Early revision rotator cuff repair: an analysis of outcomes and function.

PURPOSE: Rotator cuff repair (RCR) is commonly performed and can have good functional outcomes. However, failure of RCR surgery can be challenging for both patient and surgeon alike. This study examines the outcomes of early revision RCR for the management of clinically failed RCRs. METHODS: Thirty-six patients undergoing revision RCR within 1 year of primary surgery were evaluated. Range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were assessed at baseline, post-primary RCR, and post-revision RCR. RESULTS: Patients with a documented repair failure after primary RCR failed to improve in both ROM and PROMs compared to before primary RCR. Following early revision, RCR SANE (p = 0.024, p < 0.001), ASES (p = 0.004, p < 0.001), and SST (p < 0.001, p = 0.001) scores improved significantly compared to pre-primary and pre-revision scores, respectively. Documentation of a new traumatic injury did not affect clinical or functional outcomes compared to atraumatic re-tears. Number of tendons torn was positively correlated with higher SANE scores (r = 0.638, p = 0.008) and negatively correlated with SST score (r = -0.475, p = 0.03) and improvement in forward elevation (r = -0.368, p = 0.03) after primary RCR. There were significant correlations between number of tendons torn and improvement in SANE (r = 0.664, p = 0.007) and ASES scores (r = 0.468, p = 0.043) from post-primary RCR to post-revision RCR. CONCLUSION: Early revision after failed RCR can lead to clinically significant improvement in functional outcomes. The presence of a traumatic re-injury does not appear to affect revision RCR outcomes as it does in the primary setting. Patients with early clinical failures of primary RCR may benefit from early revision RCR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III: Retrospective Case Series.

Outcome measures reported for the management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons multicenter taskforce studying proximal humerus fractures reached no consensus on which outcome measures to include in future studies, and currently no gold standard exists. Knowledge of commonly used outcome measures will allow standardization, enabling more consistent proximal humerus fracture treatment comparison. This study identifies the most commonly reported outcome measures for proximal humerus fracture management in recent literature. METHODS: A systematic review identified all English-language articles assessing proximal humerus fractures from 2008 to 2018 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Review articles, meta-analyses, revision surgery, chronic injuries, studies with <15 patients, studies with <12 month follow-up, anatomic/biomechanical studies, and technique articles were excluded. Included studies were assessed for patient demographics and outcome scores, patient satisfaction, complications, range of motion, and strength. RESULTS: Of 655 articles, 74 met inclusion criteria. The number of proximal humerus fractures averaged 74.2 per study (mean patient age, 65.6 years). Mean follow-up was 30.7 months. Neer type 1, 2, 3, and 4 fractures were included in 8%, 51%, 81%, and 88% of studies, respectively. Twenty-two patient-reported outcome instruments were used including the Constant-Murley score (65%), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (31%), visual analog scale pain (27%), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (18%). An average of 2.2 measures per study were reported. CONCLUSION: Considerable variability exists in the use of outcome measures across the proximal humerus fracture literature, making treatment comparison challenging. We recommend that future literature on proximal humerus fractures use at least 3 outcomes measures and 1 general health score until the optimal scores are determined.

Evaluating Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: The Relative Impact of Patient Age, Activity Level, Symptoms, and Kellgren-Lawrence Grade on Treatment.

BACKGROUND: It is not always clear how to treat glenohumeral osteoarthritis, particularly in young patients. The goals of this study were to 1) quantify how patient age, activity level, symptoms, and radiographic findings impact the decision-making of shoulder specialists and 2) evaluate the observer reliability of the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grading system for primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder. METHODS: Twenty-six shoulder surgeons were each sent 54 simulated patient cases. Each patient had a different combination of age, symptoms, activity level, and radiographs. Responders graded the radiographs and chose a treatment (non-operative, arthroscopy, hemiarthroplasty, or total shoulder arthroplasty). Spearman correlations and chi square tests were used to assess the relationship between factors and treatments. Sub-analysis was performed on surgical cases. An intra-class correlation (ICC) was used to assess observer agreement. RESULTS: The significant correlations (P<0.01) were: symptoms [0.46], KL grade [0.44], and age [0.11]. In the sub-analysis of operative cases, the significant correlations were: KL grade [0.64], age [0.39], and activity level [-0.10]. The chi square analysis was significant (P<0.01) for all factors, but the practical significance of activity level was minimal. The ICCs were [inter](intra): KL [0.79] (0.84), patient management [0.54]. CONCLUSION: When evaluating glenohumeral osteoarthritis, patient symptoms and KL grade are the factors most strongly associated with treatment. In operative cases, the factors most strongly associated with the choice of operation were the patient's KL grade and age. Additionally, the KL classification demonstrated excellent observer reliability. However, there was only moderate agreement among shoulder specialists regarding treatment, indicating that this remains a controversial topic.