Capsular release following total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of early outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to analyze the outcomes of open and arthroscopic capsular release following total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Over 15 years, 19 patients experienced persistent shoulder stiffness after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty refractory to nonoperative treatment, requiring either open (n = 5) or arthroscopic (n = 14) capsular release. There were seven (39%) patients who had a prior diagnosis of stiffness before the primary arthroplasty. RESULTS: At a follow-up of 2.3 years (1-5.5), there were changes in range of motion, including forward flexion (77°-117°), abduction (49°-98°), external rotation (9°-19°), internal rotation at 0° (Sacrum to L1), and pain (4.1-2.3) scores (p < 0.01). There were seven (37%) patients that required a reoperation following the initial capsular release. The survival-free of reoperation at 2 and 5 years was 76% and 53%, respectively, while the survival-free of revision surgery at 2 and 5 years was 83%. Furthermore, three (16%) patients required a repeat capsular release. Overall, there were 11 (58%) complications, including stiffness (n = 9), infection (n = 1), subscapularis rupture (n = 2), glenoid loosening (n = 3), and pain with weakness requiring reoperation (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder stiffness after total shoulder arthroplasty is a very difficult pathology to treat, with high rates of complications and reoperations after capsular release. Overall, in patients that do not develop glenoid loosening, capsular release does improve the patient's pain and shoulder motion. Furthermore, when patients develop stiffness, it is critical to rule out other etiologies, such as glenoid loosening, prior to proceeding with capsular release. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: Retrospective case series.

The impact of the reverse prosthesis on revision shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of a high-volume shoulder practice.

BACKGROUND: Since the approval of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in 2004, the use of shoulder arthroplasty increased dramatically. Although the success of RSA in the revision setting has been demonstrated, there remains a paucity of studies examining the epidemiology of RSA in revision arthroplasty. This study describes trends of revision arthroplasty during the "era of the reverse," from 2005 through 2016. METHODS: In a multicenter retrospective analysis, we analyzed 274 revision shoulder arthroplasties converted to a RSA (n = 182), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, n = 68), or hemiarthroplasty (n = 24) from 2005 to 2016. Demographics, surgical indications, and types of prosthesis were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of revision arthroplasties increased over 12 years. From 2005 to 2010, TSA (33%) or hemiarthroplasty (16%) were used in similar rates as RSA (51%). From 2011 to 2016, there was a much higher incidence of revision arthroplasty with RSA (78%) compared with TSA (19%) or hemiarthroplasty (3%). Specifically, the number of RSAs increased in 2011 to 2016 compared with 2005 to 2010 in patients aged younger than 60 years, obese patients, patients with indications of glenoid loosening, and those with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus or rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RSA for revision arthroplasty increased over the "era of the reverse" and became the majority by 2016. The reverse prosthesis has had expanding indications regarding both patient demographics and pathology. This study demonstrates the reverse prosthesis has had a similar and even more profound effect on revision shoulder arthroplasty than what has previously been well documented in the primary setting.

The Utilization of Formal Physical Therapy After Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: It is widely believed that structured rehabilitation programs by professional therapists help guide patients through the various recovery periods after shoulder arthroplasty, speeding up their recovery and improving their final functional gains. However, to our knowledge, there are no studies providing information about the current state of physical rehabilitation use after shoulder arthroplasty. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation in physical rehabilitation utilization after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and to identify differences in utilization based on type of insurance (private versus public), sex, age, and region of the country. METHODS: This epidemiological retrospective database study utilized a commercially available database, PearlDiver, with longitudinal patient tracking linking all patients' Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision codes to their specific records to analyze patterns of physical rehabilitation usage after TSA and RSA in the United States. Two main patient populations were analyzed within the PearlDiver database, the Humana private insurance population and the Medicare insurance population. The period analyzed was 2010 to 2015. RESULTS: There was significantly higher utilization of physical rehabilitation in the Humana population when compared to the Medicare population (P<.001, Cramer's V = 0.270). In the Humana population, 36% of patients had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits in the 6 months following their operation, while in the Medicare population, 56% of patients had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits in the same period. Those with TSA had a higher utilization rate than those with RSA in the Humana (P<.001, V = 0.104; TSA, 31% had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits; RSA, 40% had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits within 6 months) and Medicare populations (P<.001, V = 0.135; TSA, 51% had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits; RSA, 61% had 5 or fewer physical rehabilitation visits within 6 months). CONCLUSION: Postoperative utilization of physical rehabilitation after anatomic TSA and RSA is markedly higher in privately insured patients than in patients with Medicare, regardless of age, sex, diagnosis, or region of country. These findings have important implications, from the individual patient's experience and outcomes to system-wide resource utilization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and decision analyses, level 4. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(11):856-863. Epub 8 May 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.8176.

Clinical Outcomes Following the Latarjet Procedure in Contact and Collision Athletes.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the success of the Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability in the contact or collision athlete. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the return-to-sport and functional results of the Latarjet procedure in this select group. METHODS: One hundred and nine consecutive contact or collision athletes (112 shoulders) treated with an open Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability were retrospectively identified. Seventy-three shoulders in 73 patients (67%) were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 52 months (range, 24 to 120 months). The average age at surgery was 25.8 years (range, 15 to 54 years). The primary outcomes were the scores on the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire, a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and return to sport. Predictors of return to sport were analyzed. RESULTS: Six (8%) of the 73 patients experienced ≥1 postoperative dislocations. Ten additional patients (14%) experienced a perception of instability without a dislocation. The median postoperative WOSI and ASES scores were 382 (range, 0 to 2,016) and 93.3 (range, 21.7 to 100), respectively. The median postoperative VAS pain score was 0 (range, 0 to 10). Forty-nine percent (36) of the 73 patients returned to their preoperative sports level, 14% (10) decreased their activity level in the same sport, 12% (9) changed sports, and 25% (18) decreased their level of activity and changed sports or stopped participating in sports altogether. Patients with ≥2 stabilization procedures prior to the Latarjet procedure demonstrated a lower likelihood of returning to their original sport (p = 0.019; relative risk = 2.84; 95% confidence interval = 1.34 to 6.06). The percentage of glenoid bone loss showed no association with the return-to-sport rate (p = 0.507). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of the Latarjet procedure in high-risk contact or collision athletes is variable. Patients who have fewer prior stabilization surgical procedures are more likely to successfully return to their original sport. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The cost-effectiveness of the arthroscopic Bankart versus open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the arthroscopic Bankart and the open Latarjet in the treatment of primary shoulder instability. METHODS: This cost-effectiveness study used a Markov decision chain and Monte-Carlo simulation. Existing literature was reviewed to determine the survivorship and complication rates of these procedures. Health utility states (EQ-5D and quality-adjusted life-years) of the Bankart and Latarjet were prospectively collected. Using these variables, the Monte-Carlo simulation was modeled 100,000 times. RESULTS: In reviewing the literature, the overall recurrence rate is 14% after the arthroscopic Bankart and 8% after the open Latarjet. Postoperative health utility states were equal between the 2 procedures (mean EQ-5D, 0.930; P = .775). The Monte-Carlo simulation showed that the Bankart had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4214 and the Latarjet had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4681 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Both the arthroscopic Bankart and open Latarjet are highly cost-effective; however, the Bankart is more cost-effective than the Latarjet, primarily because of a lower health utility state after a failed Latarjet. Ultimately, the clinical scenario may favor Latarjet (ie, critical glenoid bone loss) in certain circumstances, and decisions should be made on a case by case basis.

Predicting 1-Year Postoperative Visual Analog Scale Pain Scores and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Function Scores in Total and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Shared decision-making provides patients a measure of autonomy in making choices for their health and their future. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) use clinically sensitive and specific metrics to evaluate a patient's self-reported pain, functional ability, and mental state. We conducted a study to create an evidence-based clinical decision-making tool. We used PROMs to create a predictive model of a patient's outcome to help set patient expectations and facilitate a collaborative decision-making environment for patient and physician. The study used a comprehensive prospective database that stores preoperative and 1-year postoperative patient demographics and total shoulder arthroplasty PROM data. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the predictive ability of each factor and the overall predictive ability of each model. One model predicts 1-year postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores; the other predicts 1-year postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Function scores. The total number of observations was 1004 for modeling 1-year postoperative VAS pain scores and 986 for modeling 1-year postoperative ASES Function scores. Regression coefficients and P and ω2 values are reported. Preoperative VAS pain scores predicted 1-year postoperative VAS pain scores (P < .001) but not 1-year postoperative ASES Function scores (P = .485). Preoperative Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) mental health component summary (MCS) scores predicted self-reported pain and function (Ps < .001) 1 year after surgery. In these models, preoperative VR-12 MCS score was the most predictive PROM for 1-year postoperative VAS pain score (ω2 = .023) and 1-year postoperative ASES Function score (ω2 = .029). Together, a patient's preoperative VAS pain score, ASES Function score, VR-12 MCS score, age, sex, and type of arthroplasty can provide significant predictive value that may aid in setting appropriate expectations for pain and function 1 year after surgery.