The effect of subscapularis repair in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty depends on the design of the implant: a comparative study with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: The role of the subscapularis (Ssc) tendon does not yet have a well-defined role in RSA. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate if the repair of the Ssc in RSA improves overall clinical and radiographic results and if it has the same results using a medialized design humeral stem compared to a lateralized design. METHODS: Eighty-four consecutive patients undergoing RSA were retrospectively analyzed. Nine patients were lost at FU. Two implants with similar glenosphere design and different stem design (medialized and lateralized) were used. The Ssc was repaired in case of good quality of the fibers and reducibility without tension intraoperatively. Patients were divided into four groups for data analysis depending on whether they had received a medialized or lateralized design and Ssc repair or not. Patients were reviewed at an average follow-up of 40.8 ± 13.1 months. Clinical outcome measures included Active range of motion (ROM), strength, visual analog scale (VAS), Constant-Murley score (CMS), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES). Radiographic evaluation at final follow-up was performed to assess scapular notching, stress shielding, and radiolucent lines. RESULTS: No statistically significant clinical differences (p > 0.05) emerged between Lat/Ssc+ and Lat/Ssc-. Conversely, the patients belonging to the Med/Ssc- group reported statistically worse (p < 0.05) results than the Med/Ssc + group in terms of VAS, ASES and CMS. Statistically worse (p < .05) results in the Med/Ssc- group than in the Med/Ssc + were found also in active ROM achieved in FE, ABD, ER1 and ER2, and in the strength obtained in FE, ABD and ER2. Scapular notching was reported in 3 shoulders (15.7%) in Lat/Ssc+ group and in 7 shoulders (50%) in Lat/Ssc- group, while it was reported in 4 shoulders (14.2%) in Med/Ssc + group and in 6 shoulders (42.8%) in Med/Ssc- group. Stress shielding was observed in 6 cases in Lat/Ssc+ group (31.6%), in 8 cases in Lat/Ssc- group (57.1%), in 3 cases (10.7%) in Med/Ssc + group and 4 cases in Med/Ssc- group (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing RSA show clinical improvements at mid-term follow-up with a low rate of complications, regardless of the use of a medialized or a lateralized humeral stem design. Ssc repair is associated with better functional outcomes in the cohort of medialized stem, while it did not yield significant differences in the cohort of lateralized stem. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.

High degree of consensus on diagnosis and management of rotator cuff tears: a Delphi approach.

PURPOSE: To develop a consensus on diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff tears. The study focused on selected areas: imaging, prognostic factors, treatment options, surgical techniques. METHODS: Panel was composed of all members of the shoulder committee of the Italian Society of Arthroscopy, Knee, Upper arm, Sport, Cartilage and Orthopedic techniques (SIAGASCOT). Four rounds were performed. The first round consisted of gathering questions which were then divided into seven blocks referring to: imaging, patient-related prognostic factors, treatment options, surgical steps, reparative techniques, surgical predictive factors, advanced techniques. Subsequent rounds consisted of condensation by means of online questionnaire and debates. Consensus was defined as two-thirds agreement on one answer. Descriptive statistic was used to summarize the data. RESULTS: Forty-one shoulder experts were involved. Fifty-six statements were finally formulated. A consensus could be achieved on 51. Experts agreed that preoperative magnetic resonance imaging is strongly recommended because it allows a careful evaluation of tear characteristics, while the role of US remains debatable. Controversial patient-related factors such as age, comorbidities, smoking and stiffness do not contraindicate the repair. From a surgical standpoint, the experts highlighted that pseudo-paralysis is not a contraindication to rotator cuff repair. Consensus on specific surgical steps was also achieved: capsular release should be performed only in stiff shoulders; footprint preparation is mandatory, while debridement of tendon edges is not essential. If necessary, a rotator interval release could be performed without interrupting the continuity between subscapularis and supraspinatus tendon; posterior delamination should be always included in the repair. Advanced techniques such as tendon transfers should be selected based on the main clinical deficit, while the superior capsule reconstruction plays a role only in combination with a functional repair. CONCLUSION: A consensus was achieved almost on every topic of controversy explored. Particularly, MRI was deemed necessary to determine tear characteristics, while radiographs remain important for differential diagnosis; age should not be considered a contraindication to surgery; pseudo-paralysis does not represent a contraindication to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, but superior capsule reconstruction plays a role only in combination with a functional repair. Latissimus dorsi transfer plays a role when the main functional deficit is in elevation, while the lower trapezius transfer plays a role when the main functional deficit is the external-rotation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Comparative study of 145° onlay curved stem versus 155° inlay straight stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and radiographic results with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Lateralized onlay reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is designed to ensure better clinical functional recovery and lower rate of complications compared with Grammont medialized inlay RSA. The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes between these 2 different designs. METHODS: Eighty-five consecutive patients who underwent RSA were retrospectively analyzed. Nine patients were lost to follow-up, 34 received a curved onlay with a 145° neck-shaft angle (Ascend Flex group), and 42 received a long straight inlay stem with a 155° neck-shaft angle (Delta Xtend group). Patients were reviewed at an average follow-up of 46.8 ± 13.2 months (Ascend Flex group) and 36 ± 10.8 months (Delta Xtend group). Clinical outcome measures included active range of motion, strength, visual analog scale, Constant-Murley score, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. Radiographic evaluation at the final follow-up was performed to assess scapular notching, stress shielding, acromial or scapular fractures, heterotopic ossification, and radiolucent lines or implant loosening. RESULTS: No differences emerged between the 2 groups in terms of visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant-Murley scores, pain, function, strength, mobility, active forward elevation, active internal rotation, active external rotation at 0° and 90° of abduction, abduction, forward elevation, and external rotation strength (P = n.s.). Statistically superior active abduction was observed in the Delta Xtend group (P = .0017). Scapular notching was observed in 12 shoulders (35.2%) in the Ascend Flex group (a grade 1) and in 10 shoulders (23.8%) in the Delta Xtend group (P = n.s.). No differences emerged between the 2 groups in terms of humeral or glenoid radiolucency (P = n.s.). Higher rate of humeral stress shielding rate was observed in the Ascend flex cohort (P = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference emerged between the 145° onlay curved stem vs. the 155° inlay straight stem according to most of the evaluated parameters. Statistically superior active abduction was observed in the 155° group although it did not affect patients' satisfaction.