Total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged 80 years and older: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients and their surgeons may eschew shoulder arthroplasty due to concerns over patient safety and longevity. The purpose of this study was to review the current literature evaluating the clinical and radiographic outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty performed in patients 80 years and older. METHODS: A literature search of the Embase, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies evaluating the outcomes of primary and revision anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (RSA) total shoulder arthroplasty in patients 80 years and older were included for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies evaluating 1685 primary aTSAs, 1170 primary RSAs, 69 RSAs performed for fracture, and 45 revision RSAs were included for review. The postoperative active forward flexion and external rotation ranged from 138° to 150° and 45° to 48° after aTSA and from 83° to 139° and 16° to 47° after RSA, respectively. Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores ranged from 0 to 1.8 after aTSA and from 0 to 1.4 after RSA. Ninety-day mortality ranged from 0% to 3%, and perioperative complications ranged from 0% to 32%. Late complications ranged from 5.6% to 24% for aTSA patients and 3.5% to 29% for patients undergoing RSA for all indications. Common complications included glenoid loosening (0%-18%) and rotator cuff tear (5.6%-10%) after aTSA and scapular notching (0%-40%) and scapular fracture (4%-9.4%) after RSA. Reoperation rates ranged from 0% to 6% after aTSA and from 0% to 13% after RSA. CONCLUSIONS: aTSA and RSA in this population are safe and effective, demonstrating low rates of perioperative mortality and reoperation, durability that exceeds patient longevity, satisfactory postoperative range of motion, and excellent pain relief. Late complication rates appear to be similar for aTSA and RSA.

Return to driving following anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The currently recommended time to return to driving following shoulder arthroplasty is controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine patient-specific factors associated with early return to driving after anatomic (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). METHODS: All patients aged >18 years undergoing primary aTSA or RTSA at a single institution over a 3-year period were retrospectively identified. Patients were emailed a questionnaire to determine time to postoperative return to driving and frequency of driving prior to and following surgery. Patients who did not drive prior to surgery or did not complete the questionnaire were excluded from analysis. Multivariate analysis was used to determine patient-specific factors associated with early return to driving (within 2 weeks following surgery) and delayed return (>6 weeks following surgery). RESULTS: Four hundred six patients were included for analysis (aTSA = 214, RTSA = 192). Patients undergoing aTSA were significantly younger (68 vs. 74 years) and drove more frequently both pre- and postoperatively than the RTSA cohort. One hundred percent of patients returned to driving postoperatively. Patients undergoing aTSA more commonly demonstrated earlier return to driving than RTSA patients (34% vs. 20%). Factors associated with increased odds of early return to driving included male sex (aTSA) and compliance with surgeon instruction (aTSA). Decreased odds of early return was associated with waiting to drive until cessation of sling use (RTSA), older age (RTSA), and increased body mass index (RTSA). The presence of surgical complications (aTSA) and prolonged use of narcotics (RTSA) were associated with return to driving >6 weeks following surgery. No difference in the rate of motor vehicle accidents was found between patients returning to driving <2 vs. >2 weeks postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing aTSA return to driving sooner than those undergoing RTSA. Early return to driving appears to be influenced by patient sex, age, BMI, narcotic and sling use, and compliance with surgeon instruction, but does not appear to result in a high incidence of postoperative MVA.

Revision total elbow arthroplasty failure rates: the impact of primary arthroplasty failure etiology on subsequent revisions.

BACKGROUND: The number of primary total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) performed is increasing annually, necessitating a rise in the number of revision procedures. No studies exist to illustrate reliable indications for revision arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the etiology of primary TEA failure on the failure rate of revision surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the patient charts of all revision TEAs performed at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. The primary outcome was revision failure, defined as the need for a second revision surgical procedure. Patients were organized into cohorts by etiology of primary implant failure. Failure rates, time to second revision, and average number of additional revisions were compared among cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years and minimum 2-year follow-up were included. The etiologies of failure identified were infection (n = 20), aseptic loosening (n = 17), periprosthetic fracture (n = 6), and bushing wear (n = 3). All noninfectious etiologies were grouped into an additional cohort. Patients who underwent revision for infection demonstrated a significantly greater failure rate and greater number of additional revisions per patient than those with aseptic loosening, those with periprosthetic fracture, and the noninfectious group, as well as a shorter time to failure than the noninfectious group. CONCLUSION: Patients in whom primary TEA fails because of infection are more likely to experience revision failure and require a greater number of subsequent operations than patients with other etiologies of primary TEA failure. These data question the efficacy of revision surgery in the treatment of infected TEAs.

The Opioid Risk Tool: Can This Validated Tool Predict Post-Operative Opioid Dependence Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair?

Background: Numerous attempts have been made to decrease the incidence of opioid dependence after orthopedic surgeries. However, no effective means of preoperative risk stratification currently exists. The purpose of this study was to determine the ability of the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) to predict the rate of opioid dependence 2 years after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Methods: We prospectively evaluated all patients undergoing primary ARCR at a single institution over a 1.5 year period with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. All patients completed the ORT prior to surgery and were stratified into Low, Moderate, and High risk categories. The primary outcome was postoperative opioid dependence, defined as receiving a minimum of 6 opioid prescriptions within 2 years following surgery. Secondary outcomes included the total number of morphine milligram equivalents prescribed, total number of opioid prescriptions filled, and total number of opioid pills prescribed during this time interval. All outcome variables were compared amongst Low, Moderate, and High risk groups. Assessment of a statistical correlation between each outcome variable and individual numerical ORT scores (1-9) was performed. Results: A total of 137 patients were included for analysis. No statistically significant difference was noted in any primary or secondary outcome variable when compared between Low, Moderate, and High risk groups. The total cohort demonstrated a 19% rate of post-operative opioid dependence. No correlation was identified between any outcome variable and individual numerical ORT scores. A greater rate of dependence and quantity of opioids prescribed was noted amongst patients with a history of prior opioid use. Conclusion: The ORT was not predictive of the risk of opioid dependence or quantity of opioids prescribed after ARCR. Attention should be focused on alternative means of identification and management of patients at risk for opioid dependence after orthopedic procedures, including those with a history of prior opioid use.

Effect of Preoperative MRI Coracoid Dimensions on Postoperative Outcomes of Latarjet Treatment for Anterior Shoulder Instability.

Background: Preoperative coracoid dimensions may affect the size of the bone graft transferred to the glenoid rim and thus the postoperative outcomes of Latarjet coracoid transfer. Purpose: To determine the effect of coracoid length and width as measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on outcomes after Latarjet treatment of anterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were patients who underwent primary Latarjet surgery between 2009 and 2019 and had preoperative MRI scans and minimum 2-year postoperative outcomes. Longitudinal coracoid length was measured on axial MRI sequences as the distance from the coracoclavicular ligament insertion to the distal tip. Comparisons were made between shorter and longer coracoids and between narrower and wider coracoids. The outcomes of interest were recurrent instability, reoperation, complications, return to sport (RTS), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. Independent-samples t test, Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test were used to compare outcomes between groups, and univariate correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the relationships between demographics and coracoid dimensions. Results: Overall, 56 patients were included (mean age, 28.4 years). The mean ± SD coracoid length was 21.6 ± 2.4 mm and width 10.0 ± 1.0 mm. Relative to patients with a longer coracoid (≥22 mm; n = 26), patients with a shorter coracoid (<22 mm; n = 30) had similar rates of recurrent instability (shorter vs longer; 6.7% vs 3.8%), complications (10.0% vs 15.4%), reoperation (3.3% vs 7.7%), and RTS (76.5% vs 58.8%) and similar postoperative ASES scores (85.0 vs 81.6) (P ≥ .05 for all). Likewise, relative to patients with a wider coracoid (≥10 mm; n = 27), patients with a narrower coracoid (<10 mm; n = 29) had similar prevalences of recurrent instability (narrower vs wider; 6.9% vs 3.7%), complications (17.2% vs 7.4%), reoperation (3.5% vs 7.4%), and RTS (66.7% vs 68.4%) and similar postoperative ASES scores (87.1 vs 80.0) (P ≥ .05 for all). Conclusion: Patients undergoing Latarjet coracoid transfer had similar postoperative outcomes regardless of preoperative coracoid dimensions. These findings should be confirmed in a larger cohort before further clinical recommendations are made.

Midterm outcomes and survivorship of arthroscopic elbow debridement: a comparison of posttraumatic versus primary degenerative osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic debridement is an effective means of surgical management of both degenerative osteoarthritis (DOA) and posttraumatic arthritis (PTA) of the elbow. However, the difference in the efficacy and longevity of this procedure when performed for these two distinct pathologies remains in question. The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the midterm outcomes and survivorship of arthroscopic debridement of elbow PTA and DOA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing arthroscopic debridement of DOA and PTA of the elbow was performed. A questionnaire containing the Oxford Elbow Score, as well as questions regarding the incidence of reoperation, additional nonoperative intervention, complications, pain, and satisfaction, was given at 5 years, minimum, after surgery. The midterm survivorship of arthroscopic debridement free of reoperation for any reason, as well as the remaining outcome measurements obtained via the questionnaire and in-office evaluation, was compared between PTA and DOA cohorts. RESULTS: Eighty patients (DOA = 36, PTA = 44) were included in this study for analysis. All 36 patients with DOA were noted to be male. Follow-up time at the date of questionnaire response was 7.9 years (range, 5.6-11.8) in the DOA cohort and 8.6 years (range, 5.7-12.7) in the PTA cohort. Reoperation rates of 5.6% and 11.4% were identified in the DOA and PTA cohorts, respectively. No statistical difference was noted in reoperation rate, survivorship, or any measured patient-reported outcomes between cohorts at the final follow-up visit. Both cohorts demonstrated a significant improvement in Visual Analog Scale pain scores (P < .001) and ROM. Postoperative ROM was obtained at the final clinic visit at an average follow-up duration of 151 days and 255 days in the DOA and PTA cohorts, respectively. However, no difference in the degree of improvement in either outcome variable was identified after a comparison between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic debridement is an equally efficacious treatment option for DOA and PTA of the elbow. Patients with either pathology can expect satisfactory elbow function and an improvement in pain with little chance of reoperation at the midterm of the follow-up duration.