Glenoid-based reference system to differentiate shoulder pathologies on plain radiographs.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder radiographs are used for evaluation and the planning of treatment of various pathologies. Making a diagnosis of these pathologies on plain radiographs occurs by recognizing the relationship of the humeral head on the registry of the glenoid. Quantification of these changes in registry does not currently exist. We hypothesize that a geometric relationship of the humeral head and the glenoid exists that is defined on an anteroposterior Grashey view radiograph by the relationship of the best-fit circle of the humeral head relative to the best-fit circle of the glenoid such that relative measurements will define the normal shoulder and the pathologic shoulder. METHODS: One hundred fifty-six shoulders were included: 53 normal shoulders, 51 with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA), and 52 with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). Humeral head best-fit circle was used to define the circle of the humeral head (cHH). A glenoid best-fit circle (cG) was defined by the following rules: (1) best fit of the glenoid articular surface and (2) was limited by the acromion such that either (a) it reaches maximal interaction with the inferior surface of the acromion or (b) the perimeter of the circle is at the lateralmost point of the acromion. The relationship between cHH and cG is defined by measurement of cHH in horizontal and vertical planes relative to the glenoid circle reference. The horizontal displacement angle (HDA) measures the horizontal position of cHH relative to cG, representing the degree of medialization toward the glenoid. The vertical displacement angle (VDA) measures the vertical position of cHH relative to cG, representing the degree of superiorization toward the acromion. Angles were compared by diagnosis and sex. RESULTS: The mean HDA was 61.0° (95% confidence interval [CI] 60.3°-61.7°) in normal shoulders, 79.9° (95% CI 76.9°-82.9°) in GHOA, and 63.4° (95% CI 61.7°-65.1°) in CTA (P < .001). The mean VDA was 43.1° (95% CI 42.2°-44.0°) in normal shoulders, 40.9° (95% CI 39.9°-42.0°) in GHOA, and 59.7° (95% CI 57.6°-61.7°) in CTA (P < .001). Interobserver reliability was 0.991 (95% CI 0.94-1.0) and intraobserver reliability was 0.998 (95% CI 0.99-1.0). The geometric relationship of cHH to the glenoid circle reference was plotted for each group. CONCLUSION: A geometric relationship exists of the humeral head in reference to the glenoid circle. Together, the HDA and the VDA distinguish between a normal shoulder and those with GHOA or CTA. This suggests that this novel methodology may provide a preoperative planning tool that is easily accessible.

Revision for instability following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: outcomes and risk factors for failure.

BACKGROUND: Revision of unstable reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is significantly challenging, with recurrence rates ranging from 20% to 40%. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with recurrent instability. The factors studied included (1) indication for revision RSA (failed primary RSA vs. failed revision RSA), (2) previous attempt at stabilization, (3) mechanism of instability, (4) clinical history of instability, and (5) surgical technique. Outcomes were reported in patients with 2-year follow-up. METHODS: All patients undergoing RSA for instability at our institution were identified. A total of 43 surgical procedures in 36 patients were included. Arthroplasty indication prior to instability (14 failed primary RSAs vs. 22 failed revision RSAs), instances of prior attempts at stabilization (14 patients treated at outside institution), mechanism-of-instability classification, clinical history of instability (17 recurrent and 26 chronic cases), and surgical technique were collected. Stability at final follow-up (minimum, 12 months) and clinical outcomes at 2-year follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 32 of 36 patients (89%) required 38 revisions to achieve stability at final follow-up (mean, 53 ± 47 months; range, 12-210 months). On comparison of stability by indication, stability was achieved in 13 of 14 patients (93%) in the failed primary group (mean, 65 ± 59 months; range, 12-210 months) compared with 19 of 22 (86%) in the failed revision group (mean, 45 ± 36 months; range, 12-148 months; P = .365). The average number of procedures per patient was 3 (range, 2-10) in the failed primary group vs. 4.5 (range, 3-7) in the failed revision group (P = .008). Stability was achieved in 12 of 14 patients (86%) with a history of failed stabilization procedures. The most common mechanism leading to persistent instability was loss of compression. Stability was achieved in 14 of 16 patients treated for recurrent instability compared with 18 of 20 treated for chronically locked dislocation (P = .813). Continued instability occurred in 33% of patients who underwent glenoid side-only management, 33% who underwent humeral side-only management, and 10% who underwent bipolar revision tactics. At 2-year follow-up, stability was achieved in 18 of 21 patients, with improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and the Simple Shoulder Test score (P = .016, P < .01, P = .01, P < .01, and P = .247, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent multiple revisions after failed previous arthroplasty will require more surgical attempts to achieve stability compared with patients who underwent a revision after failed primary RSA. Loss of compression was the most common mechanism of persistent instability. Stabilization was more reliably achieved in cases of recurrent instability than in cases of chronically locked dislocation. Continued instability was noted in one-third of patients who underwent humeral side-only or glenoid side-only revisions and in 10% of those who underwent bipolar revisions. Patients in whom stabilization was successful had improved clinical outcomes.

Does improved external rotation following reverse shoulder arthroplasty impact clinical outcomes in patients with rotator cuff pathology and external rotation less than 0°?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate whether improved external rotation (ER) in patients with preoperative ER <0° impacts their clinical outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for rotator cuff (RC) pathology and (2) describe the differences in preoperative factors and postoperative outcomes in this patient population. Our hypothesis was that clinical outcomes would not be affected by improvement in ER using a lateralized glenosphere design. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 55 patients with preoperative ER <0° who underwent primary RSA for RC pathology with lateralized glenosphere. Pre- and postoperative physician-reported ER was blindly measured using a videographic review of patients externally rotating their arm at the side. Patients were evaluated using 5 different patient-reported outcome score thresholds, measured at 12 months postoperatively: (1) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores (ie, ≥20-point increase); (2) MCID for Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores (≥2.4-point increase); (3) visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score >0; (4) mean ASES score (≥75); and (5) mean SST score (≥6.8), each of which was used to stratify the patients into 2 groups-greater than or equal to vs. less than the threshold. This resulted in 5 different evaluations comparing the 2 groups for any difference in postoperative ER or preoperative factors, including Hamada and Goutallier scores. RESULTS: Regardless of the measured outcome, there was no difference in either postoperative physician- or patient-reported ER between patients who achieved scores higher or lower than the thresholds. Both Hamada and Goutallier score distributions were not different between groups across all the evaluated outcomes. Patients who achieved the MCID for ASES had worse preoperative VAS pain (7 vs. 4, P = .011) and SST (1 vs. 3, P = .020) scores. Across all outcome thresholds, except MCID for SST, pain reduction (ΔVAS) was significantly more pronounced in patients exceeding the thresholds. Improved forward flexion rather than ER was observed in those who achieved the ASES (160° vs. 80°, P = .020) and SST MCIDs (150° vs. 90°, P = .037). Finally, patients who exceeded the thresholds experienced higher satisfaction rates. CONCLUSION: Improvement in ER does not appear to impact patient-reported outcome measures, including ASES and SST in patients with preoperative ER <0° undergoing RSA with a lateralized glenosphere. Patients with more severe pain and worse function at baseline experience less postoperative pain and clinically significant improvement in their reported outcomes.

Improved mechanical fixation of an all-polyethylene glenoid reduces postoperative radiolucent lines.

BACKGROUND: The rationale for advances in implant design is to improve performance in comparison to their predecessors. The purpose of this study was to compare a newer, self-pressurizing peripheral peg glenoid to a traditional polyethylene pegged glenoid through biomechanical evaluation and a retrospective radiographic and clinical review. METHODS: Three testing conditions (uncemented, partially cemented, and fully cemented) were chosen to assess the 2 component designs in a foam block model. The number of hammer hits to seat the component, amount of time to seat the component, and resistance-to-seat were collected. The implants were then cyclically loaded following ASTM F2028-17 testing standard. Clinically, postoperative radiographs of patients with a self-pressurized glenoid component (n = 225 patients) and traditional glenoid component (n = 206 patients) were evaluated for radiolucent lines and glenoid seating at various timepoints. Clinical outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale pain scores) and complications were recorded. The presence of radiolucent lines at the bone-cement interface was evaluated using the Modified Franklin Grade and the Lazarus grade. RESULTS: The self-pressurizing glenoid design required significantly more hammer hits than traditional glenoid designs in all groups tested (P < .029). Moreover, the self-pressurizing design had significantly more resistance-to-seat than traditional components in both the uncemented and partially cemented group (P < .002). No difference in resistance-to-seat was found between designs in the fully cemented group. The uncemented and partially cemented groups did not survive the full 50,000 cycles; however the self-pressurizing design had significantly less motion than the traditional design (P < .001). No differences between component designs were found in the fully cemented group at 50,000 cycles. The self-pressurizing glenoid component had 0.005% radiographic radiolucent lines, and the traditional glenoid component had 45% radiographic radiolucent lines, with 38% of the radiolucencies in the traditional glenoid component group being defined as grade E. There were no progressive radiolucencies, differences in clinical outcomes, or complications at 2 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: In the fully cemented condition, the 2 component designs had comparable performance; however, the differences in designs could be better observed in the uncemented group. The self-pressurizing all-polyethylene design studied has superior biomechanical stability. Clinically, the improved stability of the glenoid component correlated with a reduction of radiolucent lines and will likely lead to a reduction in glenoid component loosening.

Identifying areas of screw fixation in glenoids with severe bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Severe glenoid bone loss (SGBL) poses significant technical challenges. Adequate fixation of glenoid implants may require the use of alternative screw placement. Although bone volumes for the spine and lateral pillars have previously been defined, insufficient evidence exists regarding the distribution of screw placement for fixation in such regions for cases with SGBL. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the variability of screw placement. We hypothesize that determining this variability and establishing common patterns of glenoid bone loss will allow for recommendations for preoperative planning, and implant design and selection. METHODS: An internal registry of 2 high-volume shoulder and elbow surgeons was queried, and 65 three-dimensional scapulae models exhibiting SGBL were identified. A fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeon simulated the placement of two 3.5 mm × 30 mm screws, one in the scapular spine (CS) bone volume and one in the inferior column (IS) bone volume. Three orthogonal reference planes were created using anatomic reference points: the scapula trigonum, estimated glenoid center, and inferior pole. Screw positions were mapped, and deviations from the reference planes were calculated. Mutual positions of the IS to CS were also computed. Intraobserver reliability was assessed using 10 randomly selected samples. Median and 25th and 75th percentiles were reported for screw orientation distributions. Means and standard deviations were reported for screw head positions. RESULTS: We demonstrated excellent intraobserver reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.90-0.98). Fifty percent of CS were oriented 10° ± 5° of retroversion from the scapula plane, with 5° ± 5° of inclination. For IS, 50% were positioned 0° ± 4° from the scapula plane, with -33° ± 7° of inclination. The relationship of the IS with the CS was medial and posterior in 49% of cases, lateral and posterior in 45%, and lateral and anterior in 6% of cases. On average, the distance between the CS and IS heads was 25 mm ± 4 mm. DISCUSSION: For SGBL, adequate fixation of glenoid implants can be achieved by placing screws in the spine and lateral columns, with excellent reproducibility. Future implant designs should accommodate CS positioned -16° to -5° from the scapula plane, with 0° to 12° of inclination, and IS positioned -6° to 4° from the scapula plane, with -40° to -25° of inclination. Moreover, mutual screw positions suggested bone loss distributions anteriorly and inferiorly. Future implant designs should consider the potential benefits of augmentation to accommodate interscrew distances of 21-29 mm and anatomic locations of the IS relative to the CS.

Acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty: the role of the acromial morphology and a comparison of clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose was to evaluate the relationship between acromial morphology and the location of acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty and determine whether fracture location and displacement impact clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective review of reverse shoulder arthroplasties complicated by acromial fractures. Radiographs were compared to determine the differences in acromial morphology, as well as fracture orientation and pattern, between patients with Levy type I (n = 17) and Levy type II (n = 25) fractures. Patients with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up were selected to examine the association between clinical outcomes and fracture location and displacement. Twenty-two patients were stratified based on whether they achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (20 points). The groups were then compared regarding fracture location and displacement using measurements such as the acromiohumeral distance. RESULTS: The Levy type I group had a higher acromial slope than the Levy type II group (127° vs. 117°, P < .001). Levy type I fractures had a transverse pattern occurring in the coronal plane, whereas Levy type II fractures had an oblique pattern occurring in the sagittal plane (P < .001). At final follow-up, 12 of 22 patients (55%) achieved the MCID. Those who did not achieve the MCID had more displaced fractures including a lower acromiohumeral distance (8 mm vs. 20 mm, P = .007). There was no difference in the distribution of Levy type I and type II fractures based on the MCID cutoff (P = .093). CONCLUSION: An increased acromial slope is associated with transverse fractures in the Levy I region, whereas a lower acromial slope is associated with oblique fractures in the Levy II region. Overall, 55% of patients achieved the MCID at mid-term follow-up. The outcomes of those who did not achieve the MCID became worse postoperatively, and this was associated with increased fracture displacement.

A Weaving Rip-Stop Technique Leads to a Significantly Increased Load to Failure and Reduction in Suture-Tendon Cut-Through in a Biomechanical Model of Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To present an alternative arthroscopic rip-stop technique with a single suture tape weaved through the tendon from anterior to posterior and to biomechanically test its strength against a control technique consisting of a single-row repair with simple sutures. METHODS: This was a controlled biomechanical study. Dissection and harvesting of the supraspinatus muscle-tendon unit were performed along the cable in 9 matched-pair cadaveric shoulders. Samples were divided into 2 groups: simple suture repair only (SSR) and simple suture repair with rip-stop (SSPR). Biomechanical testing was performed with an initial preload, followed by cyclic loading and then ramp to failure. Peak-to-peak displacement, stiffness (in newtons per millimeter), load at failure (in newtons), and failure mechanism were recorded. Data were compared using the paired-sample t test. RESULTS: The average peak-to-peak displacement for SSR samples was not significantly different from that of SSPR samples (P = .96). Similarly, elongation in the SSR and SSPR groups was not significantly different (P = .82). Stiffness was significantly different between the SSR and SSPR groups (P = .0054): SSR samples were less stiff than SSPR samples. Moreover, SSR samples failed at significantly lower forces than did SSPR samples (P = .028). A larger percentage of failures occurred due to tendon cut-through among SSR samples versus suture breakage among SSPR samples. CONCLUSIONS: An alternative rip-stop technique is presented in this biomechanical model that may assist surgeons to better deal with difficult rotator cuff repairs. Weaving a suture tape as a rip-stop can increase stiffness, achieve higher failure loads when compared with simple suture repair with no rip-stop, and reduce tendon cut-through. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides insight into a variation of rip-stop stitch techniques that may help solve the clinical problem of failure occurring at the suture-tendon interface, specifically tendon cut-through.

Machine Learning Can Predict Level of Improvement in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

The ability to accurately predict postoperative outcomes is of considerable interest in the field of orthopaedic surgery. Machine learning has been used as a form of predictive modeling in multiple health-care settings. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether machine learning algorithms using preoperative data can predict improvement in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores for patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) at a minimum of 2 years after shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study that included 472 patients (472 shoulders) diagnosed with primary glenohumeral OA (mean age, 68 years; 56% male) treated with shoulder arthroplasty (431 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and 41 reverse total shoulder arthroplasty). Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were used to classify patients on the basis of glenoid and rotator cuff morphology. Preoperative and final postoperative ASES scores were used to assess the level of improvement. Patients were separated into 3 improvement ranges of approximately equal size. Machine learning methods that related patterns of these variables to outcome ranges were employed. Three modeling approaches were compared: a model with the use of all baseline variables (Model 1), a model omitting morphological variables (Model 2), and a model omitting ASES variables (Model 3). RESULTS: Improvement ranges of ≤28 points (class A), 29 to 55 points (class B), and >55 points (class C) were established. Using all follow-up time intervals, Model 1 gave the most accurate predictions, with probability values of 0.94, 0.95, and 0.94 for classes A, B, and C, respectively. This was followed by Model 2 (0.93, 0.80, and 0.73) and Model 3 (0.77, 0.72, and 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning can accurately predict the level of improvement after shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral OA. This may allow physicians to improve patient satisfaction by better managing expectations. These predictions were most accurate when latent variables were combined with morphological variables, suggesting that both patients' perceptions and structural pathology are critical to optimizing outcomes in shoulder arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Consensus statement on the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears: a Delphi approach by the Neer Circle of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Management of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCTs) remains controversial owing to variability in patient features and outcomes contributing to a lack of unanimity in treatment recommendations. The purpose of this study was to implement the Delphi process using experts from the Neer Circle of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons to determine areas of consensus regarding treatment options for a variety of MIRCTs. METHODS: A panel of 120 shoulder surgeons were sent a survey regarding MIRCT treatments including arthroscopic débridement and partial cuff repair, graft augmentation, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), and tendon transfer. An iterative Delphi process was then conducted with a first-round questionnaire consisting of 13 patient factors with the option for open-ended responses to identify important features influencing the treatment of MIRCTs. The second-round survey sought to determine the importance of patient factors related to the 6 included treatment options. A third-round survey asked participants to classify treatment options for 60 MIRCT patient scenarios as either preferred treatment, acceptable treatment, not acceptable/contraindicated, or unsure/no opinion. Patient scenarios were declared to achieve consensus for the preferred and not acceptable/contraindicated categories when at least 80% of the survey respondents agreed on a response, and a 90% threshold was required for the acceptable treatment category, defined by an acceptable treatment or preferred treatment response. RESULTS: Seventy-two members agreed to participate and were deemed to have the requisite expertise to contribute based on their survey responses regarding clinical practice and patient volume. There were 20 clinical scenarios that reached 90% consensus as an acceptable treatment, with RSA selected for 18 scenarios and arthroscopic débridement and/or partial repair selected for 2. RSA was selected as the singular preferred treatment option in 8 scenarios. Not acceptable/contraindicated treatment options reached consensus in 8 scenarios, of which, 4 related to SCR, 3 related to RSA, and 1 related to partial repair with graft augmentation. CONCLUSION: This Delphi process exhibited significant consensus regarding RSA as a preferred treatment strategy in older patients with pseudoparesis, an irreparable subscapularis, and dynamic instability. In addition, the process identified certain unacceptable treatments for MIRCTs such as SCR in older patients with pseudoparesis and an irreparable subscapularis or RSA in young patients with an intact or reparable subscapularis without pseudoparesis or dynamic instability. The publication of these scenarios and areas of consensus may serve as a useful guide for practitioners in the management of MIRCTs.

The subscapularis-sparing windowed anterior technique for total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) involves detaching the subscapularis tendon through either tenotomy or lesser tuberosity osteotomy. A subscapularis-sparing approach avoids detachment but may make re-creation of the anatomy more difficult because of limited exposure. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the ability to re-create the proximal humeral geometry and assess for osteophyte removal with this technique. The secondary aim was to assess for complications or an inability to complete the procedure with this technique. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of 47 patients (100% with osteoarthritis; 59% Walch type A and 41% Walch type B; 50% male and 50% female patients; and average body mass index, 28.21 ± 4.6) who underwent the subscapularis-sparing windowed anterior technique for TSA. The ability to reconstruct the proximal humeral geometry and remove the inferior osteophytes was assessed by 2 independent observers using the center-of-rotation difference (ΔCOR) between the native and prosthetic humeral heads. The ability to complete the procedure was recorded, and a chart review was performed to assess for complications. RESULTS: The procedure was successfully completed in 44 of the 47 patients. Radiographic review demonstrated an average ΔCOR of 2.28 mm (range, 0.2-6.05 mm; intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.971), below the previously reported acceptable ΔCOR of 3 mm. The ΔCOR was >3 mm in 31.8% of patients (14 of 44; 8 Walch type A and 6 Walch type B; 9 male and 5 female patients). There was no difference in ΔCOR based on Walch type (P = .824). Male patients on average showed a higher ΔCOR (2.62 mm) than female patients (1.94 mm) (P = .099) and more commonly had a ΔCOR > 3 mm (P = .195). Body mass index was not significantly correlated with ΔCOR (r = 0.077, P = .619). For all cases in which the ΔCOR was >3 mm, the prosthetic humeral head was undersized. Osteophytes were successfully removed in 75% of cases (33 of 44) and had no effect on average ΔCOR (P = .468). No revisions or mechanical failures in the early postoperative period were identified in the treatment group of 44 patients (range, 3-15 months). In the group with unsuccessful treatment, there was 1 case of infection treated with 1-stage revision reverse TSA. DISCUSSION: The subscapularis-sparing windowed anterior technique is an effective approach to TSA that allows for early unrestricted motion. Over 90% of cases can be completed using this technique. Radiographic analysis demonstrated that this approach can be used successfully without compromising anatomic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. Further study is necessary to identify patient factors that would favor a traditional deltopectoral approach and to assess the functional outcomes of this technique.

Influence of preoperative factors on timing for bilateral shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: In bilateral shoulder arthroplasty patients, it is unclear what features are responsible for the timing of their contralateral shoulder arthroplasty. This study hypothesized that patient factors (age, gender, and hand dominance), disease factors (diagnosis and radiographic severity of contralateral shoulder), and surgical factors (type of arthroplasty) impact the timing to contralateral surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of 332 patients treated with bilateral anatomic (TSA) or reverse (RSA) shoulder arthroplasty (172 TSA/TSA, 107 RSA/RSA, or 53 TSA/RSA) were divided into groups depending on the interval timing between arthroplasty surgeries: group 1, n = 142 (≤1 year); group 2, n = 62 (1-2 years); and group 3, n = 128 (≥2 years). Preoperative factors were analyzed to determine associations between different time groups, including age, gender, hand dominance, diagnosis, radiographic severity of contralateral shoulder, and type of surgery. Bilateral diagnoses included 211 osteoarthritis (OA), 36 cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), 13 inflammatory arthritis, 12 massive cuff tears without OA, and 4 avascular necrosis. RESULTS: OA patients had their contralateral shoulder arthroplasty sooner than CTA patients (P = .035). OA patients with arthritic changes on contralateral radiographs before the first arthroplasty had their contralateral arthroplasty sooner than those without contralateral radiographs (P < .0001). Patients who had TSA first had their contralateral arthroplasty sooner than patients who had RSA first (P = .037). DISCUSSION: This study confirmed our hypothesis identifying preoperative variables associated with different time intervals between arthroplasties. The preoperative factors associated with the highest likelihood of having contralateral shoulder arthroplasty within 1 year included OA, radiographic bilateral shoulder disease, and TSA for the first surgery.

Comparing patient-reported outcome measures and physical examination for internal rotation in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty: does surgery alter patients' perception of function?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how patients treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) achieve internal rotation (IR) using video assessment and to compare this to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We reviewed 215 preoperative and 657 postoperative videos (3-78 months) for 215 patients who underwent primary RSA, performing IR using the modified vertebral level method. Their functional motion pattern was then grouped into 3 types: type I, could not reach behind their back; type II, able to reach to at least waist level, with assistance; and type III, able to reach to a minimum of waist level in an uninterrupted fashion. Patients completed functional questions (put on a coat, wash back, tuck in a shirt, and manage toileting) and a diagram of perceived IR. Patients' functional motion types were compared to PROM answers. Pre- and postoperative scores were also compared to assess the effect of surgery on patients' perception of IR function. RESULTS: Patients undergoing RSA will achieve IR in 3 distinct motion patterns. Analysis of self-reported IR indicated statistically significant difference between the 3 functional types of IR (P < .001). Patient-perceived IR was not significantly different between the 3 studied IR functional types (P = .076) in the analysis of preoperative measures but was significantly different in the postoperative setting (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients attempt IR in 3 distinct functional motion patterns. The improvement of IR after RSA is measured better by patient questionnaires than by physical examination.

A cohort comparison of humeral implant designs in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: does implant design lead to lower rates of complications and revision?

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes, revisions, and complications between a first-generation cemented modular humeral implant and a second-generation monolithic, primarily uncemented humeral implant in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with 135° neck-shaft angle and varying degrees of metallic glenosphere offsets. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from 2004 to 2014 with a first-generation cemented modular humeral implant (400 patients) or second-generation monolithic humeral stem (231 patients), who had at minimum 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up. RESULTS: Both groups of patients had similar improvement of clinical outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons +30 points vs. +34 points, respectively) with improvements in all planes of motion (forward flexion +70° vs. +75°, abduction +61° vs. +71°, external rotation +23° vs. +22°, and internal rotation +1.6 vs. +1.5 level improvement, respectively). The incidence of humeral loosening for the cemented group was 3.6%, whereas in the uncemented group it was 0.4% (P = .01). A total of 28 shoulders treated with the cementing technique (4.0%) and 6 patients treated with the press-fit technique (1.5%) were revised (P = .028). The rate of postoperative acromial fractures within the first year was 3.4% in the cemented group and 1.8% in the uncemented group (P = .177). CONCLUSIONS: Both the first-generation cemented modular humeral stem implant and the second-generation monolithic humeral stem implant had equivalent clinical outcomes. In addition, with the monolithic stem primarily using press-fit fixation, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of radiographic loosening and the need for revision compared with a cemented stem.

The effect of glenoid bone loss and rotator cuff status in failed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty after revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

HYPOTHESIS: We evaluated outcomes and the risk of re-revision in patients with a failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) based on rotator cuff deficiency and glenoid bone loss. METHODS: From 2004 to 2017, 123 patients with failed TSAs underwent revision to RSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up. Preoperative radiographs were evaluated to determine whether the glenoid component was fixed or loose. The rotator cuff was assessed intraoperatively and as intact or deficient. Patient outcomes including shoulder motion and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively. Patient outcomes were compared based on glenoid fixation and rotator cuff status. There were 18 TSAs revised to RSAs that underwent subsequent revision. RESULTS: The mean preoperative ASES score was 31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 29-33) with no difference in preoperative ASES scores based on glenoid status (P = .412) or rotator cuff status (P = .89). No difference in postoperative ASES score was found based on glenoid component status or rotator cuff status. However, improvement in the ASES score was greater with an intact rotator cuff (mean postoperative score, 67 [95% CI, 57-76] vs. 55 [95% CI, 50-60]; P = .025). The overall re-revision rate was 11.4%, with a mean time to re-revision of 22 months (range, 0-89 months). The odds ratio was 1.786 for subsequent revision in patients with glenoid loosening compared with those without loose glenoids on preoperative radiographs. CONCLUSION: There was an overall improvement in patient outcomes for failed TSAs revised to RSAs; however, patients with an intact cuff had a greater improvement in ASES scores.

Optimizing humeral stem fixation in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty with the cement-within-cement technique.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to report on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) by the cement-within-cement technique, as well as to identify whether surgical technique can affect subsequent humeral loosening. METHODS: In 98 patients, cemented humeral components that were revised to RSA using the cement-within-cement technique were identified and included in this study. We compared 8 patients in whom humeral stem loosening developed with 90 patients whose stem remained fixed. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs of each patient were downloaded in DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) format and analyzed in Mimics. The total area of the cement mantle (in square millimeters) and of the stem (in square millimeters), as visualized on 2-dimensional plain films, was measured in each subject on both preoperative and postoperative radiographs. Outcomes at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were available in 57 patients, with a mean follow-up period of 54 months (range, 21-156 months). Patients demonstrated significantly improved functional outcome scores and shoulder range of motion. In the group without loosening, the mean increase in the cement mantle area was 4380 ± 12701 mm2 (P < .0001). In the group with loosening, the mean increase in the cement mantle area was only 811 ± 4014 mm2 (P = .484). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the cement-within-cement technique for fixation of the humeral component in revision RSA is effective in improving functional outcome scores and shoulder range of motion. Furthermore, these findings suggest that efforts to maximize the cement volume during reimplantation may lessen the chance of humeral stem loosening requiring additional revision.

Tips and Tricks for Common, Yet Difficult Osteopenic Fractures in the Community.

Owing to advances in medicine, the number of elderly patients is growing, concurrently leading to an increasing incidence in osteopenic fractures that often require surgical management. Some of the most common anatomic areas include the proximal humerus, the distal humerus, femoral neck fractures, and periprosthetic fractures around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Here, surgical strategies for these challenging clinical scenarios are reviewed, offering poignant tips and tricks to avoid pitfalls and complications.

Acute surgical management of proximal humerus fractures: ORIF vs. hemiarthroplasty vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fracture treatment varies by surgeon preference and patient factors. This study compares patient and fracture characteristics, with outcomes between current surgical treatment options. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2018, 425 proximal humerus fractures underwent acute surgical management: open reduction internal fixation (ORIF, n = 211), hemiarthroplasty (HA, n = 108), or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA, n = 106). Patient and fracture characteristics included age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA), and fracture classification. Postoperative motion at 3, 6, and minimum 12 months (avg 20 ± 21 months), radiographic outcomes, and postoperative falls were analyzed. RESULTS: Average age for treatment groups was 65 ± 13 years (range: 18-93 years). Fractures were classified as 2- (11%), 3- (41%), or 4-part (48%). Age, ASA, and fracture classification were associated with selected surgical management (P < .0001, =.001, <.0001, respectively). Outcomes showed a significant improvement in forward flexion from 3 months to 6 months in all groups (P < .0001). No difference in final motion was seen between groups. Radiographic union was higher in ORIF (89%), and similar between HA (79%) and RSA (77%, P = .005). Rate of reoperation was RSA 6.6%, ORIF 17.5%, and hemiarthroplasty 15.7% (P = .029). Postoperatively, 23% patients had at least 1 fall, of which 73% resulted in fractures. CONCLUSION: Older patients with high ASA were treated with arthroplasty, and younger patients with lower ASA were treated with ORIF. All groups showed improvements in motion. At minimum 1 year of follow-up, there was no difference in motion between groups. ORIF and HA showed significantly more reoperations compared with RSA. Patients should be counseled about reoperation, fall risk, and prevention.

Defining the younger patient: age as a predictive factor for outcomes in shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to define an age cutoff at which clinical outcomes and revision rates differ for patients undergoing primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 1250 primary shoulder arthroplasties (1131 patients) with minimum 2-year clinical follow-up (mean, 50 months [range, 24-146 months]). TSA (n = 518; mean age, 68.1 years [range, 28-90 years]) was performed for osteoarthritis in most cases (99%), whereas the primary diagnoses for RSA (n = 732; mean age, 70.8 years [range, 22-91 years]) included rotator cuff arthropathy (35%), massive cuff tear without osteoarthritis (29.8%), and osteoarthritis (20.5%). Outcomes included range of motion, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the revision rate. The relationship between age at the time of surgery in 5-year increments (46-50 years, 51-55 years, and so on) and the revision rate was examined to identify the age cutoff; this was then used to assess clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In patients younger than 65 years, TSA was associated with a 3.4-fold increased risk of revision (P = .01). RSA performed in patients younger than 60 years was associated with a 4.8-fold increased risk of revision (P < .001). TSA patients aged 65 years or older and RSA patients aged 60 years or older had better total ASES scores (82 vs. 77 [P = .03] and 72 vs. 62 [P = .002], respectively) and better internal rotation (interquartile range, TSA 5-6 vs. 4-5 [P = .002] and RSA 4-5 vs 3-4 [P = .04])-where 6 represents T4 to T6 and 4 represents T11 to L1-than their younger counterparts. CONCLUSION: Age at index arthroplasty affects outcomes and the risk of revision. Primary TSA patients younger than 65 years and RSA patients younger than 60 years have a significantly increased revision risk. These age cutoffs are also correlated with differences in ASES scores and internal rotation.

Does the etiology of a failed hemiarthroplasty affect outcomes when revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to evaluate patient outcomes after revision of hemiarthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) based on initial pathology, to determine the re-revision rate, and to identify characteristics that may predict subsequent re-revision. METHODS: A total of 207 shoulder hemiarthroplasty, bipolar prosthesis, and humeral resurfacing cases revised to RSA between January 2004 and January 2017 were reviewed. Outcome measures included shoulder motion and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores. Sixteen RSAs underwent re-revision. A case-control study with each revised RSA matched to 4 controls based on age, sex, and minimum 2-year follow-up was performed to evaluate for factors predicting re-revision. RESULTS: The mean time from initial hemiarthroplasty to RSA was 3.6 years (range, 0.1-20 years). There were 114 patients with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up (mean, 57 months; range, 24-144 months). The most common initial diagnoses for hemiarthroplasty were fracture (n = 72), cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (n = 22), and osteoarthritis (OA) (n = 20). Overall mean scores and range-of-motion values were as follows: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 54-64); SST score, 4 (95% CI, 4-5); forward flexion, 106° (95% CI, 96°-116°); and abduction, 95° (95% CI, 85°-105°). Compared with fracture cases, CTA cases had better forward flexion (P = .01) and abduction (P = .006) and OA cases had better SST scores (P = .02) and abduction (P = .04). The re-revision rate was 7.7% at a mean of 31 months (range, 0-116 months), with the most common diagnosis being fracture (10 of 16 cases). Humeral loosening (8 of 16 cases) was the most common failure mechanism, and larger glenosphere sizes were more likely to be revised. CONCLUSION: Functional outcome scores of hemiarthroplasty cases revised to RSA were better for patients with OA than for patients with CTA or fracture. Cases of hemiarthroplasty for fracture had decreased motion after revision to RSA compared with CTA and OA. Humeral loosening was the most common failure mechanism.

Is there a relationship between preoperative diagnosis and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? An experience in 699 shoulders.

BACKGROUND: The influence of diagnosis on outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is not completely understood. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of different pathologies. METHODS: A total of 699 RSAs were performed for the following diagnoses: (1) rotator cuff tear arthropathy (RCA), (2) massive cuff tear (MCT) with osteoarthritis (OA), (3) MCT without OA, (4) OA, (5) acute proximal humeral fracture, (6) malunion, (7) nonunion, and (8) inflammatory arthropathy. All patients had minimum 2-year clinical follow-up (mean, 47 months; range, 24-155 months). Range of motion, Simple Shoulder Test scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, visual analog scale scores for function, and health-related quality-of-life measures were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: The RCA, MCT-with-OA, MCT-without-OA, and OA groups all exhibited significant improvements in all outcome scores and in all planes of motion from preoperatively until a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. The malunion, nonunion, and inflammatory arthropathy groups showed improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, Simple Shoulder Test scores, forward flexion, and abduction. The average changes for all other outcomes and planes of motions were also positive but did not reach statistical significance. After adjustment for age and compared with RCA, female patients with malunion had significantly poorer forward flexion (P < .05), those with OA had significantly better abduction (P < .05), and those with fractures had significantly worse patient satisfaction (P < .05). Among male patients, those with MCTs without OA had significantly worse satisfaction (P < .05). CONCLUSION: RSA reliably provides improvement regardless of preoperative diagnosis. Although subtle differences exist between male and female patients, improvements in clinical outcome scores were apparent after RSA.