Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.

BACKGROUND: When patients require reoperation after primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Furthermore, although the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit are commonly used to assess clinically relevant success, these metrics are limited by ceiling effects that may cause inaccurate estimates of patient success. Our purpose was to define the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement (MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI) for commonly used pain and functional outcome scores after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients who underwent first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcome scores included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), raw and normalized Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores. We used an anchor-based method to calculate the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI. In addition, we calculated the MCI-%MPI using a distribution-based method for historical comparison. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed. The influence of sex, type of primary shoulder arthroplasty, and reason for revision rTSA were also assessed by calculating cohort-specific thresholds. RESULTS: Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 67 years; 56% were female, and the average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n = 47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n = 21), rTSA (n = 15), and humeral head resurfacing (n = 10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n = 24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n = 23) and subluxation and unexplained pain (n = 11 for both). The anchor-based MCI-%MPI thresholds (% of patients achieving) were ASES = 33% (49%), raw Constant = 23% (64%), normalized Constant = 30% (61%), UCLA = 51% (53%), SST = 26% (68%), and SPADI = 29% (58%). The anchor-based SCI-%MPI thresholds (% of patients achieving) were ASES = 55% (31%), raw Constant = 41% (27%), normalized Constant = 52% (22%), UCLA = 66% (37%), SST = 74% (25%), and SPADI = 49% (34%). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to establish thresholds for the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI at minimum 2 years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state.

BACKGROUND: When patients require revision of primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Our purpose was to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for outcome scores and range of motion (ROM) after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcomes scores included the ASES, raw and normalized Constant, SPADI, SST, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores. ROM measures included abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR) score. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate the MCID, SCB, and PASS. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n = 47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n = 21), rTSA (n = 15), and resurfacing (n = 10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n = 24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n = 23), subluxation and unexplained pain (n = 11 for both). The anchor-based MCID thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 20.1 (42%); normalized Constant, 12.6 (80%); UCLA, 10.2 (54%); SST, 0.9 (78%); SPADI, -18.4 (58%); abduction, 13° (83%); FE, 18° (82%); ER, 4° (49%); and IR, 0.8 (34%). The SCB thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 34.1 (25%); normalized Constant, 26.6 (43%); UCLA, 14.1 (28%); SST, 3.9 (48%); SPADI, -36.4 (33%); abduction, 20° (77%); FE, 28° (71%); ER, 15° (15%); and IR, 1.0 (29%). The PASS thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 63.5 (53%); normalized Constant, 59.1 (61%); UCLA, 25.4 (48%); SST, 7.0 (55%); SPADI, 42.4 (59%); abduction, 98° (61%); FE, 110° (56%); ER, 19° (73%); and IR, 3.3 (59%). CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes thresholds for the MCID, SCB, and PASS at minimum 2-years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to counsel patients and assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

Outcomes of revision versus re-revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A case-control-matched cohort study.

Background: The increasing incidence of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSA) has led to an increase in revision surgery. We aimed to compare patients undergoing re-revision RTSA to a matched cohort undergoing first-revision RTSA. Methods: A retrospective review of all revision RTSAs was performed at a single institution. Sixteen shoulders that underwent re-revision RTSA were matched 1:3 to shoulders that underwent revision RTSA with a minimum two-year follow-up. Outcome scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores, range of motion (ROM), and improvement from preoperative to postoperative outcomes after re-revision RTSA were assessed. Additionally, postoperative outcomes after re-revision RTSA were compared to patients that underwent first revision RTSA and subsequently compared to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the outcome scores and ROM measurements assessed. Results: Sixteen shoulders that underwent re-revision RTSA and 78 revision RTSAs met the final inclusion criteria to be included in this study. Significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative re-revision RTSA was seen in the ASES score (p = 0.046), SPADI score (p = 0.044), SST (p = 0.008), abduction (p = 0.016), and elevation (p = 0.025), but not the SF-12 score (p = 0.396), external rotation (p = 0.449), or internal rotation (p = 0.451). Outcomes after revision RTSA were found to be superior to outcomes after re-revision RTSA for all outcome scores (ASES p = 0.029, SF-12 p = 0.018, SPADI p = 0.003) except the SST score (p = 0.080) and all ROM measures (p > 0.05 for all). Internal rotation was equivalent postoperatively between both groups. From preoperative to postoperative re-revision RTSA, the mean improvement exceeded the MCID for the SST score, abduction, forward elevation, and external rotation. When comparing postoperative revision RTSA to postoperative re-revision RTSA, the mean difference between revision and re-revision RTSA exceeded the MCID for the SPADI score and external rotation. The complication rate was 19% in shoulders undergoing first revision and 41% in shoulders undergoing re-revision RTSA. Conclusion: Patients undergoing re-revision RTSA receive improvement in clinical outcomes, but do not achieve outcomes comparable to those achieved after first revision RTSA.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Endoscopic Cubital Tunnel Release With At Least 1-Year Postoperative Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to investigate midterm outcomes following endoscopic cubital tunnel release (ECuTR) with the Seg-Way system using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A secondary aim was to evaluate symptom resolution as assessed through Dellon's stage, McGowan's grade, and Messina's criteria and recurrence following ECuTR. METHODS: Functional outcomes were assessed in 38 patients who underwent 43 surgeries. Details on baseline characteristics as well as preoperative and postoperative symptoms were collected. Patient-reported outcome measures were administered with at least 1-year follow-up in all patients. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 50.2 ± 16.1 years, with 20 men (52.6%) and 18 women (47.4%). Postoperatively, pain completely resolved in 21 (72.4%), while sensory and motor deficits improved completely in 22 (56.4%) and 11 (64.7%) patients, respectively. Mean time interval between ECuTR and PROMs was 26.3 (13-63) months. Median Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score was 73.2 (48-91). Median Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores were 12.9 (7-35) and 2.5 (0-5), respectively. Most of the patients were satisfied postoperatively with a median satisfaction score of 4 (3-5). There was a significant difference in median DASH and NRS scores between patients with and without concomitant proximal nerve disease. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic cubital tunnel release is a safe and effective option for surgical management of primary cubital tunnel syndrome. The presence of other proximal nerve disease is associated with poorer outcomes, less symptom resolution, and higher recurrence rates. One-year postoperative PROMs show equivalence to those reported in other studies following open cubital tunnel release.

Direct Observation of a Single Peroneal Myotendinous Unit Anatomic Variant: A Case Report and Systematic Review.

CASE: A 29-year-old woman with acute peroneal tendon subluxation underwent superior retinacular repair. On exposure, a single peroneal myotendinous unit was encountered, as opposed to the usual presence of independent peroneal tendons arising from separate muscle bellies. At 3-year follow-up, she has had no recurrence with full return to activity and no limitations. CONCLUSION: Multiple peroneal myotendinous variants have been described; however, this report is the first to describe direct intraoperative observation of a single peroneal myotendinous unit. Whether this anatomic variant contributed to the patient's problem or has other potential clinical sequelae remains to be elucidated.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: Both anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are being increasingly performed. In the event of a complication necessitating revision, RTSA is more commonly performed in both scenarios. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective single-institution shoulder arthroplasty database. All revision RTSAs performed between 2007 and 2019 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were initially included. After excluding patients with a preoperative diagnosis of infection, an oncologic indication, or incomplete outcomes assessment, we included 45 revision RTSAs performed for failed primary aTSA and 15 for failed primary RTSA. Demographics, surgical characteristics, active range of motion (external rotation [ER], internal rotation, forward elevation [FE], abduction), outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, and University of California, Los Angeles score), and the incidence of postoperative complications was compared between groups. Results: Primary aTSA was most often indicated for degenerative joint disease (82%), whereas primary RTSA was more often indicated for rotator cuff arthropathy (60%). On bivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in any range of motion or clinical outcome measure were found between revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA. On multivariate linear regression analysis, revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA was not found to significantly influence any outcome measure. Humeral loosening as an indication for revision surgery was associated with more favorable outcomes for all four range of motion measures and all five outcome scores assessed. In contrast, an indication for revision of peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with poorer outcomes for three of four range of motion measures (ER, FE, abduction) and four of five outcome scores (Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, University of California, Los Angeles). A preoperative diagnosis of fracture was associated with a poorer postoperative range of motion in ER, FE, and abduction, but was not found to significantly influence any outcome score. However, only two patients in our cohort had this indication. Complication and re-revision rates after revision RTSA for failed primary aTSA and RTSA were 27% and 9% vs. 20% and 14% (P = .487 and P = .515), respectively. Conclusion: Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly differ based on whether aTSA or RTSA was initially performed. However, larger studies are needed to definitively ascertain the influence of the primary construct on the outcomes of revision RTSA.