Clinical and radiographic outcomes of shoulder hemiarthroplasty for patients with glenoid medialization.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty is a difficult problem that is prone to complications because of challenges with achieving glenoid component fixation and stability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of primary shoulder hemiarthroplasty for patients with severe glenoid medialization precluding placement of a glenoid component. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series evaluating patients who underwent shoulder hemiarthroplasty for severe glenoid erosion and medialization between 2010 and 2020. Patients were evaluated via chart review and phone survey to determine if there were any reoperations at final follow-up and to obtain Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were evaluated and compared to determine glenoid morphology, version, medialization, acromiohumeral distance, and humeral offset. Final postoperative films were also evaluated for anterosuperior migration and signs of mechanical failure, including loosening or periprosthetic fracture. RESULTS: Overall, there were 28 patients during this period who underwent shoulder hemiarthroplasty for severe glenoid medialization. Eight patients were deceased at the time of the study, 2 were unable to complete surveys because of dementia, and 7 were lost to follow-up. The final cohort included 11 shoulders and 11 patients with a mean age of 71 ± 7.1 years and mean follow-up of 6.7 years (range 1.6-13.0 years). Mean postoperative SANE, ASES, and SST scores were 80.6 ± 17.6, 71.5 ± 29.3, and 7.6 ± 2.0, respectively. There were no reoperations or revision surgeries at final follow-up. Radiographic evaluation demonstrated severe glenoid medialization and decreased lateral humeral offset, which was unchanged postoperatively. There were 2 patients with signs of anterosuperior migration at final radiographic follow-up but no signs of implant failure. CONCLUSION: Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for severe medial glenoid bone loss provides modest clinical outcomes and low rates of reoperation at mid- to long-term follow-up and is an option worth considering in cases where placement of a glenoid component is challenging because of deficient bone stock and high risk for complications.

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.

Management of proximal humerus bone loss with allograft prosthetic composite technique in shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty is a difficult problem with limited treatment options. It most commonly occurs in the setting of a previously failed shoulder arthroplasty; however, it is occasionally encountered in cases of primary shoulder arthroplasty. Reconstruction of the proximal humerus is essential for soft tissue tension for implant stability and maximizing function. The purpose of this study was to analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of the allograft prosthetic composite (APC) technique for the management of proximal humeral bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent primary or revision shoulder arthroplasty using an APC technique with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty prosthesis for the management of proximal humerus bone loss. Data collected included demographic variables, previous shoulder surgeries, indication for APC, type of allograft utilized, fixation technique, and reoperation and revision rates. Patients were contacted by phone and/or email survey to obtain the latest patient-reported functional outcome scores. RESULTS: We identified 14 patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty using the APC technique with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty prosthesis. One (7.1%) was performed as a primary arthroplasty, and 13 (92.9%) were performed as revision arthroplasties. The indications for APC were instability (21.4%), periprosthetic fracture (21.4%), periprosthetic joint infection (14.3%), humeral component loosening (14.3%), rotator cuff failure (14.3%), fracture sequelae (7.1%), and failed hemiarthroplasty (7.1%). In terms of allograft type, 10 (71.4%) were performed with proximal femur allograft and 4 (28.6%) with proximal humerus allograft. There were 6 patients (42.9%) who sustained postoperative complications, 5 patients (35.7%) had instability, and 1 (7.1%) patient had postoperative wound drainage. All patients with a complication required a revision arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: The APC technique used to address proximal humerus bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty has a high complication rate with fair patient-reported functional outcome scores. Most of the postoperative complications and reoperations are related to implant instability.

Work-related outcomes of revision rotator cuff repair for patients receiving workers' compensation.

BACKGROUND: Workers' compensation (WC) patients are susceptible to poorer outcomes following primary rotator cuff repair (RCR). Failure of structural healing can explain some poor results, and outcomes of revision RCR in this population are unknown. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of individuals receiving WC who underwent arthroscopic revision RCR with or without dermal allograft augmentation at a single institution between January 2010 and April 2021. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were assessed for rotator cuff tear characteristics, Sugaya classification, and Goutallier grade. Postoperative imaging was not routinely obtained unless for continued symptoms or reinjury. Primary outcome measures included return-to-work status, reoperation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) scores. RESULTS: Twenty-seven shoulders (25 patients) were included. The population was 84% male, with a mean age of 54 years; 67% were manual laborers, 11% sedentary workers, and 22% with a mixed profession. Average follow-up was 35.4 months. Fifteen patients (56%) returned to work at full-duty status. Six (22%) returned to work with permanent restrictions. Six (22%) were unable to return to work in any capacity. Thirty percent of all patients and 35% of manual laborers changed occupation following revision RCR. Mean time to return to work was 6.7 months. Overall, symptomatic rotator cuff retear was found in 13 patients (48%). Reoperation rate after revision RCR was 37% (10 cases). Among patients who did not undergo reoperation, mean ASES scores improved from 37.8 to 69.4 at final follow-up (P < .001). Mean SANE scores only improved marginally from 51.6 to 57.0 (P = .61). No statistically significant correlation was found between preoperative MRI findings and outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Workers' compensation patients demonstrated fair improvements in outcome scores after revision RCR. Although some patients are able to return to full duty, nearly half were either unable to return or returned with permanent restrictions. These data are helpful for surgeons when counseling patients about expectations and return to work after revision RCR in this challenging population.

Ambulatory shoulder arthroplasty provides a mild reduction in overall cost compared with inpatient shoulder arthroplasty cost of ambulatory shoulder arthroplasty.

HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative cost difference of inpatient vs. ambulatory total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) procedures. METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed to identify a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary anatomic or reverse TSA at 2 orthopedic specialty hospitals between September 2015 and August 2020. Those undergoing surgery for fracture or revision were excluded. Itemized facility costs were analyzed with a time-driven activity-based costing model and compared between ambulatory and non-ambulatory procedures. Ambulatory patients were defined as those admitted and discharged on the same calendar day. All other patients were considered non-ambulatory. RESULTS: A total of 1027 patients were analyzed, comprising 38 ambulatory patients (3.7%) and 989 non-ambulatory patients (96.3%). There was a higher proportion of anatomic TSA than reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the ambulatory group (81.6% vs. 51.7%, P < .0001). Overall, there was no difference in cost between the 2 groups ($8832 vs. $8841, P = .97). However, personnel costs were greater in the non-same-day group ($1895 vs. $2743, P < .0001) whereas supply costs were less ($6937 vs. $6097, P < .0003). When implant costs were excluded, outpatient shoulder arthroplasty provided a cost savings of $745. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory shoulder arthroplasty provides a mild cost savings of $745 after controlling for fixed costs. This is much less dramatic than previously reported and should raise concern as shoulder arthroplasty continues to be targeted by payers as a potential for cost savings through decreased reimbursement.

Outcomes of instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: reoperation and persistent instability are common.

HYPOTHESIS: Although risk factors for instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been extensively studied, the outcomes of patients who experience instability are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate functional outcomes in patients with instability after RSA. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with instability after RSA with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up from an institutional database. Baseline data were recorded, and all patients we contacted to obtain clinical outcome scores. Patients who required revision surgery and those treated successfully with closed reduction were compared. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included. Of these patients, 40 (80%) required revision surgery whereas 10 (20%) were treated successfully with closed reduction. At an average follow-up of 63.7 months (range, 24-123 months), outcome scores did not differ between groups. Patients who required revision surgery were more likely to have undergone previous shoulder surgery, prior to their index arthroplasty (P = .031). Seventeen patients (42.5%) reported recurrent instability following revision surgery, and 14 (35.0%) required additional revision surgery. Ultimately, stability was never achieved in 7 of 50 patients (14%) after their index instability event. CONCLUSION: Although instability after RSA can commonly be corrected with reasonable functional results, multiple procedures may be needed and some patients may experience persistent instability.

The effect of tranexamic acid for visualization on pump pressure and visualization during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: an anonymized, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been used surgically to decrease blood loss. The ability of TXA to improve arthroscopic visualization and allow for reduction in pump pressure is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of intravenous (IV) TXA on change in pump pressure and visualization during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-anonymized controlled trial. Patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears undergoing operative repair were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive 1 g of IV TXA preoperatively or no TXA (control group). All patients underwent arthroscopy using saline irrigation fluid with 3 mL epinephrine injected into the first 1000-mL saline bag. Total operative time, final pump pressure, number of increases in pump pressure, total amount of irrigation fluid used, blood pressure and anesthesia medical interventions for blood pressure were recorded. Visualization was measured by a visual analog scale (VAS) completed by the surgeon at the end of the case. Postoperative VAS pain scores were obtained 24 hours after surgery. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect that IV TXA has on change in pump pressure (ΔP) during shoulder arthroscopy, with a ΔP of 15 mm Hg set as a threshold for clinical significance. RESULTS: There were 50 patients randomized to the TXA group and 50 patients in the no TXA group. No significant differences were found between the TXA group and the control group regarding any measure of pump pressure, including the final arthroscopic fluid pump pressure (44.5 ± 8.1 mm Hg vs. 42.0 ± 8.08 mm Hg, P = .127), the mean ΔP (20.9 ± 10.5 mm Hg vs. 21.8 ± 8.5 mm Hg, P = .845), or the number of times a change in pump pressure was required (1.7 ± 0.9 vs. 1.7 ± 0.8, P = .915). Overall arthroscopic visualization was not significantly different between the TXA group and the control group (7.2 ± 1.8 vs. 7.4 ± 1.6, P = .464). No significant difference existed between the TXA and control groups regarding postoperative pain scores assessed by VAS pain scale (4.1 ± 2.0 vs. 4.3 ± 1.9, P = .519) at 24 hours after surgery. CONCLUSION: The use of IV TXA demonstrated no measurable improvement in surgeon ability to maintain a lower pump pressure during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Additionally, there was no measurable improvement in arthroscopic visualization or early pain scores.

Fixed- vs. variable-angle humeral neck cut in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Variable neck-shaft angle (NSA) stemmed humeral components have been incorporated into certain implant designs to better re-create normal anatomy in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to determine if premorbid glenohumeral joint anatomy is better restored with a fixed- vs. variable-NSA prosthesis. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed including 50 patients with osteoarthritis indicated for primary anatomic TSA. Patients were randomized preoperatively to receive either a variable- (n = 26) or fixed-NSA (n = 24) prosthesis. Humeral neck cut in the variable-NSA group matched the patient's anatomic neck, with prosthetic NSA of 127.5°, 132.5°, and 137.5° available. Fixed-NSA cuts were made with an intramedullary guide of 132.5°. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were evaluated for specific radiographic anatomic variables: NSA, head thickness, tuberosity-to-head height, head offset, articular arc, greater tuberosity offset, and center of rotation (COR). Postoperative radiographic criteria were compared between groups. RESULTS: No differences were found between groups in demographics or preoperative radiographic measures. When comparing average difference in preoperative and postoperative measurements in the fixed-NSA group, the humeral head offset from the humeral shaft axis significantly decreased by 1.4 mm (P = .046), and the COR moved superiorly (3.0 mm, P = .002) without significant medialization or lateralization. In the variable angle group, humeral head offset decreased but did not reach significance (1.2 mm, P = .091), and the COR also moved superiorly (2.9 mm, P < .001) without significant medialization or lateralization. All remaining radiographic parameters did not significantly change from pre- to postoperative imaging. In comparing the fixed- and variable-NSA groups' net change from the premorbid measurements, no significant differences were found in tuberosity-to-head height, head offset, or COR position in both the horizontal and vertical planes. CONCLUSIONS: Both fixed- and variable-NSA anatomic TSA humeral components demonstrate adequate restoration of premorbid anatomy radiographically.

What was the Prevalence of COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing Orthopaedic Surgery in One Large United States City Mid-pandemic?

BACKGROUND: Many patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are asymptomatic. The prevalence of COVID-19 in orthopaedic populations will vary depending on the time and place where the sampling is performed. The idea that asymptomatic carriers play a role is generalizable but has not been studied in large populations of patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. We therefore evaluated this topic in one large, metropolitan city in a state that had the ninth-most infections in the United States at the time this study was completed (June 2020). This work was based on a screening and testing protocol that required all patients to be tested for COVID-19 preoperatively. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in patients planning to undergo orthopaedic surgery in one major city, in order to provide other surgeons with a framework for assessing COVID-19 rates in their healthcare system? (2) How did patients with positive test results for COVID-19 differ in terms of age, sex, and orthopaedic conditions? (3) What proportion of patients had complications treated, and how many patients had a symptomatic COVID-19 infection within 30 days of surgery (recognizing that some may have been missed and so our estimates of event rates will necessarily underestimate the frequency of this event)? METHODS: All adult patients scheduled for surgery at four facilities (two tertiary care hospitals, one orthopaedic specialty hospital, and one ambulatory surgery center) at a single institution in the Philadelphia metropolitan area from April 27, 2020 to June 12, 2020 were included in this study. A total of 1295 patients were screened for symptoms, exposure, temperature, and oxygen saturation via a standardized protocol before surgical scheduling; 1.5% (19 of 1295) were excluded because they had COVID-19 symptoms, exposure, or recent travel based on the initial screening questionnaire, leaving 98.5% (1276 of 1295) who underwent testing for COVID-19 preoperatively. All 1276 patients who passed the initial screening test underwent nasopharyngeal swabbing for COVID-19 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction before surgery. The mean age at the time of testing was 56 ± 16 years, and 53% (672 of 1276) were men. Eighty-seven percent (1106), 8% (103), and 5% (67) were tested via the Roche, Abbott, and Cepheid assays, respectively. All patients undergoing elective surgery were tested via the Roche assay, while those undergoing nonelective surgery received either the Abbott or Cepheid assay, based on availability. Patients with positive test results undergoing elective surgery had their procedures rescheduled, while patients scheduled for nonelective surgery underwent surgery regardless of their test results. Additionally, we reviewed the records of all patients at 30 days postoperatively for emergency room visits, readmissions, and COVID-19-related complications via electronic medical records and surgeon-reported complications. However, we had no method for definitively determining how many patients had complications, emergency department visits, or readmissions outside our system, so our event rate estimates for these endpoints are necessarily best-case estimates. RESULTS: A total of 0.5% (7 of 1276) of the patients tested positive for COVID-19: five via the Roche assay and two via the Abbott assay. Patients with positive test results were younger than those with negative results (39 ± 12 years versus 56 ± 16 years; p = 0.01). With the numbers available, we found no difference in the proportion of patients with positive test results for COVID-19 based on subspecialty area (examining the lowest and highest point estimates, respectively, we observed: trauma surgery [3%; 2 of 68 patients] versus hip and knee [0.3%; 1 of 401 patients], OR 12 [95% CI 1-135]; p = 0.06). No patients with negative preoperative test results for COVID-19 developed a symptomatic COVID-19 infection within 30 days postoperatively. Within 30 days of surgery, 0.9% (11 of 1276) of the patients presented to the emergency room, and 1.3% (16 of 1276) were readmitted for non-COVID-19-related complications. None of the patients with positive test results for COVID-19 preoperatively experienced complications. However, because some were likely treated outside our healthcare system, the actual percentages may be higher. CONCLUSION: Because younger patients are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of disease, surgeons should emphasize the importance of taking proper precautions to prevent virus exposure preoperatively. Because the rates of COVID-19 infection differ based on city and time, surgeons should monitor the local prevalence of disease to properly advise patients on the risk of COVID-19 exposure. Further investigation is required to assess the prevalence in the orthopaedic population in cities with larger COVID-19 burdens. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Early clinical and radiographic outcomes of an augmented baseplate in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis with glenoid deformity.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid deformity is commonly encountered in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Augmented baseplates can correct glenoid deformity while potentially avoiding certain complications encountered with structural bone graft. Limited evidence exists to support the use of metallic augmented baseplates in RSA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review to identify all patients treated with an augmented baseplate during primary RSA with a minimum of 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up. Preoperative radiographs and advanced imaging were used to determine glenoid morphology and deformity. Postoperative radiographs were used to evaluate for deformity correction, radiographic complications, and early baseplate loosening or failure. Prospectively collected clinical data and patient-reported outcome scores were determined. RESULTS: Primary RSA was performed with an augmented baseplate in 44 patients (mean age, 72 ± 6 years; 15 half-wedge and 29 full-wedge augmentations). Glenoid retroversion was significantly improved for the entire cohort (P = .001). Among the 22 patients with either Walch type B2, B3, or C glenoid morphology, glenoid version improved from 28° ± 8° to 16° ± 8° (P = .001). Glenoid inclination, as determined by the ß angle, was significantly improved for the entire cohort (P < .001). Among the 18 patients with Favard type E2 or E3 glenoid morphology, glenoid inclination improved from 67° ± 7° to 81° ± 8° (P < .001). Postoperative range of motion and functional outcome scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and visual analog scale score for pain significantly improved within the entire cohort (P < .05). No patients had evidence of baseplate loosening or failure of the glenoid component. Acromial stress fractures developed in 5 patients (11.4%), and 2 patients (4.5%) underwent a reoperation unrelated to the glenoid component. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Primary RSA with an augmented baseplate results in excellent short-term clinical outcomes and significant deformity correction in patients with advanced glenoid deformity. There were no complications related to the augmented baseplate or glenoid component. The rate of acromial stress fractures appears higher than typically reported and warrants further investigation.

Early postoperative complications after Latarjet procedure: a single-institution experience over 10 years.

BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure is an effective procedure for the treatment of anterior glenohumeral joint instability; however, the complications are concerning. The purpose of this study was to review a single institution's experience with the Latarjet procedure for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability specifically focusing on early complications. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all Latarjet procedures performed at a single institution from August 2008 to July 2018. The 90-day complication rate and associated risk factors for all complications and graft failure were recorded. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed for coracoid graft position and screw divergence. RESULTS: During the study period, 190 Latarjet procedures were performed with 90-day follow-up. The average age was 28.7 ± 11.3 years, male patients comprised 84.2% of the population, and 62.6% of patients had undergone a prior stabilization procedure. We observed 15 complications, for a 90-day complication rate of 9.0%; of the patients, 8 (4.2%) underwent reoperations. Graft or hardware failure occurred in 9 patients (4.7%) with loosened or broken screws, and 6 required reoperations (revision Latarjet procedure in 4, distal tibia allograft in 1, and iliac crest autograft in 1). Fixation with only 1 screw (P < .001) and an increased screw divergence angle (37° ± 8° vs. 24° ± 11°, P = .0257) were statistically associated with graft failure, whereas the use of cannulated screws (P = .487) was not. There were 6 nerve injuries (3.2%), including 2 combined axillary and suprascapular nerve injuries, 1 musculocutaneous nerve injury, 1 brachial plexopathy, 1 peripheral sensory nerve deficit (likely axillary), and 1 sensory plexopathy. Suprascapular nerve injury at the spinoglenoid notch was associated with a longer superior screw (41.0 ± 1.4 mm vs. 33.5 ± 3.5 mm, P = .035) and increased screw divergence angle (40° ± 6° vs. 24° ± 11°, P = .0197). The coracoid graft was correctly positioned in the axial plane in 71% of cases and in the coronal plane in 73% of cases. CONCLUSION: The Latarjet procedure is a procedure that can reliably restore shoulder stability; however, graft- and nerve-related complications are relatively common. Two-thirds of the graft failures required reoperations, and half of the nerve injuries in this study led to residual symptoms. Fixation with only 1 screw and an increased screw divergence angle were significant predictors of graft failure. Suprascapular nerve injury at the spinoglenoid notch was associated with an increased screw divergence angle and longer superior screw.

Radiographic humeral head restoration after total shoulder arthroplasty: does the stem make a difference?

BACKGROUND: Humeral stem designs for total shoulder arthroplasty have varied over the years, with a recent trend toward shorter stems. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of humeral component stem length on the ability to restore the native humeral head anatomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review including patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis between 2007 and 2017 with complete operative reports and adequate radiographs. Surgical data including stem design were collected. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic measurements of the center of rotation (COR), humeral head height (HH), and neck-shaft angle were performed. Restoration of the native humeral anatomy was deemed "acceptable" based on postoperative differences in the COR ≤ 3 mm, HH ≤ 5 mm, and neck-shaft angle > 130°. Deviations between preoperative and postoperative measurements were compared across stem types. All available 2-year stemless implant radiographs were also analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 261 patients were included, with 31 stemless, 43 short-stem, and 187 standard-stem implants. There was no significant difference in COR restoration in the x-axis direction (P = .060) or y-axis direction (P = .579). There was no significant difference in restoration of acceptable HH by stem type (P = .339). Stemless arthroplasty implants were more likely to be placed in varus (22.6%) compared with short-stem (7.0%) and standard-stem (3.7%) designs (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Restoration of humeral anatomic parameters occurred significantly less with stemless implants than with short- and standard-stem implants. The stem of a shoulder arthroplasty implant aids surgeons in accurately restoring patient-specific anatomy.

Comparing expert opinion within the care team regarding postoperative rehabilitation protocol following rotator cuff repair.

INTRODUCTION: There is no established consensus regarding the optimal rehabilitation protocol following rotator cuff repair, including duration of immobilization, timing to initiate range of motion and resistance exercises, and the importance of supervised, formal therapy. The purpose of this study was to determine agreement in opinion regarding rotator cuff rehabilitation between orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists (PTs). METHODS: A 50-question survey was created on a secure data capture system and distributed via e-mail to members of professional organization affiliations. Surgeon participants were recruited from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and PTs were recruited from the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists and the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association. Survey responses were analyzed for interprofessional differences in majority opinion and distribution of answer choices. RESULTS: A total of 167 surgeons and 667 PTs responded to the survey. Of the 39 questions evaluated, surgeons and PTs reached intraprofessional majority agreement in 26 (67%) and 28 (72%) statements, respectively, with agreements matching in 17 instances and differing in 4. The 2 groups had different answer preferences in 32 questions (82%). PTs were more likely to support shorter immobilization intervals (P < .001), earlier strengthening (P < .001), and more frequent home exercises (P = .002), whereas surgeons endorsed more conservative weight-bearing restrictions (P < .001), time-based phase transitions (P < .001), and web-based technological platforms for rehabilitation (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that although significant discrepancy of opinion exists within professions, greater differences in preferences exist between surgeons and PTs regarding rotator cuff repair rehabilitation.

Cutibacterium acnes: a threat to shoulder surgery or an orthopedic red herring?

Cutibacterium acnes is a lipophilic, anaerobic, gram-positive bacillus that mainly colonizes the pilosebaceous glands of human skin. It has been implicated as the leading cause of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after shoulder arthroplasty. However, PJI caused by C acnes rarely manifests as overt clinical, laboratory, or imaging features. In fact, more than 40% of shoulders undergoing revision arthroplasty are likely to be culture positive. However, rates of infection following a positive culture can be as low as 5%. The purpose of this review was to put forth alternative explanations for this discordance between positive cultures and infection. We describe C acnes roles as a commensal, bystander, and/or contaminant organism; the role of cultures in diagnosis and other methods that may be more accurate; its existence in a shoulder microbiome; and the variable virulence of C acnes. C acnes is an important cause of shoulder PJI in some patients. However, there is a large body of literature that suggests other functions that need to be considered. Further research is needed to define the role of C acnes that is logically explained by all of the literature and not only some.

The role of telehealth as a platform for postoperative visits following rotator cuff repair: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The application of telehealth for surgical follow-up has gained recent exposure in orthopedic care. Although the results following joint arthroplasty are encouraging, the role of telemedicine for postoperative care following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair still needs to be defined. The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and socioeconomic benefits of telehealth as a platform for postoperative follow-up. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 66 patients who underwent follow-up in the office vs. via telemedicine for postoperative visits at 2, 6, and 12 weeks after surgery. Post-visit surveys were administered to patients and physicians via e-mail, and the Student t test and Fisher exact test were used to compare responses. RESULTS: In total, 58 patients (88%) completed the study (28 telehealth vs. 30 control). Patients in each group demonstrated similar pain scores at each follow-up visit (P = .638, P = .124, and P = .951) and similar overall satisfaction scores (P = .304). Patients in the telehealth group expressed a stronger preference for telehealth than their control counterparts (P < .001). Telehealth visits were less time-consuming from both a patient (P < .001) and physician (P = .002) perspective. Telehealth visits also required less time off work for both patients (P = .001) and caregivers (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery were able to receive safe and effective early postoperative follow-up care using telemedicine. The preference for telehealth increased for both surgeons and patients following first-hand experience. The use of a telehealth platform is a reasonable follow-up model to consider for patients seeking convenient and efficient care following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

The effect of an orthopedic specialty hospital on operating room efficiency in shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR) time is a major cost to the health care system. Therefore, increasing OR efficiency to save time may be a cost-saving tool. This study analyzed OR efficiency in shoulder arthroplasty at an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) and a tertiary referral center (TRC). METHODS: All primary shoulder arthroplasties performed at our OSH and TRC were identified (2013-2015). Manually matched cohorts from the OSH and TRC were compared for OR times. Three times (minutes) were recorded: anesthesia preparation time (APT; patient in room to skin incision), surgical time (ST; skin incision to skin closed), conclusion time (CT; skin closed to patient out of room). RESULTS: There were 136 primary shoulder arthroplasties performed at the OSH and matched with 136 at the TRC. OSH and TRC patients were similar in age (P = .95), body mass index (P = .97), Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 1.000), sex (P = 1.000), procedure (P = 1.000), insurance status (P = .714), discharge destination (P = .287), and diagnoses (P = .354). These matched populations had similar ST (OSH: 110.0 ± 26.6 minutes, TRC: 113.4 ± 28.7 minutes; P = .307). APT (39.2 ± 8.0 minutes) and CT (7.6 ± 3.8 minutes) were shorter in the OSH patients than APT (46.3 ± 8.8 minutes; P < .001) and CT (11.2 ± 4.7 minutes; P < .001) in TRC patients. Total nonoperative time (sum of APT and CT) at the OSH (46.8 ± 8.9 minutes) was shorter than at the TRC (57.5 ± 10.4 minutes; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar patient populations and case complexity, the OR efficiency at an OSH was superior to a TRC. Further analysis is needed to determine the financial implications of this superior OR efficiency.

Stemless Prosthesis for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

The fourth generation of humeral components currently are being used in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty implants have evolved to better re-create anatomy, improve fixation, preserve bone, and facilitate revision surgery. Most of the design changes for shoulder arthroplasty implants have centered on the humeral stem, with a transition to shorter, metaphyseal humeral stems. Many of these humeral component design changes may be beneficial; however, long-term studies are necessary to determine if the results of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty with the use of newer humeral components can match those of older humeral components.

Is nonoperative management of partial distal biceps tears really successful?

BACKGROUND: The current treatment of partial distal biceps tears is a period of nonoperative management, followed by surgery, if symptoms persist. Little is known about the success rate and outcomes of nonoperative management of this illness. METHODS: We identified 132 patients with partial distal biceps tears through an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code query of our institution's database. Patient records were reviewed to abstract demographic information and confirm partial tears of the distal biceps tendon based on clinical examination findings and confirmatory magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Seventy-four patients completed an outcome survey. RESULTS: In our study, 55.7% of the contacted patients who tried a nonoperative course (34 of 61 patients) ultimately underwent surgery, and 13 patients underwent immediate surgery. High-need patients, as defined by occupation, were more likely to report that they recovered ideally if they underwent surgery, as compared with those who did not undergo surgery (odds ratio, 11.58; P = .0138). For low-need patients, the same analysis was not statistically significant (P = .139). There was no difference in satisfaction scores between patients who tried a nonoperative course before surgery and those who underwent immediate surgery (P = .854). An MRI-diagnosed tear of greater than 50% was a predictor of needing surgery (odds ratio, 3.0; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified clinically relevant information for the treatment of partial distal biceps tears, including the following: the failure rate of nonoperative treatment, the establishment of MRI percent tear as a predictor of failing nonoperative management, the benefit of surgery for the high-need occupational group, and the finding that nonoperative management does not negatively affect outcome if subsequent surgery is necessary.

Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty for painful glenoid arthrosis to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The impending burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty has increased interest in outcomes of revision procedures. Painful glenoid arthrosis following hemiarthroplasty is a common cause of reoperation, and conversion to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is one option. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent revision of painful hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty over a 15-year period in a single tertiary-care health system. Presurgical and operative data were analyzed for 28 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were contacted at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up after revision surgery for functional outcome scores, reoperations, and implant survival. RESULTS: The 2- and 5-year implant survival rates were 93% and 86%, respectively. Functional outcomes were obtained from 21 patients with surviving implants. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score for pain, and Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score were 78 ± 20, 2.3 ± 2.6, and 71 ± 24, respectively. The mean Short Form 12 mental and physical scores were 49 ± 10 and 43 ± 9, respectively. Of the patients, 17 (81%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with their outcome. Complications were seen in 10 patients (36%), and 6 patients (21%) required reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty following hemiarthroplasty can achieve successful outcomes and implant survival rates. Given our poor understanding of reverse shoulder arthroplasty longevity, this procedure should remain an option for patients with glenoid arthrosis and an intact rotator cuff.

Outcomes of an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a contralateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: It is common for patients to require staged bilateral shoulder arthroplasties. There is a unique cohort of patients who require an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and a contralateral reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study compared the outcomes of patients with a TSA in 1 shoulder and an RSA in the contralateral shoulder. METHODS: Our institutional database was queried to identify all patients with a TSA and a contralateral RSA. Data collection included patient demographics, preoperative and latest follow-up shoulder range of motion, radiographic analysis, and postoperative complications. Identified patients were assessed at follow-up visits or contacted by phone for functional outcome scores. RESULTS: Nineteen patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. There was statistically significant greater internal rotation in the TSA shoulder (P= .044) but no significant difference in forward elevation (P = .573) or external rotation (P= .368). There was no radiographic evidence of humeral or glenoid component loosening of any arthroplasty implants. There were no significant differences between TSA and RSA shoulders for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment (P= .381), Simple Shoulder Test (P = .352), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (P = .709), and visual analog scale satisfaction (P= .448) or pain scores (P= .305). Thirteen patients (68.4%) preferred the RSA side, 1 patient (5.3%; z = 4.04, P < .001) patient preferred the TSA side, and 5 patients expressed no preference. CONCLUSION: Despite known limitations and differences between TSA and RSA designs, patients who have received both implants are highly satisfied with both. The only parameter in which the TSA had superior outcomes was internal rotation.