Poor Agreement on Classification and Treatment of Subscapularis Tendon Tears.

PURPOSE: To assess the inter- and intraobserver agreement for classification and management of subscapularis tendon pathology based on arthroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Twenty-two orthopaedic surgeons from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) shoulder group reviewed still arthroscopic and MRI images of the subscapularis tendon from patients with a random assortment of subscapularis morphology. The surgeons were asked to classify the pathology based on 2 systems (Lafosse and Lyons) and choose whether they would repair the tendon and, if so, the method of repair (open or arthroscopic). The survey was administered 3 times to each surgeon. Inter- and intraobserver reliability between testing rounds was determined by kappa analysis. RESULTS: Interobserver reliability on classification of tears was poor based on MRI (k = 0.18 to 0.19) and fair based on arthroscopy (k = 0.26 to 0.29). Interobserver agreement on whether surgical treatment was indicated was fair for both MRI (k = 0.28) and arthroscopy (k = 0.38), while the agreement for type of surgery was poor based on MRI (k = 0.18) and fair based on arthroscopy (k = 0.28). Interobserver agreement did not improve when both MRI and arthroscopy were provided simultaneously (k = 0.24 to 0.30). Intraobserver reliability for classification and treatment was fair to moderate for both MRI (k = 0.32 to 0.50) and arthroscopic imaging (k = 0.39 to 0.56). When considering just those patients with normal tendons, surgeon agreement improved. For all questions, the arthroscopic images had a higher level of agreement among surgeons than the MRI (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although surgeons tended to have higher reliability when presented with arthroscopic images compared with MRI, there was very little agreement on the classification and management of subscapularis tendon tears.

Outcomes after shoulder replacement: comparison between reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are increasingly common procedures employed to treat arthritic conditions. Although TSA is a widely accepted procedure for glenohumeral arthritis with intact rotator cuff, concerns about RTSA persist because of variable complication rates and outcomes. METHODS: This is a prospective, case-control study comparing outcomes and complications after TSA and RTSA. The study included 47 patients undergoing TSA for glenohumeral arthritis and 53 patients undergoing RTSA for rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Average clinical follow-up was more than 2 years in both groups. Major complications included infection, periprosthetic fracture, instability, glenoid loosening, and need for revision surgery. Patient outcome measures included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, pain visual analog scale score, and goniometer-measured range of motion. Plain radiographs were reviewed to assess for degree of glenoid lucency in TSA and scapular notching in RTSA. RESULTS: At 2 years, there were no differences in rate of major complications (TSA, 15%; RTSA, 13%; P = .808) or revision surgeries (TSA, 11%; RTSA, 9%). Outcomes assessed by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and visual analog scale were also similar between the 2 groups. TSA patients had greater external rotation than RTSA patients did (53° vs 38°; P = .001). Otherwise, forward flexion, abduction, and internal rotation were comparable in range of motion. CONCLUSIONS: TSA and RTSA have similar complication rates, need for revision, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion at 2 years of follow-up. The use of side-by-side cohorts in this study allows standardized comparison between these 2 shoulder arthroplasty procedures.