t test identified differences in outcomes; P < .05 denoted a significant difference. RESULTS: Cage glenoid patients had significantly lower rates of radiolucent glenoid lines (9.0% vs. 37.6%, P < .0001) and radiolucent humeral lines (3.0% vs. 9.1%, P = .0088) than all-polyethylene peg glenoid patients. In the cage glenoid cohort, 4 cases of aseptic glenoid loosening (1.3%) and 4 cases of articular surface dissociation (1.3%) occurred. In the all-polyethylene peg cohort, 12 cases of aseptic loosening (3.8%) occurred. Cage glenoid patients had a significantly lower revision rate than all-polyethylene peg glenoid patients (2.5% vs. 6.9%, P = .0088). CONCLUSION: At 50 months' mean follow-up, cage glenoids demonstrated equally good clinical outcomes to all-polyethylene peg glenoids. Cage glenoids had significantly fewer radiolucent lines around both the glenoid and humeral components and a lower revision rate. Longer-term follow-up is required to confirm these promising short-term results.

Results of total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged 55 years or younger versus those older than 55 years: an analysis of 1135 patients with over 2 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The results of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) in younger patients have not been clearly elucidated. The purpose of this study was to compare early outcomes after TSA in patients aged 55 years or younger versus patients older than 55 years. METHODS: A total of 1135 patients who were treated with TSA for glenohumeral arthritis and had a mean follow-up period of over 4 years were retrospectively reviewed. Etiologies included osteoarthritis (n = 1044), osteonecrosis (n = 35), inflammatory arthritis (n = 34), and post-traumatic arthritis (n = 22). Validated outcome measures, range of motion, and patient satisfaction were recorded. Preoperative and postoperative metrics were compared, and a multivariate analysis was performed to isolate age from sex, body mass index, previous surgery, and diagnosis as independent factors. RESULTS: Female patients, patients with a history of surgery, and patients with a diagnosis of osteonecrosis were more likely to undergo TSA when aged 55 years or younger. Both age groups showed similar preoperative range of motion and showed no differences in recorded outcome scores. Postoperatively, patients older than 55 years had slightly greater active abduction (P = .004) and internal rotation (P = .030). A higher percentage of patients older than 55 years rated their outcome as better or much better compared with those aged 55 years or younger (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Female sex, a history of surgery, and a diagnosis of osteonecrosis were associated with undergoing TSA when aged 55 years or younger. Despite similar preoperative function and minor differences in postoperative range of motion and outcome scores, patients aged 55 years or younger reported lower overall satisfaction with their TSA.