Serum and Synovial Markers in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip, Knee, and Shoulder: An Algorithmic Approach.

➤ No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).➤ Physicians rely on a combination of serological tests, synovial markers, and clinical findings plus clinical judgment to help to guide preoperative decision-making.➤ Several organizations have proposed criteria for the diagnosis of hip or knee PJI on which we now rely.➤ Given that shoulder arthroplasty has only recently become popular, it is possible that a shoulder-specific definition of PJI will be introduced in the coming years.➤ Although a number of serum and synovial markers have demonstrated high accuracy for the diagnosis of PJI of the hip and knee, further research is needed in order to identify markers that may be more suitable for the diagnosis of shoulder PJI and for the potential development and identification of specific serological tests as screening tools for PJI.

The Influence of Component Design and Positioning on Soft-Tissue Tensioning and Complications in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Review.

¼ Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty was designed to function in the rotator cuff deficient shoulder by adjusting the glenohumeral center of rotation (COR) to maximize deltoid function.¼ Adjustments in the COR ultimately lead to changes in resting tension of the deltoid and remaining rotator cuff, which can affect implant stability and risk of stress fracture.¼ Soft-tissue balance and complication profiles can be affected by humeral component (version, neck shaft angle, and inlay vs. onlay) and glenoid component (sagittal placement, version, inclination, and lateralization) design and application.¼ A good understanding of the effects on soft-tissue balance and complication profile is critical for surgeons to best provide optimal patient outcomes.

Does the proximal humeral bone quality influence alignment after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with short humeral stems?

PURPOSE: When compared to standard-length humeral stem in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), short humeral stems in RTSA require good proximal humeral metaphyseal bone quality to gain proper and secure fixation during prosthetic implantation. Shorter humeral stems potentially carry more risk of misalignment than standard or long humeral stems. The hypothesis was that misalignment of the short humeral stems is influenced by regional bone quality. METHODS: RTSA with a short curved humeral stem with neck-shaft angle (NSA) default of 132.5° was reviewed. The study group included 35 cases at a mean age of 75.97 (± 6.23) years. Deltoid-tuberosity index (DTI) was measured to evaluate proximal humeral bone quality. The deltoid tuberosity index was measured at immediately above position of the upper end of the deltoid tuberosity. Stem alignment was given by the angle measured in degrees between the intramedullary humeral shaft axis and the axis of the humeral implant stem. RESULTS: The patient's mean DTI was 1.37 ± 0.16 (median, 1.32; range, 1.12-1.80). 22 patients had poor bone quality (DTI < 1.4), compared to 13 patients with acceptable bone quality (DTI > 1.4). After RTSA, ten humeral components (29%) were neutrally aligned, whereas 25 humeral components (71%) were misaligned. There was no correlation between misalignment and DTI (r = 0.117; p = 0.504). But there was a strong correlation between misalignment and the patient's own NSA (r = - 0.47; p = 0.004). The postoperative stem position and stem misalignment are not associated with functional outcomes (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The misalignment of the short curved humeral stem frequently occurs. Poor reginal humeral bone quality does not influence misalignment after RTSA with a short humeral stem. Postoperative stem alignment is associated with the patient's preoperative NSA and method of neck cut. The misalignment does not affect functional outcomes for midterm follow-up. Further long-term follow-up studies are needed to confirm its clinical relevance.

Humeral stem loosening is not always prosthetic joint infection.

BACKGROUND: Aseptic humeral stem loosening is an uncommon complication of shoulder arthroplasty, and its presence has been considered a highly specific predictor of prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Literature on aseptic humeral stem loosening is sparse. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the rate of aseptic humeral loosening in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Secondarily, we sought to identify predictors of septic and aseptic humeral loosening. METHODS: Our institutional revision shoulder arthroplasty database was reviewed. Inclusion criteria were patients with humeral stem loosening as indicated in the operative report. Patient demographics, index surgery and indication, revision surgery and indication, and operative data were recorded. Charts were manually reviewed, and PJI scores were calculated using the International Consensus Meeting scoring criteria. International Consensus Meeting classifications of PJI "unlikely" and "possible" were considered aseptic, and PJI "probable" and "definite" were considered septic. Statistical analysis was performed to determine associations between the abovementioned variables and aseptic humeral loosening. RESULTS: Forty-six patients with 48 shoulders were included in our analysis. Ten cases (21%) were classified as definite PJI, 13 cases (27%) were classified as probable PJI, 4 cases (8%) were classified as possible PJI, and 21 cases (44%) were classified as PJI unlikely. On analysis of stem design, there were no statistically significant associations with aseptic loosening; although, a lack of proximal porous ingrowth surface trended toward higher rates of aseptic loosening in all patients and in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) subgroup analyses. In the index RTSA subgroup, aseptic loosening was associated with female sex (P = .005). Seventeen of 39 shoulders (44%) that underwent either index ATSA or RTSA demonstrated concomitant glenoid loosening. The absence of glenoid loosening was associated with aseptic humeral loosening in index ATSA and RTSA (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Fifty-two % of revision shoulder arthroplasty cases with humeral loosening performed at our institution were aseptic. There appear to be distinct demographic and radiographic factors that are more commonly associated with aseptic as opposed to septic humeral loosening. Our data demonstrate that demographic predictors of aseptic loosening of RTSA include female sex. The absence of glenoid component loosening is associated with aseptic humeral loosening and concomitant glenoid loosening is associated with septic humeral loosening. Understanding of these factors can guide the preoperative index of suspicion for PJI in the setting of humeral stem loosening.

Impact of accumulating risk factors on the incidence of dislocation after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a medial glenoid-lateral humerus onlay prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to facilitate preoperative identification of patients at risk for dislocation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) using the Equinoxe rTSA prosthesis (medialized glenoid, lateralized onlay humerus with a 145° neck-shaft angle) and quantify the impact of accumulating risk factors on the occurrence of dislocation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 10,023 primary rTSA patients from an international multicenter database of a single platform shoulder prosthesis and quantified the dislocation rate associated with multiple combinations of previously identified risk factors. To adapt our statistical results for prospective identification of patients most at-risk for dislocation, we stratified our data set by multiple risk factor combinations and calculated the odds ratio for each cohort to quantify the impact of accumulating risk factors on dislocation. RESULTS: Of the 10,023 primary rTSA patients, 136 (52 female, 83 male, 1 unknown) were reported to have a dislocation for a rate of 1.4%. Patients with zero risk factors were rare, where only 12.7% of patients (1268 of 10,023) had no risk factors, and only 0.5% of these (6 of 1268) had a report of dislocation. The dislocation rate increased in patient cohorts with an increasing number of risk factors. Specifically, the dislocation rate increased from 0.9% for a patient cohort with 1 risk factor to 1.0% for 2 risk factors, 1.6% for 3 risk factors, 2.7% for 4 risk factors, 5.3% for 5 risk factors, and 7.3% for 6 risk factors. Stratifying dislocation rate by multiple risk factor combinations identified numerous cohorts with either an elevated risk or a diminished risk for dislocation. DISCUSSION: This multicenter study of 10,023 rTSA patients demonstrated that 1.4% of the patients experienced dislocation with one specific medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus onlay rTSA prosthesis. Stratifying patients by multiple combinations of risk factors demonstrated the impact of accumulating risk factors on the incidence of dislocation. rTSA patients with the greatest risk of dislocation were those of male sex, age ≤67 years at the time of surgery, patients with body mass index ≥31, patients who received cemented humeral stems, patients who received glenospheres having a diameter >40 mm, and/or patients who received expanded or laterally offset glenospheres. Patients with these risk factors who are considering rTSA using a medial glenoid-lateral humerus should be made aware of their elevated dislocation risk profile.

Factors affecting risk of recurrence with periprosthetic infection in shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The goal of treating periprosthetic infection, besides its eradication, is to avoid recurrence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of increasing Infection Severity (IS) score (based on the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections statement), single-stage revision, and pathogenicity of the infective organism on the risk of infection recurrence. METHODS: A database of 790 revisions performed by a single surgeon from 2004-2020 was reviewed for patients with minimum 2-year follow-up and ≥1 positive culture finding and/or pathology result from the revision surgical procedure. In total, 157 cases performed in 144 patients met the inclusion criteria. These cases were then categorized by infection probability (IS score) according to the 2018 consensus statement. Of 157 cases, 46 (29%) were classified as definitely or probably infected; 25 (16%), possibly infected; and 86 (55%), unlikely to be infected. Additionally, patients were grouped by single-stage surgery and pathogenicity of the infective organism. RESULTS: A recurrence in this study was classified as the growth of the same organism in any patient requiring revision surgery. The 86 cases in the group with unlikely infection showed a recurrence rate of 2.3%. The 25 cases in the group with possible infection showed a recurrence rate of 12%. The 46 cases in the group with definite or probable infection showed a recurrence rate of 17.4%. Patients in the definite/probable infection group had a higher rate of recurrence than those in the groups with possible infection and unlikely infection (P = .009). The IS score was higher in the recurrence group than the non-recurrence group (7.5 ± 4.3 vs. 3.9 ± 3.4, P < .001). Overall, patients who underwent 1-stage revision had a 5.0% recurrence rate, but among the 34 patients with an infection classification of definite or probable who underwent 1-stage revision, the recurrence rate was 5.9%. Cases of highly virulent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus also showed a recurrence rate of 30.8% compared with 4.0% and 5.9% for Cutibacterium acnes and coagulase-negative staphylococci, respectively (P = .005). CONCLUSION: Recurrent infection after treatment of a periprosthetic infection is associated with increasing severity scores, as defined in the 2018 consensus statement, and more aggressive microorganisms. However, a single-stage surgical procedure, even in patients with higher IS scores, did not impart a significantly increased risk of recurrence.

Robert H. Cofield, MD, Award for Best Oral Presentation 2023: Up to 8 mm of glenoid-sided lateralization does not increase the risk of acromial or scapular spine stress fracture following reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a 135° inlay humeral component.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid-sided lateralization in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) decreases bony impingement and improves rotational range of motion, but has been theorized to increase the risk of acromial or scapular spine fractures (ASFs). The purpose of this study was to assess if glenoid-sided lateralization even up to 8 mm increases the risk for stress fracture following RSA with a 135° inlay humeral component. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed from a multicenter prospectively collected database on patients who underwent primary RSA from 2015 to 2021. All RSAs were performed with a 135° inlay humeral component. Varying amounts of glenoid lateralization were used from 0 to 8 mm. Preoperative radiographs were reviewed for the presence of acromial thinning, acromiohumeral distance (AHD), and inclination. Postoperative implant position (distalization, lateralization, and inclination) as well as the presence of ASF was evaluated on minimum 1-year postoperative radiographs. Regression analyses were performed on component and clinical variables to assess for factors predictive of ASF. RESULTS: Acromial or scapular spine fractures were identified in 26 of 470 shoulders (5.5%). Glenoid-sided lateralization was not associated with ASF risk (P = .890). Furthermore, the incidence of fracture did not vary based on glenoid-sided lateralization (0-2 mm, 7.4%; 4 mm, 5.6%; 6 mm, 4.4%; 8 mm, 6.0%; P > .05 for all comparisons). RSA on the dominant extremity was predictive of fracture (odds ratio [OR] 2.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-5.75; P = .037), but there was no relationship between patient age, sex, preoperative acromial thinning, or diagnosis and risk of fracture. Although there was no difference in mean postoperative AHD between groups (P = .443), the pre- to postoperative delta AHD was higher in the stress fracture group (2.0 ± 0.7 cm vs. 1.7 ± 0.7 cm; P = .015). For every centimeter increase in delta AHD, there was a 121% increased risk for fracture (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.33-3.68; P = .012). Additionally, for every 1-mm increase in inferior glenosphere overhang, there was a 19% increase in fracture risk (P = .025). CONCLUSION: Up to 8 mm of glenoid-sided metallic lateralization does not appear to increase the risk of ASF when combined with a 135° inlay humeral implant. Humeral distalization increases the risk of ASF, particularly when there is a larger change between pre- and postoperative AHD or higher inferior glenosphere overhang. In cases of pronounced preoperative superior humeral migration, it may be a consideration to avoid excessive postoperative distalization, but minimizing bony impingement via glenoid-sided lateralization appears to be safe.

Mid-term outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty now exceeds the incidence of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Previous mid-to-long-term studies on rTSA have reported a decrease in shoulder function as follow-up increased. The purpose of this study was to provide data on mid-term outcomes and implant survival in a series focusing on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographic information such as age at surgery, revision surgery status, BMI, and smoking status were recorded. The clinical endpoints measured in this study were range of motion scores (forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation) and patient reported outcomes (VAS, ASES, SST). Radiographic variables captured included preoperative glenoid morphology, humeral lucency, and glenoid loosening. RESULTS: Fifty-six shoulders were included in this study. The overall mean age at surgery was 72.5 ± 7.2 years with an average follow-up time of 6.8 ± 3.5 years. The mean BMI was 28.1 ± 5.5. All measurements of range of motion saw significant and sustained improvements. Overall, forward elevation improved from 82° preoperatively to 133° postoperatively (p < 0.01). External rotation improved from 23° preoperatively to 36° (p < 0.01), while internal rotation improved from L3 to L1 (p = 0.05). ASES scores improved from 31 preoperatively to 70 postoperatively (p < 0.01). SST scores improved from 2 preoperatively to 7 (p < 0.01). VAS pain index scores improved from 6 to 2 following surgery (p < 0.01). Postoperative scapular notching was seen in 18 patients at final follow-up. Glenoid loosening was seen in 3 shoulders. Humeral loosening was seen in 18 shoulders. Tuberosity resorption was seen in 8 shoulders. The 5 year survival estimate was 98%, and the 10 year survival estimate was 83%. CONCLUSION: In this series, we found that rTSA provides mid-term improvements in range of motion in patients while reducing pain levels. When considered together, this demonstrates that most patients undergoing rTSA can have excellent use of their shoulder from age at surgery to end-of-life.

Medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a cementless prosthesis with a 140° neck-shaft angle in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The design of humeral implants has evolved from the initial Grammont design, notably regarding the neck-shaft angle (NSA) and through the use of cementless prostheses. Stress shielding was frequently reported with cementless implants, the 2 main risk factors being humeral stem misalignment and high filling ratios. Our hypothesis was that standard length cementless stems with an NSA of 140° would facilitate good alignment with moderate filling ratios, thereby limiting stress shielding and ensuring good clinical outcomes. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was conducted of patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty between January 2015 and August 2017, with at least 2 years' follow-up. Clinical evaluations included range of motion measurements and Constant and subjective shoulder values scores. Frontal alignment was assessed in terms of the angle (α) between axes of the stem and of the humerus. Filling ratios were measured in the metaphysis of the humerus, in the diaphysis, and at the distal end of the stem and considered excessive above 0.7. Stress shielding was evidenced radiographically by the observation of medial cortical narrowing, medial metaphysis thinning, lateral metaphysis thinning or under-the-baseplate osteolysis. RESULTS: Eighty-two shoulders were included and 70 had radiographic follow-up data available. The mean patient age was 78 years and 63/81 patients (78%) were female. The mean follow-up time was 39 ± 7 months. The mean α angle was 1.4° ± 0.9° and was less than 5° in all cases. The mean metaphyseal, diaphyseal, and distal filling ratios were 0.61 ± 0.06, 0.70 ± 0.08, and 0.64 ± 0.09, respectively. The mean Constant score improved from 28 ± 11 preoperatively to 64 ± 14 at last follow-up. The mean subjective shoulder values score at last follow-up was 81 ± 12. Seventy-nine percent of patients (55/70) had at least 1 form of stress-shielding related, which were not associated with clinical outcomes, apart from lateral metaphysis thinning, which was associated with lower active anterior elevation (mean, 106° ± 30° vs. 126° ± 28°; P = .01) and lower Constant scores (mean, 56 ± 17 vs. 65 ± 14; P = .06). CONCLUSION: The use of cementless reverse shoulder prostheses with a NSA of 140° was associated with good clinical outcomes at 2 years' follow-up. The prosthesis stem was correctly aligned with the humeral axis and the filling ratios were <0.7 in all cases. Stress-shielding was common but, apart from lateral metaphysis thinning, this had no impact on clinical outcomes.

Implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of data from worldwide arthroplasty registries and clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty is a rare complication after aseptic loosening, infection or persistent pain, resulting in malfunction of the components requiring revision surgery. This correlates with a high burden for the patient and increasing costs. Specific data of complication rates and implant breakage are available in detailed arthroplasty registries, but due to the rare occurrence and possibly underestimated value rarely described in published studies. The aim of this systematic review was to point out the frequency of implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty. We hypothesized that worldwide arthroplasty registry datasets record higher rates of implant breakage than clinical trials. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were utilized for this systematic review using the items "(implant fracture/complication/breakage) OR (glenoid/baseplate complication/breakage) AND (shoulder arthroplasty)" according to the PRISMA guidelines on July 3rd, 2023. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted according to the Cochrane standards. Case reports and experimental studies were excluded to reduce bias. The breakage rate per 100,000 observed component years was used to compare data from national arthroplasty registries and clinical trials, published in peer-reviewed journals. Relevant types of shoulder prosthetics were analyzed and differences in implant breakage were considered. RESULTS: Data of 5 registries and 15 studies were included. Rates of implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty were reported with 0.06-0.86% in registries versus 0.01-6.65% in clinical studies. The breakage rate per 100,000 observed component years was 10 in clinical studies and 9 in registries. There was a revision rate of 0.09% for registry data and 0.1% for clinical studies within a 10-year period. The most frequently affected component in connection with implant fracture was the glenoid insert. CONCLUSION: Clinical studies revealed a similar incidence of implant failure compared to data of worldwide arthroplasty registries. These complications arise mainly due to breakage of screws and glenospheres and there seems to be a direct correlation to loosening. Periprosthetic joint infection might be associated with loosening of the prosthesis and subsequent material breakage. We believe that this analysis can help physicians to advise patients on potential risks after shoulder arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

[The shoulder prosthesis in the past 7 years: increasingly used, with good results]. / De schouderprothese in de afgelopen 7 jaar.

The shoulder prosthesis is increasingly used as a solution for various shoulder problems. On the basis of a few cases, an overview is given of the various situations in which a shoulder prosthesis can be used, with a small risk of complications, a high risk of pain reduction and a long survival. In addition, a shoulder prosthesis improves the quality of life and is cost-effective. It is important, however, to set the correct indication with an eye for various psychosocial factors. The individual end result depends on patient-related factors such as pathology, general condition, activity and expectations. But the type of prosthesis and surgical expertise and experience also play a role.

Clinical and radiological outcomes in lateralized versus nonlateralized and distalized glenospheres in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Lateralization in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has been used to theoretically offer the potential benefits of reduced scapular notching rates and improved stability and range of motion (ROM), particularly external rotation. The aim of this study was to compare ROM and clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients who underwent RTSA with a lateralized vs. a nonlateralized and distalized glenosphere. METHODS: A single-surgeon randomized control trial was conducted comparing 27 patients with a lateralized glenosphere and 26 patients with a nonlateralized and distalized glenosphere. A total of 66 patients were enrolled, 2 patients died before 2-year follow-up, 4 patients withdrew from the study, and 7 patients were lost to follow-up. All patients in the lateralized group received 6 mm of lateralization through the glenosphere. Participants represented a population presenting to an orthopedics sports medicine clinic with any indication for RTSA including revision arthroplasty. Patients completed preoperative and routine postoperative functional outcome measures 3, 6, 12, and a minimum of 24 months postoperatively, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity, and Activities of Daily Living Requiring Active External and Internal Rotation assessments. Patients were also evaluated with ROM and radiographic measurements. The primary outcome of interest in this study was ROM, particularly external rotation. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, both groups had significant improvement in their American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Upper Extremity, and Activities of Daily Living Requiring Active External and Internal Rotation scores with no significant difference observed between the groups. There were no statistically significant differences in incidence of scapular notching or acromial stress fractures. ROM in both groups improved significantly at their 2-year assessment with the only exception to this being external rotation at 90° of abduction in the nonlateralized and distalized group (39° ± 31° vs. 48° ± 24°, P = .379). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of glenosphere lateralization status, patients in both groups had significant improvement in functional outcome scores and ROM, and there were no significant differences observed between the groups at 2-year follow-up. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the effect of implant design on late complications, long-term outcomes, and implant retention.

Early rehabilitation after reverse total shoulder prosthesis on fracture of proximal humerus in elderly patients provides better functional outcome.

PURPOSE: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has revolutionized the management of proximal humerus fractures (PHF) in the elderly patients. There is few or no consensus regarding to management of postoperative rehabilitation in elderly patients. An early rehabilitation from D1 allowed better functional results compared to rehabilitation started to D30 independently from tuberosities consolidation. METHODS: 94 patients operated on for PHF were evaluated retrospectively, with a minimum radio-clinical follow-up of 2 years. Clinical evaluation included mobilities and four functional scores: ASES, quick DASH, gross constant, weighted constant. Radiological evaluation was performed on a frontal shoulder X-ray with evaluation of tuberosities' consolidation. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 45 ± 19 months (24-88 months). Early rehabilitation was significantly associated with a better Constant Score (71.1 ± 17.2 vs. 56.4 ± 15.8; p < 0.001), better adjusted Constant score (92.4 ± 14.2 vs. 80.3 ± 19.5; p < 0.001), better quick DASH (22.8 ± 19.8 vs. 36.7 ± 21.3; p < 0.01), better ASES (78.6 ± 20.2 vs. 63 ± 22; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In traumatology, functional result of RSA seems not related in tuberosities' union but in rehabilitation in order to limit postoperative stiffness of operated shoulder. An early rehabilitation is related with better clinical and functional results, independently of tuberosities' union. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3, control-case study.

Complications and revisions in anatomic and reverse short stem shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: One current trend in the field of shoulder arthroplasty is a design shift to shorter and metaphyseal fixed humeral stem components. The aim of this investigation is to analyze complications resulting in revision surgery after anatomic (ASA) and reverse (RSA) short stem arthroplasty. We hypothesize that complications are influenced by the type of prosthesis and indication for arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 279 short stem shoulder prostheses were implanted by the same surgeon (162 ASA; 117 RSA), and 223 of these prostheses were implanted as primary procedures; in 54 cases, arthroplasty was performed secondary to prior open surgery. Main indications were osteoarthritis (OA) (n = 134), cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (n = 74) and posttraumatic deformities (PTr) (n = 59). Patients were evaluated at 6 weeks (follow-up 1; FU1), 2 years (FU2) and the time span of the last follow-up defined as FU3 with a minimum FU of 2 years. Complications were categorized into early complications (within FU1), intermediate complications (within FU2) and late complications (> 2 years; FU3). RESULTS: In total, 268 prostheses (96.1%) were available for FU1; 267 prostheses (95.7%) were available for FU2 and 218 prostheses (77.8%) were available for FU3. The average time for FU3 was 53.0 months (range 24-95). A complication leading to revision occurred in 21 prostheses (7.8%), 6 (3.7%) in the ASA group and 15 (12.7%) in the RSA group (p < 0.005). The most frequent cause for revision was infection (n = 9; 42.9%). After primary implantation, 3 complications (2.2%) occurred in the ASA and 10 complications (11.0%) in the RSA group (p < 0.005). The complication rate was 2.2% in patients with OA, 13.5% in CTA and 11.9% in PTr. CONCLUSIONS: Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty had a significantly higher rate of complications and revisions than primary and secondary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, respectively. Therefore, indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasty should be critically questioned in each individual case.

What is the middle term survival of reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A retrospective observational registry-based study.

PURPOSE: The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has increased over the last decade. Like any other implant it is associated with complications sometimes leading to revision. We carried out a registry-based study in order to find possible risk factors associated with the need of revision surgery. METHODS: The RIPO registry was analyzed from July 2008 to December 2018 collecting available data. Two groups (degenerative or fracture) were formed and compared to determine possible risk factors difference in revision surgery. RESULTS: A total of 7,966 shoulder prosthesis were implanted. There was a 1.5% intra or peri-operative complication rate. The revision rate was 4.0% at a mean follow-up of 4.4 years. A total of 3,073 reverse total shoulder prosthesis were implanted and available for follow-up. An increase of revision rate (the most frequent causes being aseptic loosening, infection and instability) was found in patients younger than 65 years and in male patients. Two groups were then formed on the basis of the primary diagnosis: osteoarthritis and proximal humerus fracture. Comparison between the two groups showed an increase in instability requiring revision in the fracture group. CONCLUSION: Reverse shoulder prosthesis is a valid treatment option both in the elective and in the trauma settings, but young and male patients should be informed of the inherently increased risk of revision and prosthesis used in the fracture setting should be evaluated more thoroughly to prevent instability.

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.

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.

Midterm clinical outcome of uncemented short-stem reversed shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: While the incidence of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is increasing constantly, newer implants with designs other than the classic Grammont geometry are gaining importance. More anatomic inclination angles and lateralization are supposed to have a positive impact on clinical results and complication rates. Presentation of midterm results therefore is important to support these assumptions. The aim of this study was to report the midterm clinical outcome of primary rTSA with an uncemented humeral short-stem prosthesis (USSP) with a humeral inclination angle of 145° and the analysis of different variables on the outcome. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of all patients with primary rTSA using an USSP and a combined humeral inclination angle of 145° (Ascend™ flex, Stryker) with a minimum clinical follow-up of 2 years. The implant combines a 132.5° inclination for the humeral stem with an additional 12.5° for the polyethylene inlay. Primary outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures: ASES score, simple shoulder test (SST) and subjective shoulder value (SSV). Secondary outcomes were complication and revision rates. We analyzed different variables: preoperatively gender, age, indication for surgery and status of rotator cuff. Also, the glenoid morphology was classified according to Walch and a proximal humerus cortical bone thickness measurement (CBT avg) of 6 mm was used as a threshold for osteoporosis. Postoperatively, we analyzed different radiologic parameters: filling ratio, distalization and lateralization angles according to Boutsiadis. RESULTS: A total of 84 out of 99 (85%) patients with a mean FU of 46.7 months (range 24-80 months) could be included: 62 women and 22 men with a mean age of 74.7 years. Mean ASES score significantly increased from 47 preoperatively to 85.8 at the last follow-up (p = 0.001). The postoperative SST reached an average of 65.3 and the mean SSV was 83%. None of the variable parameters analyzed could be identified as a risk factor for a lower outcome defined as a SSV < 70. Three patients (3.6%) had a complication: one incomplete lower plexus lesion, one dislocation and one major hematoma. Surgical revision was needed in two cases (2.4%). CONCLUSION: The midterm clinical outcome of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with an uncemented humeral short stem and a humeral inclination angle of 145° showed good-to-excellent results with a low complication and revision rate independent from a wide range of pre- and postoperative variables. PROMs are comparable to those reported for anatomic TSA with a low complication rate, different to historical studies especially with the Grammont design. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Treatment study, Level IV.

Radiographic and anatomic variations on postoperative acromion fractures after inlay and lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative fracture of the acromion is a complication uniquely more common after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) than other forms of shoulder arthroplasty. There is limited knowledge regarding the etiology of these fractures or the anatomic risk factors. The purpose of this study is to identify associations of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint and relative humeral and glenoid positioning on the occurrence of acromial fractures after RSA. METHODS: A retrospective case-controlled study was performed on primary RSA patients treated by a single surgeon from September 2009 to September 2019. Patients with a postoperative acromion fracture were matched in a 3:1 ratio based on gender, indication, and age to those without a fracture and with a 2-year minimum follow-up. Preoperative and the immediate postoperative radiographs were reviewed by 2 investigators to measure critical shoulder angle, acromion-humeral interval, global lateralization, delta angle, preoperative glenoid height, and the level of inlay or onlay of the humeral stem. The morphology, width, and stigmata of osteoarthritis in the AC joint were assessed using computed tomography scans taken preoperatively. RESULTS: Of a total of 920 RSAs performed, 47 (5.1%) patients suffered a postoperative acromion fracture. These patients were compared with a control group of 141 patients, with a mean age of 76.4 years and similar distributions of gender and surgical indication. Patients in both groups had similar preoperative glenoid height (P = .953) and postoperative degree of inset or offset of humeral implant relative to the anatomic neck (P = .413). There were no differences in critical shoulder angle, acromion-humeral interval, global lateralization, and delta angle both preoperatively and postoperatively between the fracture and nonfracture groups. Computed tomography analysis also showed no differences in AC joint morphology (P = .760), joint space (P = .124), and stigma of osteoarthritis (P = .161). CONCLUSION: There was no relation between the features of the AC joint and the anatomic parameters of the humerus relative to the glenoid and acromion on postoperative acromion fractures after RSA.