Acellular Collagen Matrix Patch Augmentation of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Reduces Re-Tear Rates: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) with and without acellular collagen matrix patch (ACMP) augmentation. METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RCTs comparing ACMP augmentation and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared using Revman, and a P value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Five RCTs with 307 patients were included. Overall, 11% of patients treated with ACMP augmentation and 34% of patients in the control group had a re-tear (P = .0006). The mean Constant score was 90.1 with ACMP augmentation, and 87.3 in controls (P = .02). Additionally, there was a significant higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score with ACMP augmentation (87.7 vs 82.1, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The RCTs in the literature support the use of ACMP augment as a modality to reduce re-tear rates and improve outcomes after ARCR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Meta-Analysis of Level II Studies meta-analysis of Level II studies.

Evaluation High-Quality of Information from ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence-Large Language Model) Artificial Intelligence on Shoulder Stabilization Surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze the quality and readability of information regarding shoulder stabilization surgery available using an online AI software (ChatGPT), using standardized scoring systems, as well as to report on the given answers by the AI. METHODS: An open AI model (ChatGPT) was used to answer 23 commonly asked questions from patients on shoulder stabilization surgery. These answers were evaluated for medical accuracy, quality, and readability using The JAMA Benchmark criteria, DISCERN score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) & Grade Level (FKGL). RESULTS: The JAMA Benchmark criteria score was 0, which is the lowest score, indicating no reliable resources cited. The DISCERN score was 60, which is considered a good score. The areas that open AI model did not achieve full marks were also related to the lack of available source material used to compile the answers, and finally some shortcomings with information not fully supported by the literature. The FRES was 26.2, and the FKGL was considered to be that of a college graduate. CONCLUSIONS: There was generally high quality in the answers given on questions relating to shoulder stabilization surgery, but there was a high reading level required to comprehend the information presented. However, it is unclear where the answers came from with no source material cited. It is important to note that the ChatGPT software repeatedly references the need to discuss these questions with an orthopaedic surgeon and the importance of shared discussion making, as well as compliance with surgeon treatment recommendations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As shoulder instability is an injury that predominantly affects younger individuals who may use the Internet for information, this study shows what information patients may be getting online.

Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Posterior Shoulder Instability Part II - Glenoid Bone-Grafting, Glenoid Osteotomy, and Rehabilitation/Return to Play - An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements on glenoid bone-grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to one of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their higher risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain. CONCLUSION: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone-grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone-block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V Expert Opinion.

Radiographic comparison of eccentric stemmed vs. concentric stemless prosthetic humeral head positioning after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining premorbid proximal humeral positioning is an essential consideration of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), as malposition of the prosthetic humeral head can result in poor clinical outcomes. Stemless aTSA prosthetic heads are usually concentric, while stemmed aTSA prosthetic heads are typically eccentric in nature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the ability to restore native humeral head position between stemmed (eccentric) vs. stemless (concentric) aTSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Postoperative anteroposterior radiographs of 52 stemmed and 46 stemless aTSAs were analyzed. A best-fit circle was created using previously published and validated techniques to represent the premorbid humeral head position and axis of rotation. This circle was juxtaposed with another circle following the arc of the implant head. Next, the offset in center of rotation (COR), radius of curvature (RoC), and humeral head height above the greater tuberosity (HHH) were measured. Additionally, based on prior studies, an offset of >3 mm at any point between the implant head surface and premorbid best-fit circle was considered significant and further classified as overstuffed or understuffed. RESULTS: RoC deviation was significantly greater in the stemmed cohort than the stemless cohort (1.19 ± 1.37 mm vs. 0.65 ± 1.17 mm, P = .025). There was no statistically significant difference in deviation from premorbid humeral head between the stemmed and stemless cohorts for COR (3.20 ± 2.28 mm vs. 3.23 ± 2.09 mm, P = .800) or HHH (1.12 ± 3.27 mm vs. 0.92 ± 2.70 mm, P = .677). When comparing overstuffed implants to appropriately placed implants, there was a significant difference in overall COR deviation in stemmed implants (3.93 ± 2.51 mm vs. 1.92 ± 1.05 mm, P < .001). Superoinferior COR deviation (stemmed: 2.38 ± 3.01 mm vs. -0.61 ± 1.59 mm, P < .001; stemless: 2.70 ± 1.75 mm vs. -0.16 ± 1.87 mm, P < .001), mediolateral COR deviation (stemmed: 0.79 ± 2.65 mm vs. -0.62 ± 1.27 mm, P = .020; stemless: 0.40 ± 1.41 mm vs. -1.13 ± 1.96 mm, P = .020), and HHH (stemmed: 3.61 ± 2.73 mm vs. 0.50 ± 1.31 mm, P < .001; stemless: 3.98 ± 1.18 mm vs. 0.53 ± 1.41 mm, P < .001) were significantly different between overstuffed implants and appropriate implants in both the stemmed and stemless cohorts. DISCUSSION: Stemless and stemmed aTSA implants have similar rates of reproducing satisfactory postoperative humeral head COR with both producing COR deviation most commonly in the superomedial direction. Deviation in HHH contributes to overstuffing in both stemmed and stemless implants, COR deviation contributes to overstuffing in stemmed implants, while RoC (humeral head size) is not associated with overstuffing. Based on this study, it appears that neither eccentric nor concentric prosthetic heads are superior in recreating premorbid humeral head position.

Defining Pseudoparalysis & Pseudoparesis - A Consensus Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the definition of shoulder pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. METHODS: A consensus process on the definition of a diagnosis of pseudoparalysis utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted, and 26 shoulder/sports surgeons from 11 countries, selected based on their level of expertise in the field, participated in these consensus statements. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Three statements regarding the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis reached strong (>89%) consensus: passive range of motion (ROM) should be unaffected, the passive range of abduction should not be considered and diagnosis should be excluded if lidocaine injection produces a substantial improvement in range of motion. Additionally, consensus (>79%) was reached that the active range of external rotation should not be considered for diagnosis, pain as a cause of restricted motion must be excluded, and that distinctions between restricted active flexion and external rotation should be made by ROM rather than tear characteristics. No consensus could be reached on statements regarding the size, number of tendons or chronicity of cuff tears. Nor was there agreement on the active range of flexion permitted or on the difference between pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi process was utilized to establish consensus on the definition of shoulder pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. Unfortunately, almost half of the statements did not reach consensus, and agreement could not be reached across all domains for a unifying definition for the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis in the setting of RCTs. Furthermore, it was not agreed how or whether pseudoparalysis should be differentiated from pseudoparesis. Based on the lack of a consensus for these terms, studies should report explicitly how these terms are defined when they are used.

Risk factors for intracellular fatty accumulation in rotator cuff muscle: a histologic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fatty accumulation in rotator cuff muscles has been associated with shoulder dysfunction, risk of repair failure, and poor postoperative outcomes. This study sought to assess risk factors associated with true fatty accumulation based on histologic analysis and determine whether preoperative function directly correlated with this fatty rotator cuff accumulation. METHODS: Supraspinatus muscle biopsy specimens obtained prospectively from patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were stained with LipidTOX to quantify lipid accumulation. Two-step cluster analysis with Goutallier classification was used to define the fatty and non-fatty rotator cuff groups. We further performed a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to confirm the group cutoff values. RESULTS: In total, 51 patients (aged 60.1 ± 10.5 years) were included. There were 19 high-grade partial tears, 10 small tears, 7 medium tears, 10 large tears, and 5 massive tears. Both cluster and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses yielded a cutoff value of 30% LipidTOX/4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) separating the fatty vs. non-fatty groups. In the univariate analysis, patients with fatty rotator cuffs were aged 63.2 years on average compared with 59.7 years in the non-fatty group (P = .038). Female patients made up 57.1% of the fatty cohort, which was statistically higher than the non-fatty group (P = .042). Massive and large tears were more likely to occur in the fatty group (P = .005). In the multivariate analysis, full tendon tears had the largest predictive status of falling into the fatty group (odds ratio, 15.4; P = .008), followed by female sex (odds ratio, 4.9; P = .036). Patients in the fatty group had significantly higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (P = .048) and lower visual analog scale scores (P = .002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This prospective histologic assessment revealed that full-thickness rotator cuff tears and female sex were the largest risk factors for intracellular lipid accumulation. Although tear size correlated with fatty accumulation, the sex disparity is a noteworthy finding that warrants further research.

Outcomes and Complications of Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Following Failed Primary Anatomical Shoulder Arthroplasty or Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, range of motion (ROM) and complication and reoperation rates following revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for a failed primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes for revision RSA for a failed primary TSA or HA. RESULTS: Our review found 23 studies including 1,041 shoulders (627 TSA, 414 HA) meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were female (66.1%), with an average age of 69.0 years (range 39-93) with a mean follow-up of 46.3 months. ASES and VAS pain scores improved from 32.6 to 61.9 and 6.7 to 2.7, respectively. ROM results including forward flexion, abduction and external rotation that improved from 59.4° to 107.7°, 50.7° to 104.4°, and 19.8° to 26.3° respectively. Only one out of the ten studies reporting internal rotation found a statistically significant difference with mean internal rotation improving from S1-S3 preoperatively to L4-L5 postoperatively for patients undergoing HA. The overall complication rate and reoperation rate were 23.4% and 12.5% respectively. The most common complications were glenoid component loosening (6.0%), fracture (periprosthetic, intraoperative, or other scapula fractures) (n=4.7%), and infection (n=3.3%). CONCLUSION: Revision RSA for a failed primary TSA and HA has been shown to result in excellent functional outcomes and improved ROM suggesting patients who have failed TSA or HA may benefit from a revision RSA.

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.

Artificial intelligence in shoulder and elbow surgery: overview of current and future applications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is amongst the most rapidly growing technologies in orthopedic surgery. With the exponential growth in healthcare data, computing power, and complex predictive algorithms, this technology is poised to aid providers in data processing and clinical decision support throughout the continuum of orthopedic care. Understanding the utility and limitations of this technology is vital to practicing orthopedic surgeons, as these applications will become more common place in everyday practice. AI has already demonstrated its utility in shoulder and elbow surgery for imaging-based diagnosis, predictive modeling of clinical outcomes, implant identification, and automated image segmentation. The future integration of AI and robotic surgery represents the largest potential application of AI in shoulder and elbow surgery with the potential for significant clinical and financial impact. This editorial's purpose is to summarize common AI terms, provide a framework to understand and interpret AI model results, and discuss current applications and future directions within shoulder and elbow surgery.

Risk Factors for Recurrence Following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair - A Systematic.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent instability remains a major source of morbidity following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Many risk factors and predictive tools have been described, but there remains a lack of consensus surrounding individual risk factors and their contribution to outcomes. PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to identify and quantify risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed/Medline databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: Overall, 111 studies were included in the analysis, including a total of 19,307 patients and 2,750 episodes of recurrent instability with 45 risk factors described. Age at operation was reported by 60 studies, with 35 finding increased risk at younger ages. Meta-analysis showed a two-fold recurrence rate of 27.0% (171/634) for patients under 20 years old compared to 13.3% (197/1485) for older patients (p<0.001). Seventeen studies completed multivariable analysis, 13 of which were significant (Odds Ratio 1.3-14.0). Glenoid bone loss was evaluated by 39 studies, with 20 finding an increased risk. Multivariable analysis in 9 studies found OR ranging from 0.7-35.1; 6 were significant. Off-track Hill-Sachs lesions were evaluated in 21 studies (13 significant), with 3 of 4 studies that conducted multivariable analysis finding a significant association with odds ratio of 2.9-8.9 of recurrence. The number of anchors used in repair was reported by 25 studies, with 4 finding increased risk with fewer anchors. Pooled analysis demonstrated a 25.0% (29/156) risk of recurrence with 2 anchors compared to 18.1% (89/491) with 3 or more anchors (p=0.06). Other frequently described risk factors included glenohumeral joint hyperlaxity (46% of studies reporting a significant association), number of preoperative dislocations (31%), contact sport participation (20%), competitive sport participation (46%), patient sex (7%), and concomitant SLAP tear (0%). CONCLUSION: Younger age, glenoid bone loss, and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, are established risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Other commonly reported risk factors included contact and competitive sports participation, number of fixation devices, and patient sex.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Stabilization for Posterior Shoulder Instability - A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder instability makes up approximately 10% of all shoulder instability cases and its diagnosis and treatment is less well understood. Recently, however, there has been increased recognition of posterior instability and posterior stabilization. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to ascertain the outcomes on arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported postoperative outcomes for posterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic stabilization. RESULTS: A total of 48 studies met inclusion criteria for review including 2307 shoulders. Majority of patients were male (83.3%), with an average age of 26.1 years and a mean follow-up of 46.8 months. The functional outcome score primarily utilized for postoperative assessment was ASES with an average of 84.77. Overall, 90.9% of patients reported being satisfied with their arthroscopic stabilization. Recurrent instability occurred in 7.4% of patients. The total revision rate was 5.2%. 16.6% of patients reported residual pain postoperatively. The rate of return to play was 86.4% with 68.0% of patients returning to play at the same or higher level of play. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability resulted in good outcomes with high patient satisfaction and low rates of recurrent instability, revisions, and residual pain.

Glenohumeral arthrodesis outcomes and complications: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence in the literature to determine the clinical outcomes following glenohumeral arthrodesis. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search in the PubMed database based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported on outcomes following shoulder arthrodesis from the years of 2000-2022. Functional outcomes that were collected included the Subjective Shoulder Value, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder index score, visual analog scale pain score, and Oxford Shoulder Score. Range-of-motion data were also collected. RESULTS: This review included 17 studies, with a total of 316 patients, that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the patients were male (67.4%), and the average age was 38.4 years (range, 7-82 years). The overall fusion rate was 88.7%, and the time to fusion was on average, 3.9 months (range, 2-8 months). Shoulder arthrodesis resulted in improvement in each of the functional outcomes assessed: Subjective Shoulder Value (preoperatively, 18.8; postoperatively, 43.9; and percent change, 132.8%), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder index score (postoperatively, 62.1), visual analog scale pain score (preoperatively, 8.5; postoperatively, 3.03; and percent change, 62.4%), and Oxford Shoulder Score (preoperatively, 9.4; postoperatively, 30.9; and percent change, 328.7%). The abduction, forward flexion, external rotation, and internal rotation range-of-motion measurements postoperatively were 57°, 64°, 3°, and 48°, respectively. Complications were reported in 33.6% of patients, with fractures (20.9%) and infections (18.6%) being the most common sources of complication. CONCLUSION: Shoulder arthrodesis provides improvement in functional outcomes for end-stage glenohumeral injuries; however, it is also associated with high rates of complications.

My Reverse Has Failed: Top Five Complications and How to Manage Them.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty implantation has increased dramatically over the past 4 decades since it was first introduced in France in 1985. It has greatly improved the ability to treat patients with cuff tear arthropathy, proximal humeral fractures, and osteoarthritis with severe bone loss. However, with the increased implementation of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, there has been a corresponding rise in complications. Five of the most common complications following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty are instability, scapular fractures, periprosthetic humeral fractures, glenoid baseplate loosening, and infection.

Technological innovations in shoulder replacement: current concepts and the future of robotics in total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has been rapidly evolving over the last several decades, with innovative technological strategies being investigated and developed in order to achieve optimal component precision and joint alignment and stability, preserve implant longevity, and improve patient outcomes. Future advancements such as robotic-assisted surgeries, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and other peri- and preoperative planning tools will continue to revolutionize TSA. Robotic-assisted arthroplasty is a novel and increasingly popular alternative to the conventional arthroplasty procedure in the hip and knee but has not yet been investigated in the shoulder. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to conduct a narrative review of the literature on the evolution and projected trends of technological advances and robotic assistance in total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: A narrative synthesis method was employed for this review, rather than a meta-analysis or systematic review of the literature. This decision was based on 2 primary factors: (1) the lack of eligible, peer-reviewed studies with high-quality level of evidence available for review on robotic-assisted shoulder arthroplasty, and (2) a narrative review allows for a broader scope of content analysis, including a comprehensive review of all technological advances-including robotics-within the field of TSA. A general literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. These databases were queried by 2 independent reviewers from database inception through November 11, 2022, for all articles investigating the role of robotics and technology assistance in total shoulder arthroplasty. Inclusion criteria included studies describing "shoulder arthroplasty" and "robotics." RESULTS: After exclusion criteria were applied, 4 studies on robotic-assisted TSA were described in the review. Given the novelty of this technology and limited data on robotics in TSA, these studies consisted of a literature review, nonvalidated experimental biomechanical studies in sawbones models, and preclinical proof-of-concept cadaveric studies using prototype robotic technology primarily in conjunction with PSI. The remaining studies described the technological advancements in TSA, including PSI, computer-assisted navigation, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and virtual, augmented, and mixed reality. Although not yet commercially available, robotic-assisted TSA confers the theoretical advantages of precise humeral head cuts for restoration of proximal humerus anatomy, more accurate glenoid preparation, and improved soft-tissue assessment in limited early studies. CONCLUSION: The evidence for the use of robotics in total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty demonstrates improved component accuracy, more precise radiographic measurements, and improved early/mid-term patient-reported and functional outcomes. Although no such data currently exist for shoulder arthroplasty given that the technology has not yet been commercialized, the lessons learned from robotic hip and knee surgery in conjunction with its rapid adoption suggests robotic-assisted TSA is on the horizon of innovation. By achieving a better understanding of the past, present, and future innovations in TSA through this narrative review, orthopedic surgeons can be better prepared for future applications.

Outcomes after bilateral shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.

The purpose of this systematic review was to report outcomes after bilateral shoulder arthroplasty including bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), bilateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and ipsilateral TSA with contralateral RSA (TSA/RSA). Two reviewers independently performed a PRISMA-guided systematic search using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to May 11, 2021. The databases were queried using the following search terms: (["bilateral" OR "contralateral"] AND "shoulder" AND ["arthroplast∗" OR "replacement"]). A total of 486 titles/abstracts were screened for eligibility and 19 studies were included in the final analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies and Modified Coleman Methodology scores. Analysis compared overall results for bilateral shoulder arthroplasty and sub-group analyses compared TSA (all shoulders from bilateral TSA patients and the TSA shoulder in TSA/RSA patients) to RSA (all shoulders from bilateral RSA patients and the RSA shoulder in TSA/RSA patients), first shoulder arthroplasty to second contralateral shoulder arthroplasty, and interval between arthroplasty (IBA) <20 months to IBA ≥20 months. Nineteen studies analyzed bilateral TSA (n = 3), bilateral RSA (n = 7), and TSA/RSA (n = 8). The mean Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was 18 and mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score was 74, with 63.2% of studies demonstrating level III evidence. A total of 2729 patients (30.4% male; mean age 72.2 years, mean follow-up 47.3 months, mean IBA 20 months) were analyzed. Postoperative forward flexion (142.0° vs. 129.6°), external rotation (ER) (42.5° vs. 25.6°), and internal rotation (60% reaching T12-T8 vs 85.7% reaching L3-L1) were higher for TSA when compared to RSA. Patient reported outcome measures such as Constant-Murley (73.2 vs. 59.2), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (87.9 vs. 77.7), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) (86.9 vs. 67.8) were higher for TSA when compared to RSA. Patients with IBA ≥20 months demonstrated greater ER and patient satisfaction than patients with IBA <20 months. Postoperative complication rates were 15.1% for TSA and 10.6% for RSA, while reoperation and revision rates were 13.7% for TSA and 7.1% for RSA. Bilateral shoulder arthroplasty results in improvements in motion, strength, pain, function, and high satisfaction. Bilateral TSA is associated with greater improvement in motion and function than bilateral RSA but higher complication, reoperation, and revision rates. IBA ≥20 months is associated with greater ER and satisfaction than IBA <20 months.

Subscapularis repair for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature evaluating the importance of subscapularis repair in patients who underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). METHODS: A systematic search of articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing RSA with subscapularis repair vs. RSA without subscapularis repair were included. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager. A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Seventeen studies with 2620 patients were included. Subscapularis repair resulted in less instability compared to without subscapularis repair (0.8% vs. 4.2%, P = .04), and there were no significant differences in rate of instability with lateralization (0.6% vs. 1.6%, P = .40), revision rates (2.6% vs. 3.9%, P = .62), and complication rates (7.7% vs. 4.9%, P = .21). Subscapularis repair had improved American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores (83.6 vs. 80.2, P = .02) and Constant scores (72.6 vs. 68.9, P < .01) but there was not a significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores (1.2 vs. 1.6, P = .11). Subscapularis repair had a significant difference in forward flexion (140° vs. 137°, P = .04) and internal rotation score (5.5 vs. 4.6, P = .001); however, there was no significant difference in external rotation (35° vs. 35°, P = .80) and abduction (117° vs. 123°, P = .13). CONCLUSION: This study found that RSA with subscapularis repair demonstrated a reduction in the occurrence of implant instability with medialized implants. However, subscapularis repair did not yield improvements in revision rates, complications, or instability with lateralized implants. Additionally, other outcome measures such as ASES, Constant score, and range of motion exhibited statistically significant improvements with subscapularis repair but did not surpass clinically significant thresholds.

Pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Hemiarthroplasty is often considered in the setting of preserved glenoid cartilage given the high risk of revision associated with total shoulder arthroplasty. Pyrocarbon (PyC) has been used as an implant material that theoretically allows for formation of a neo-membrane that would act like cartilage to reduce glenoid wear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, revision rates, and complication rates in the existing literature on shoulder hemiarthroplasty using PyC. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for articles relating to shoulder hemiarthroplasty using the terms "pyrocarbon" or "pyrolytic carbon." Abstracts and articles were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, with a minimum of 24 months' follow-up required. Data on patient demographic characteristics, clinical outcome scores, complications, revision rates, and radiographic findings were recorded. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Twelve studies were selected for final inclusion, with a total of 536 patients. Among the studies reporting preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), an overall improvement in ROM was observed. The mean Constant score was 70.9 points postoperatively, with a mean improvement of 36.2 points (n = 359, 9 studies). Radiographically, 22.8% of patients (n = 536, 8 studies) had evidence of glenoid erosion, 10.4% had changes in implant positioning, and 9.9% had tuberosity thinning. In addition, 1.5% of patients had radiographic subacromial space reduction, whereas 0.7% had an increase in tuberosity thickness. Across all studies, there was an 8.6% complication rate, with the most common cause being glenoid erosion (2.6%, n = 14). There was an overall 7.7% revision rate (n = 41), with 63% of revisions (n = 26) undergoing conversion to reverse or total shoulder arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: PyC hemiarthroplasty shows overall improvements in ROM and patient-reported outcomes for patients. However, there remains concern for glenoid erosion on radiographic evaluation at minimum 2-year follow-up. Although preliminary studies have shown encouraging results, this systematic review emphasizes the need for longer-term follow-up studies with further radiographic evaluation of the severity of glenoid erosion and the association with functional outcomes and failure risk.

Association between radiographic soft-tissue thickness and increased length of stay, operative time, and infection rate after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a widely performed surgical procedure to address various shoulder pathologies. Several studies have suggested that radiographic soft-tissue thickness may play a role in predicting complications after orthopedic surgery, but there have been limited studies determining the use of radiographic soft-tissue thickness in RSA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether radiographic soft-tissue thickness could predict clinical outcomes after RSA and compare the predictive capabilities against body mass index (BMI). We hypothesized that increased radiographic shoulder soft-tissue thickness would be a strong predictor of operative time, length of stay (LOS), and infection in elective RSA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing RSA at an academic institution was conducted. Preoperative radiographic images were evaluated including measurements of the radius from the humeral head center to the skin (HS), deltoid radius-to-humeral head radius ratio (DHR), deltoid size, and subcutaneous tissue size. Different correlation coefficients were used to analyze various types of relationships, and the strength of these associations was classified based on predefined boundaries. Subsequently, multivariable linear and logistic regressions were performed to determine whether HS, DHR, deltoid size, and subcutaneous tissue size could predict LOS, operative time, or infection while controlling for patient factors. RESULTS: HS was the most influential factor in predicting both operative time and LOS after RSA, with strong associations indicated by standardized ß coefficients of 0.234 for operative time and 0.432 for LOS. Subcutaneous tissue size, deltoid size, and DHR also showed stronger predictive values than BMI for both outcomes. In terms of prosthetic joint infection, HS, deltoid size, and DHR were significant predictors, with HS demonstrating the highest predictive power (Nagelkerke R2 = 0.44), whereas BMI did not show a statistically significant association with infection. Low event counts resulted in wide confidence intervals for odds ratios in the infection analysis. CONCLUSION: Greater shoulder soft-tissue thickness as measured with concentric circles on radiographs is a strong predictor of operative time, LOS, and postoperative infection in elective primary RSA patients.