Severe metallosis following catastrophic failure of total shoulder arthroplasty - a case report.

Metallosis is an unusual but consequential complication arising from orthopedic hardware implantation, characterized by the deposition of metallic particles in the periprosthetic soft tissues. The incidence of metallosis associated with shoulder arthroplasties is exceptionally rare since the shoulder is not a weight-bearing joint, making it less susceptible to mechanical wear and, consequently, to conditions like particle disease and metallosis. Nevertheless, anomalous metal-on-metal interactions can develop in total shoulder arthroplasties if the polyethylene component fails due to wear, fracture, or dissociation. If left unaddressed, metallosis can incite an adverse immune-mediated local tissue response, culminating in joint destruction and adjacent soft tissues and muscle necrosis. In this case report, the diagnosis of metallosis was made in a patient with an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty using a state-of-the-art photon counting detector CT supplemented by post-processing metal artifact reduction algorithms. This advanced imaging approach was effective in discerning the source of implant failure and in identifying manifestations of severe metallosis including osteolysis and pseudotumor formation. Advanced imaging methods can accurately characterize the severity and extent of metallosis, thereby helping guide surgical planning to mitigate serious complications associated with this condition.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty design-inlay vs. onlay: does it really make a difference?

BACKGROUND: The design of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) implants has evolved significantly over the past 50 years. Today there are many options available that differ in design of the glenoid and humeral components, fixation methods, sizes, and modularity. With respect to the humeral component, the literature has generally focused on the differences between inlay and onlay designs and the potential impact on outcomes. However, inlay and onlay design represents only one factor of many. METHODS: It is our hypothesis that separating onlay and inlay designs into 2 distinct entities is an oversimplification as there can be a wide overlap of the 2 designs, depending on surgical technique and the implant selected. As such, the differences between inlay and onlay designs should be measured in absolute terms-meaning combined distalization and lateralization. RESULTS: By reviewing the many factors that can contribute to the glenosphere-humerus relationship, the role of inlay and onlay humeral designs as an important distinguishing feature is shown to be limited. Preliminary studies suggest that the amount of distalization and lateralization of the construct may be the most accurate method of describing the differences in the constructs. CONCLUSIONS: Inlay and onlay humeral component design represents only one factor of many that may impact outcomes. A more accurate method of defining specific design and technique factors in RSA is the degree of lateralization and distalization.

Optimal combination of arthroplasty type, fixation method, and postoperative rehabilitation protocol for complex proximal humerus fractures in the elderly: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to define the optimal combination of surgical technique and postoperative rehabilitation protocol for elderly patients undergoing either hemiarthroplasty (HA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for acute proximal humerus fracture (PHF) by performing a network meta-analysis of the comparative studies in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was screened from 2007 to 2023. Inclusion criteria were level I-IV studies utilizing primary HA and/or rTSA published in a peer-reviewed journal, that specified whether humeral stems were cemented or noncemented, specified postoperative rehabilitation protocol, and reported results of HA and/or rTSA performed for PHF. Early range of motion (ROM) was defined as the initiation of active ROM at ≤3 weeks after surgery. Level of evidence was evaluated based on the criteria by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Clinical outcomes were compared using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis with a random-effects model that was performed using the netmeta package version 0.9-6 in R. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies (1119 patients) were included with an average age of 74 ± 3.7 and mean follow-up of 32 ± 11.1 months. In the early ROM cohort (Early), the mean time to active ROM was 2.4 ± 0.76 weeks compared to 5.9 ± 1.04 weeks in the delayed ROM cohort (Delayed). Overall, rTSA-Pressfit-Early resulted in statistically superior outcomes including postoperative forward elevation (126 ± 27.5), abduction (116 ± 30.6), internal rotation (5.27 ± 0.74, corresponding to L3-L1), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (71.8 ± 17), tuberosity union (89%), and lowest tuberosity nonunion rate (9.6%) in patients ≥65 year old with acute PHF undergoing shoulder arthroplasty (all P ≤ .05). In total there were 277 (14.5%) complications across the cohorts, of which 89/277 (34%) were in the HA-Cement-Delayed cohort. HA-Cement-Delayed resulted in 2-times higher odds of experiencing a complication when compared to rTSA-Cement-Delayed (P = .005). Conversely, rTSA-Cement-Early cohort followed by rTSA-Pressfit-Early resulted in a total complication rate of 4.7% and 5.4% (odds ratios, 0.30; P = .01 & odds ratios, 0.42; P = .05), respectively. The total rate of scapular notching was higher in the cemented rTSA subgroups (16.5%) vs. (8.91%) in the press fit rTSA subgroups (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that patients ≥65 years of age, who sustain a 3-or 4-part PHF achieve the most benefit in terms of ROM, postoperative functional outcomes, tuberosity union, and overall complication rate when undergoing rTSA with a noncemented stem and early postoperative ROM when compared to the mainstream preference-rTSA-Cement-Delayed.

Thresholds For Diminishing Returns In Postoperative Range Of Motion After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Satisfaction following shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), which is commonly reported using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), is partially dependent upon restoring shoulder range of motion (ROM). We hypothesized there exists a minimum amount of ROM necessary to perform functional tasks queried in PROM questionnaires, beyond which further ROM may provide no further improvement in PROMs. METHODS: A retrospective review of a multicenter international shoulder arthroplasty database was performed between 2004-2020 for patients undergoing anatomic or reverse TSA (aTSA, rTSA) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Our primary outcome was to determine the threshold in postoperative active ROM (abduction, forward elevation [FE], external rotation [ER], and internal rotation [IR] score) whereby additional improvement was not associated with additional improvement in PROMs (Simple Shoulder Test [SST], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score, and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI]). For comparison, we also evaluated the Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score, which is not subject to the ceiling effect. RESULTS: We included 4,459 TSAs (1,802 aTSAs, 2,657 rTSAs) with minimum 2-year follow-up (mean, 56±32 months). The threshold in postoperative ROM that were associated with no further improvement were: active abduction, 107-113° for PROMs versus 163° for the SAS score; active FE, 149-162° for PROMs versus 176° for the SAS score; active ER, 50-52° for PROMs versus 72° for the SAS score; IR score, 4-5 points for all PROMs versus 6 points for the SAS score. Out of 3,508 TSAs with complete postoperative ROM data, 8.5% achieved or exceeded all ROM thresholds (14.5% aTSAs, 4.8% rTSAs). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that postoperative ROM exceeding 113° of abduction, 162° of FE, 52° of ER, and IR to L1 is associated with minimal additional improvement in PROMs. While individual patient needs vary, the thresholds may provide helpful targets for patients undergoing postoperative rehabilitation.

Stratification of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after total shoulder arthroplasty by implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex.

BACKGROUND: Clinical significance, as opposed to statistical significance, has increasingly been utilized to evaluate outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to identify thresholds of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for TSA outcome metrics and determine if these thresholds are influenced by prosthesis type (anatomic or reverse TSA), sex, or preoperative diagnosis. METHODS: A prospectively collected international multicenter database inclusive of 38 surgeons was queried for patients receiving a primary aTSA or rTSA between 2003 and 2021. Prospectively, outcome metrics including ASES, shoulder function score (SFS), SST, UCLA, Constant, VAS Pain, shoulder arthroplasty smart (SAS) score, forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation was recorded preoperatively and at each follow-up. A patient satisfaction question was administered at each follow-up. Anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as defined previously overall and according to implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. The percentage of patients achieving thresholds was also quantified. RESULTS: A total of 5851 total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) including aTSA (n = 2236) and rTSA (n = 3615) were included in the study cohort. The following were identified as MCID thresholds for the overall (aTSA + rTSA irrespective of diagnosis or sex) cohort: VAS Pain (-1.5), SFS (1.2), SST (2.1), Constant (7.2), ASES (13.9), UCLA (8.2), SPADI (-21.5), and SAS (7.3), Abduction (13°), Forward elevation (16°), External rotation (4°), Internal rotation score (0.2). SCB thresholds for the overall cohort were: VAS Pain (-3.3), SFS (2.9), SST 3.8), Constant (18.9), ASES (33.1), UCLA (12.3), SPADI (-44.7), and SAS (18.2), Abduction (30°), Forward elevation (31°), External rotation (12°), Internal rotation score (0.9). PASS thresholds for the overall cohort were: VAS Pain (0.8), SFS (7.3), SST (9.2), Constant (64.2), ASES (79.5), UCLA (29.5), SPADI (24.7), and SAS (72.5), Abduction (104°), Forward elevation (130°), External rotation (30°), Internal rotation score (3.2). MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds varied depending on preoperative diagnosis and sex. CONCLUSION: MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds vary depending on implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. A comprehensive understanding of these differences as well as identification of clinically relevant thresholds for legacy and novel metrics is essential to assist surgeons in evaluating their patient's outcomes, interpreting the literature, and counseling their patients preoperatively regarding expectations for improvement. Given that PASS thresholds are fragile and vary greatly depending on cohort variability, caution should be exercised in conflating them across different studies.

Prognostic value of the Walch classification for patients before and after shoulder arthroplasty performed for osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff.

BACKGROUND: The Walch classification is commonly used by surgeons when determining the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). However, its utility in prognosticating patient clinical state before and after TSA remains unproven. We assessed the prognostic value of the modified Walch glenoid classification on preoperative clinical state and postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). METHODS: A prospectively collected, multicenter database for a single-platform TSA system was queried for patients with rotator cuff-intact OA and minimum 2 year follow-up after anatomic (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA). Differences in patient-reported outcome scores (Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, visual analog scale for pain, Shoulder Function score), combined patient-reported and clinical-input scores (Constant, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart Score), active range of motion values (forward elevation [FE], abduction, external rotation [ER], internal rotation [IR], and radiographic outcomes (humeral and glenoid radiolucency line rates, scapula notching rate) were stratified and compared by glenoid deformity type per the Walch classification for aTSA and rTSA cohorts. Comparisons were performed to assess the ability of the Walch classification to predict the preoperative, postoperative, and improved state after TSA. RESULTS: 1008 TSAs were analyzed including 576 aTSA and 432 rTSA. Comparison of outcomes between Walch glenoid types resulted in 15 pairwise comparisons of 12 clinical outcome metrics, yielding 180 total Walch glenoid pairwise comparisons for each clinical state (preoperative, postoperative, improvement). Of the 180 possible pairwise Walch glenoid type and metric comparisons studied for aTSA and rTSA cohorts, <6% and <2% significantly differed in aTSA and rTSA cohorts, respectively. Significant differences based on Walch type were seen after adjustment for multiple pairwise comparisons in the aTSA cohort for FE and ER preoperatively, the Constant score postoperatively, and for abduction, FE, ER, Constant score, and SAS score for pre- to postoperative improvement. In the rTSA cohort, significant differences were only seen in abduction and Constant score both postoperatively and for pre- to postoperative improvement. There were no statistically significant differences in humeral lucency rate, glenoid lucency rate (aTSA), scapular notching rate (rTSA), complication rates, or revision rates between Walch glenoid types after TSA. CONCLUSION: Although useful for describing degenerative changes to the glenohumeral joint, we demonstrate a weak association between preoperative glenoid morphology according to the Walch classification and clinical state when evaluating patients undergoing TSA for rotator cuff-intact OA. Alternative glenoid classification systems or predictive models should be considered to provide more precise prognoses for patients undergoing TSA for rotator cuff-intact OA.

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.

International consensus statement on the management of glenohumeral arthritis in patients ≤ 50 years old.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to implement a modified Delphi technique among a group of experts affiliated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow (SECEC) to determine areas of consensus regarding what factors influence their decision to manage a patient surgically and what specific treatment modalities they utilize for patients ≤50 years of age with glenohumeral arthritis. METHODS: The panel of experts comprised 168 shoulder and elbow specialists, 138 ASES and 30 SECEC members. In the first round, an open-ended questionnaire was utilized to solicit features that are important in making decisions regarding treatment. The second round involved ranking the features identified in the first round as to their importance in helping decision making for surgery. The results of round 2 were then utilized and 18 complex surgical cases previously treated by one of the lead authors were provided for the study. One additional case was included to address the management of Cutibacterium acne infection. RESULTS: A total of 159 (95.0%) participants completed the round one survey, 142 (89%) responded to the second and third round surveys. In total 50 individual factors were positively associated with the decision to proceed with surgery. Ten of these were strongly supportive of surgery. Eight out of 18 clinical cases demonstrated > 80% agreement on the surgical treatment modality chosen. Over 90% of respondents chose reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to manage pathology when an incompetent rotator cuff was present. Over 90% of respondents managed avascular necrosis with hemiarthroplasty. Over 70% of respondents chose anatomic TSA for inflammatory arthritis with low demand on their shoulder. Overall, 79% of respondents chose a stemless humeral component when a hemiarthroplasty or anatomic TSA was chosen in response to the proposed surgical cases. If arthroscopy was chosen then there was good agreement on 5 core procedures. There was only fair consensus on the approach to C. acnes in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis ≤ 50 years of age. CONCLUSION: The optimal treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in patients ≤ 50 years of age remains controversial, and there are many treatment options to consider when responding to the variety of clinical presentations and anatomic pathologies. While physicians and patients engage in the shared decision-making process regarding the final choice for management, this consensus statement serves as a basis for discussion amongst colleagues and between patients and surgeons though it clearly demonstrates that the topic must be further investigated prospectively and with large cohorts.

Impact of accumulating risk factors on the acromial and scapular fracture rate after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with a medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus onlay prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Identifying risk factors for acromial and scapular fractures improves our understanding about which variables are relevant to these fracture complications; however, these data are difficult to integrate into clinical practice because the majority of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) patients have ≥1 risk factor. The goal of this study was to better facilitate preoperative identification of patients at risk of acromial and scapular fractures and quantify the impact of accumulating risk factors on the incidence of fracture. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 9079 rTSA patients from a multicenter database of rTSA procedures performed with a single medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus onlay rTSA prosthesis to quantify the rate of acromial and scapular fractures. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for fracture. Next, we quantified the number of patients with 1 or multiple significant risk factors for fracture. Finally, to facilitate preoperative identification of patients most at risk of fracture, we stratified our data set using multiple combinations of age, sex, and diagnosis risk factors and calculated the odds ratio for each cohort to quantify the impact of accumulating risk factors on the incidence of fracture. RESULTS: A fracture of the acromion or scapula was radiographically identified in 138 of 9079 patients, for a rate of 1.52%. Patients with fractures were more likely to be older, of female sex, to have a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and/or cuff tear arthropathy, and were less likely to have a diagnosis of diabetes. Eighty-five percent of rTSA patients had ≥1 fracture risk factor. Individually, age, sex, or diagnosis failed to identify any patient cohort with an odds ratio >2.5. Use of multiple combinations of patient risk factors refined the identification of at-risk patients better than any individual risk factor or 2-risk factor combination and demonstrated that the patients with the greatest fracture risk were female patients with a rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis who were aged >70, >75, and >80 years. CONCLUSION: This 9079-rTSA multicenter study demonstrated that 1.52% of patients experienced acromial and/or scapular fractures with a single medialized glenoid-lateralized humerus onlay rTSA prosthesis. Our analysis identified numerous risk factors and quantified the impact of accumulating risk factors on fracture incidence. Patients who are considering rTSA and who have these age, sex, and diagnosis risk factors should be made aware of their elevated complication risk.

Impact of mental health on outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depression are the 2 most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in the United States. The effect of these disorders on total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) outcomes must be appreciated. The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between a preoperative diagnosis of anxiety and depression and postoperative outcomes after TSA. The secondary goals were to determine whether patients contemporaneously treated with medication for their mental health diagnosis fared better than a cohort treated without medication and to examine the degree to which Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Mental Health (PROMIS-MH) scores correlate with patient outcomes. Our hypothesis was that a history of anxiety and/or depression would negatively impact patient outcomes after TSA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort at a single institution. Patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with anxiety and/or depression were identified and compared with a cohort of patients without a mental health diagnosis enrolled in an institutional registry from 2011 to 2020. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, implant types, range of motion, adverse events, and clinical outcome metric scores-PROMIS-MH score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant score, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart Score-were recorded. Outcomes between cohorts were analyzed using conventional statistics, as well as stratification by the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds where applicable. RESULTS: The study comprised 218 patients (114 rTSA and 95 aTSA patients) with a diagnosis of either anxiety and/or depression and 378 patients (153 rTSA and 217 aTSA patients) with no history. Although both cohorts achieved the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds for the postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, the cohort with anxiety and/or depression showed lower postoperative outcome scores (P < .05), higher AE rates, and significantly lower preoperative-to-postoperative differences in all variables when compared with the cohort without anxiety and/or depression. There were no differences in outcome scores after rTSA or aTSA between patients being treated for anxiety and/or depression and those not receiving treatment. The PROMIS-MH score was positively correlated with postoperative outcomes and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: This study shows that patients with anxiety and/or depression who underwent TSA had inferior postoperative outcomes and higher rates of AEs compared with a cohort without a mental health diagnosis. In addition, patients taking medication for treatment of depression and/or anxiety did not gain any significant benefit in terms of their postoperative shoulder outcomes or satisfaction rate compared with those with this diagnosis but not taking medication. Additionally, we found that, independent of a patient's underlying shoulder pathology or psychiatric diagnosis, lower PROMIS-MH scores were correlated with worse postoperative outcomes.

Impact of cervical spine pathology on outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spine pathology can affect the supporting muscles and function of the shoulder and contribute to shoulder and arm pain and hence may impact postoperative outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a history of cervical spine arthrodesis and its timing, before or after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), on the outcomes of TSA. Our hypothesis is that a history of cervical arthrodesis (CA) will negatively impact patient outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively collected cohort at a single institution. Anatomic (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA) patients with CA were identified and compared to a cohort of patients without CA (NCA) enrolled in an institutional registry from 2011 to 2020. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, implant type, range of motion, adverse events, and clinical outcome metric scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES], Constant, Shoulder Function score, patient satisfaction) were recorded. Outcomes between cohorts were analyzed using conventional statistics as well as stratification by minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) thresholds where applicable. RESULTS: Of the 573 TSAs evaluated, 48 (20a CA-aTSA and 28 CA-rTSA) had a history of CA and 525 (280 NCA-aTSA and 245 NCA-rTSA) had no history of CA. The CA-TSA (aTSA and rTSA) had lower Constant, ASES, and Shoulder Function scores postoperatively as well as less improvement in active external rotation and an overall lower satisfaction rating (P < .05 for all) compared with NCA-TSA. The adverse event rate in the CA-TSA cohort was higher compared with the NCA-TSA cohort (25% vs. 6.5% [rTSA; P = .004] and 24.5% vs. 11% [aTSA; P = .068]). Optimal cutoff analysis showed that a time from CA to TSA of greater than 1.33 years had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 75.0% in predicting achievement of SCB for ASES score. CONCLUSION: The current study demonstrates that patients with a history of CA undergoing shoulder arthroplasty results in lower postoperative functional outcomes, lower satisfaction, and higher rates of postoperative adverse events requiring surgical revision when compared to a cohort without a history of CA. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a time interval of at least 16 months between CA and shoulder arthroplasty optimizes the chances of achieving SCB for ASES score.

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

BACKGROUND: Changes in preoperative to postoperative outcome scores are often used to quantify success after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). However, ceiling effects associated with many outcome scores limit the ability to differentiate success among high-functioning patients. The percentage of maximal possible improvement (%MPI) was introduced to simplify and better stratify patient success. The primary purpose of this study was to define the %MPI thresholds associated with substantial clinical improvement following primary rTSA and compare the rates of success as defined by those achieving the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) compared to the 30% MPI for different outcome scores. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary rTSAs performed using a single implant system with a minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Preoperative and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to calculate improvement. Six outcome scores were assessed: the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) scores. The proportion of patients achieving the SCB and 30% MPI was determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the substantial clinically important %MPI (SCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: Of total, 2573 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 47 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (SST, ASES, UCLA, SPADI) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI compared to scores without ceiling effects (Constant, SAS). However, scores without ceiling effects had higher rates of patients achieving the SCB. The SCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores, and mean values were 47% for the SST, 35% for the Constant score, 50% for the ASES score, 52% for the UCLA score, 47% for the SPADI score, and 45% for the SAS score. The SCI-%MPI increased in patients older than 60 years (P < .001) except for the SAS and Constant scores. SCI-%MPI was greater in females for all scores assessed except the Constant and SPADI scores (P < .001 for all). The higher SCI-%MPI thresholds in these populations mean that these patients required a greater fraction of the MPI to have substantial improvement. CONCLUSION: The %MPI judged relative to patient-reported substantial clinical improvement offers an alternative method to quickly assess improvements across patient outcome scores. Given considerable variation in the %MPI corresponding to substantial clinical improvement, we recommend utilizing score-specific estimates of the SCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary rTSA.

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

BACKGROUND: In high functioning patients, the ceiling effect associated with many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) limits the ability to appropriately stratify success. The percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) was introduced as another evaluation tool, with a proposed threshold of success at 30%. It remains unclear if this threshold correlates with perceived patient success following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of patients that achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and %MPI for different outcome scores and to define the %MPI thresholds associated with patient satisfaction following primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary rTSAs performed using a single implant system with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to determine the raw improvement and %MPI. The proportion of patients achieving the MCID and 30% MPI were determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the minimal clinically important %MPI (MCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 2573 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 47 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (Simple Shoulder Test [SST], Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI], University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score [UCLA]) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI but not the previously reported MCID. Inversely, outcome scores without significant ceiling effects (Constant and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart [SAS] scores) had higher rates of patients achieving the MCID, but not the 30% MPI. The MCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores and mean values were as follows: 33% for the SST, 27% for the Constant score, 35% for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, 43% for the UCLA score, 34% for the SPADI score, and 30% for the SAS score. The MCI-%MPI increased with greater age for SPADI (P < .04) and SAS (P < .01) scores, meaning that patients with higher thresholds required a greater fraction of the possible improvement for a given score to be satisfied but did not reach statistical significance for other scores. Females had a greater MCI-%MPI for the SAS and ASES scores and a lower MCI-MPI% for the SPADI score. CONCLUSION: The %MPI offers a simple method to quickly assess improvements across patient outcome scores. However, the %MPI that represents patient improvement after surgery is not uniformly the previously established 30% threshold. Surgeons should use score-specific estimates of the MCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary rTSA.

Quantifying success after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.

BACKGROUND: Percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) has been described as a threshold by which to evaluate patient improvement after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) that has favorable psychometric properties. The primary purpose of this study was to define the percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) thresholds associated with substantial clinical improvement following primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and compare the rates of success as defined by those achieving the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) compared with the 30% MPI for different outcome scores. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary aTSAs performed using a single implant system with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to calculate improvement. Six outcome scores were assessed: the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLA), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) scores. The proportion of patients achieving the SCB and 30% MPI were determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the substantial clinically important %MPI (SCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 1593 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 59.3 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (SST, ASES, UCLA) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI but not the previously reported SCB compared to scores without ceiling effects (Constant, SAS). The SCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores, and mean values were as follows: 48% for the SST, 39% for the Constant score, 53% for the ASES score, 55% for the UCLA score, 50% for the SPADI score, and 42% for the SAS score. The SCI-%MPI increased in patients older than 60 years (P ≤ .006 for all) and was greater in females for all scores assessed except the Constant score (P < .001 for all), meaning that patients with higher thresholds required a greater fraction of the maximum possible improvement for a given score to have substantial improvement. CONCLUSION: The %MPI judged relative to patient-reported substantial clinical improvement offers a new method to assess improvements across patient outcome scores. Given considerable variation in the %MPI corresponding to substantial clinical improvement, we recommend utilizing score-specific estimates of the SCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary aTSA.

Quantifying success after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.

INTRODUCTION: Changes in pre- to postoperative outcome scores are often used to quantify success after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). However, ceiling effects associated with many outcome scores limit the ability to differentiate success among high-functioning patients. The percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) was introduced to better stratify patient success; however, it is unclear if the 30% threshold first proposed correlates with perceived patient success across all outcome scores. The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of patients that achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and %MPI for different outcome scores and to define the %MPI thresholds associated with patient satisfaction following primary aTSA. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary aTSAs performed using a single implant system with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to calculate improvement. The proportion of patients achieving the MCID and 30% MPI were determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the minimal clinically important %MPI (MCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: 1593 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 59.3 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (Simple Shoulder Test [SST], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES], University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score [UCLA]) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI but not the previously reported MCID. Inversely, outcome scores without significant ceiling effects (Constant and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart [SAS] scores) had higher rates of patients achieving the MCID but not the 30% MPI. The MCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores, and mean values were as follows: 33% for the SST, 24% for the Constant score, 32% for the ASES score, 38% for the UCLA score, 30% for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, and 33% for the SAS score. The MCI-%MPI increased with greater age (P < .003) and females had thresholds greater than or equal to males for all scores assessed, meaning that patients with higher thresholds required a greater fraction of the possible improvement for a given score to be satisfied. CONCLUSION: The %MPI offers a simple method to quickly assess improvements across patient outcome scores. However, the %MPI that represents patient improvement after surgery is not uniformly the previously established 30% threshold. Surgeons should use score-specific estimates of the MCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary aTSA.

Augmented baseplates yield optimum outcomes when compared with bone graft augmentation for managing glenoid deformity during reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparative study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) using glenoid bone grafting (BG rTSA) with primary rTSA using augmented glenoid baseplates (Aug rTSA) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: A total of 520 primary rTSA patients treated with 8° posterior glenoid augments (n = 246), 10° superior glenoid augments (n = 97), or combined 10° superior/8° posterior glenoid augments (n = 177) were compared with 47 patients undergoing glenoid bone grafting for glenoid bone insufficiency. The mean follow-up was 37.0(±16) and 53.0(±27) months, respectively. Outcomes were analyzed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using conventional statistics and stratification by minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) thresholds where applicable. Radiographs were analyzed for baseplate failure, and the incidences of postoperative complications and revisions were recorded. RESULTS: The glenoid Aug rTSA cohort had greater improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and range of motion when compared with the BG rTSA group at a minimum of 2-year follow-up, including Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, shoulder function, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score, abduction, and external rotation (P < .05). Patient satisfaction was higher in the Aug rTSA group compared with the BG rTSA group (P = .006). The utilization of an augmented glenoid component instead of glenoid bone grafting resulted in approximately 50% less total intraoperative time (P < .001), nearly 33% less intraoperative blood loss volume (P < .001), approximately 3-fold less scapular notching (P < .01), and approximately 8-fold less adverse events requiring revision (P < .01) when compared with the BG rTSA cohort. Aside from SCB for abduction, the Aug rTSA cohort achieved higher rates of exceeding MCID and SCB for every PROM compared with BG rTSA. More specifically, 77.6% and 70.2% of the Aug rTSA achieved SCB for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index vs. 55% and 48.6% in the BG rTSA, respectively (P = .003 and P = .013). CONCLUSION: The present midterm clinical and radiographic study demonstrates that the utilization of an augmented baseplate for insufficient glenoid bone stock is superior as judged by multiple PROMs and range of motion metrics when compared with bone graft augmentation at minimum 2-year follow-up. In addition, when analyzed according to MCID and SCB thresholds, the use of augmented baseplates outperforms the use of glenoid bone grafting. Complication and revision rates also favor the use of augmented glenoid baseplates over glenoid bone grafting. Long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up is necessary to confirm that these promising midterm results are durable.

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.

Using machine learning to predict clinical outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty with a minimal feature set.

BACKGROUND: A machine learning analysis was conducted on 5774 shoulder arthroplasty patients to create predictive models for multiple clinical outcome measures after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The goal of this study was to compare the accuracy associated with a full-feature set predictive model (ie, full model, comprising 291 parameters) and a minimal-feature set model (ie, abbreviated model, comprising 19 input parameters) to predict clinical outcomes to assess the efficacy of using a minimal feature set of inputs as a shoulder arthroplasty clinical decision-support tool. METHODS: Clinical data from 2153 primary aTSA patients and 3621 primary rTSA patients were analyzed using the XGBoost machine learning technique to create and test predictive models for multiple outcome measures at different postoperative time points via the full and abbreviated models. Mean absolute errors (MAEs) quantified the difference between actual and predicted outcomes, and each model also predicted whether a patient would experience clinical improvement greater than the patient satisfaction anchor-based thresholds of the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit for each outcome measure at 2-3 years after surgery. RESULTS: Across all postoperative time points analyzed, the full and abbreviated models had similar MAEs for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (±11.7 with full model vs. ±12.0 with abbreviated model), Constant score (±8.9 vs. ±9.8), Global Shoulder Function score (±1.4 vs. ±1.5), visual analog scale pain score (±1.3 vs. ±1.4), active abduction (±20.4° vs. ±21.8°), forward elevation (±17.6° vs. ±19.2°), and external rotation (±12.2° vs. ±12.6°). Marginal improvements in MAEs were observed for each outcome measure prediction when the abbreviated model was supplemented with data on implant size and/or type and measurements of native glenoid anatomy. The full and abbreviated models each effectively risk stratified patients using only preoperative data by accurately identifying patients with improvement greater than the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds. DISCUSSION: Our study showed that the full and abbreviated machine learning models achieved similar accuracy in predicting clinical outcomes after aTSA and rTSA at multiple postoperative time points. These promising results demonstrate an efficient utilization of machine learning algorithms to predict clinical outcomes. Our findings using a minimal feature set of only 19 preoperative inputs suggest that this tool may be easily used during a surgical consultation to improve decision making related to shoulder arthroplasty.

Validation of a machine learning-derived clinical metric to quantify outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: We propose a new clinical assessment tool constructed using machine learning, called the Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score to quantify outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). METHODS: Clinical data from 3667 TSA patients with 8104 postoperative follow-up reports were used to quantify the psychometric properties of validity, responsiveness, and clinical interpretability for the proposed SAS score and each of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores. RESULTS: Convergent construct validity was demonstrated, with all 6 outcome measures being moderately to highly correlated preoperatively and highly correlated postoperatively when quantifying TSA outcomes. The SAS score was most correlated with the UCLA score and least correlated with the SST. No clinical outcome score exhibited significant floor effects preoperatively or postoperatively or significant ceiling effects preoperatively; however, significant ceiling effects occurred postoperatively for each of the SST (44.3%), UCLA (13.9%), ASES (18.7%), and SPADI (19.3%) measures. Ceiling effects were more pronounced for anatomic than reverse TSA, and generally, men, younger patients, and whites who received TSA were more likely to experience a ceiling effect than TSA patients who were female, older, and of non-white race or ethnicity. The SAS score had the least number of patients with floor and ceiling effects and also exhibited no response bias in any patient characteristic analyzed in this study. Regarding clinical interpretability, patient satisfaction anchor-based thresholds for minimal clinically importance difference and substantial clinical benefit were quantified for all 6 outcome measures; the SAS score thresholds were most similar in magnitude to the Constant score. Regarding responsiveness, all 6 outcome measures detected a large effect, with the UCLA exhibiting the most responsiveness and the SST exhibiting the least. Finally, each of the SAS, ASES, Constant, and SPADI scores had similarly large standardized response mean and effect size responsiveness. DISCUSSION: The 6-question SAS score is an efficient TSA-specific outcome measure with equivalent or better validity, responsiveness, and clinical interpretability as 5 other historical assessment tools. The SAS score has an appropriate response range without floor or ceiling effects and without bias in any target patient characteristic, unlike the age, gender, or race/ethnicity bias observed in the ceiling scores with the other outcome measures. Because of these substantial benefits, we recommend the use of the new SAS score for quantifying TSA outcomes.

What Is the Accuracy of Three Different Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Clinical Outcomes After Shoulder Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Machine learning techniques can identify complex relationships in large healthcare datasets and build prediction models that better inform physicians in ways that can assist in patient treatment decision-making. In the domain of shoulder arthroplasty, machine learning appears to have the potential to anticipate patients' results after surgery, but this has not been well explored. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the accuracy of machine learning to predict the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (ASES), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Constant, global shoulder function, and VAS pain scores, as well as active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation at 1 year, 2 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, and more than 5 years after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA)? (2) What is the accuracy of machine learning to identify whether a patient will achieve clinical improvement that exceeds the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold for each outcome measure? (3) What is the accuracy of machine learning to identify whether a patient will achieve clinical improvement that exceeds the substantial clinical benefit threshold for each outcome measure? METHODS: A machine learning analysis was conducted on a database of 7811 patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty of one prosthesis design to create predictive models for multiple clinical outcome measures. Excluding patients with revisions, fracture indications, and hemiarthroplasty resulted in 6210 eligible primary aTSA and rTSA patients, of whom 4782 patients with 11,198 postoperative follow-up visits had sufficient preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data to train and test the predictive models. Preoperative clinical data from 1895 primary aTSA patients and 2887 primary rTSA patients were analyzed using three commercially available supervised machine learning techniques: linear regression, XGBoost, and Wide and Deep, to train and test predictive models for the ASES, UCLA, Constant, global shoulder function, and VAS pain scores, as well as active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation. Our primary study goal was to quantify the accuracy of three machine learning techniques to predict each outcome measure at multiple postoperative timepoints after aTSA and rTSA using the mean absolute error between the actual and predicted values. Our secondary study goals were to identify whether a patient would experience clinical improvement greater than the MCID and substantial clinical benefit anchor-based thresholds of patient satisfaction for each outcome measure as quantified by the model classification parameters of precision, recall, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating curve. RESULTS: Each machine learning technique demonstrated similar accuracy to predict each outcome measure at each postoperative point for both aTSA and rTSA, though small differences in prediction accuracy were observed between techniques. Across all postsurgical timepoints, the Wide and Deep technique was associated with the smallest mean absolute error and predicted the postoperative ASES score to ± 10.1 to 11.3 points, the UCLA score to ± 2.5 to 3.4, the Constant score to ± 7.3 to 7.9, the global shoulder function score to ± 1.0 to 1.4, the VAS pain score to ± 1.2 to 1.4, active abduction to ± 18 to 21°, forward elevation to ± 15 to 17°, and external rotation to ± 10 to 12°. These models also accurately identified the patients who did and did not achieve clinical improvement that exceeded the MCID (93% to 99% accuracy for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 85% to 94% for pain, function, and ROM measures) and substantial clinical benefit (82% to 93% accuracy for PROMs and 78% to 90% for pain, function, and ROM measures) thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning techniques can use preoperative data to accurately predict clinical outcomes at multiple postoperative points after shoulder arthroplasty and accurately risk-stratify patients by preoperatively identifying who may and who may not achieve MCID and substantial clinical benefit improvement thresholds for each outcome measure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Three different commercially available machine learning techniques were used to train and test models that predicted clinical outcomes after aTSA and rTSA; this device-type comparison was performed to demonstrate how predictive modeling techniques can be used in the near future to help answer unsolved clinical questions and augment decision-making to improve outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty.