Return to golf after shoulder arthroplasty: golf performance and outcome scores

BackgroundGolf is an increasingly popular sport in the United States, especially among the age group of patients undergoing joint replacement. Return to golf after hip and knee arthroplasty has been previously studied. However, the quality and level of play after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) are less defined, especially after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). We hypothesize that shoulder pain and performance will improve during golf similarly after both anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasties.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of 69 patients identified as playing golf recreationally before undergoing either anatomic or RSA. All patients were cleared to return to golf activities 3 months after surgery. A golf-specific questionnaire was emailed to patients focusing on their experience returning to golf after shoulder arthroplasty. Results after TSA were compared with RSA. Patient-reported and functional outcome scores were evaluated.ResultsThe median age at surgery was 70 (62-73) years with 47 (68.1%) total shoulder replacements and 22 (31.9%) reverse shoulder replacements. Thirty-six (52.1%) patients returned to playing golf within 6 months and sixty (87.0%) patients returned to playing golf within 12 months after surgery. Enjoyment of golf either improved or stayed the same in 51 patients (91.0%). There was no significant change in the handicap score after shoulder replacement. Pain experienced during golf improved significantly from a median visual analog score pain of 6 to 1 (P < .001), with slightly greater improvement in pain for patients who underwent TSA (P = .025). Driving distance improved for 52.2% of patients, with patients who underwent TSA reporting significantly greater improvements in distance (P = .014). For all other questions, patients treated with anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and RSA reported similar experiences. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score, visual analog score function, active flexion, and external rotation all significantly improved at the most recent follow-up (P < .001).ConclusionReturn to golf after both reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties is a realistic expectation, with significant improvements in pain and function while playing golf. Enjoyment playing golf, golf performance, and average length of drive improve in approximately half of all patients. Patients treated with anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and RSA can expect similar golf experiences after surgery, with patients who underwent TSA experiencing a better improvement in driving distance.     

Is there a threshold of preoperative function that predicts failure to achieve clinically significant outcomes after total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine if there is a threshold of preoperative function that is predictive of postoperative outcomes and the likelihood of achieving clinically significant outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty (SA).MethodsWe retrospectively identified patients who underwent a primary SA at our institution. Patients with preoperative and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (ASES) were included in our analysis. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was utilized to reach a preoperative ASES threshold correlated with achievement of the following clinically significant outcomes: minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state. This analysis was performed for our entire SA cohort and subanalyzed for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Fischer exact tests were used to analyze categorical data while continuous data were analyzed using t-tests. For the ROC, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated, along with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals and P values, with <0.05 as significant.ResultsA total of 516 patients were included (164 TSA and 352 RSA). ROC analysis yielded a preoperative ASES above 54 as predictive of failure to achieve MCID for all SAs (AUC, 0.77; P < .001), above 49 for TSA (AUC 0.74, P < .001), and above 56 for RSA (AUC 0.79, P < .001). Patients with preoperative ASES scores above 54 were significantly less likely to achieve MCID (odds ratio 5.1, P < .001) and SCB (odds ratio 7.2, P < .001); however, they had higher postoperative ASES scores (84 vs. 78, P < .001). A preoperative ASES score of 73 corresponded to a 50% chance of achieving MCID. ROC analysis also yielded a preoperative ASES score above 51 as predictive of failure to achieve SCB for all SA, TSA, and RSA (AUC: 0.79, 0.78, and 0.80, respectively, all P < .001). A preop ASES score of 52 corresponded to a 50% chance of achieving SCB.ConclusionPreoperative ASES scores above 49-56 are predictive of failure to achieve MCID and SCB following TSA and RSA. Although patients above these preoperative thresholds achieve higher absolute ASES scores at the final follow-up, they experienced less relative improvement from baseline. This will help surgeons counsel individual patients about appropriate expectations after arthroplasty.     

Can the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provide as good of an outcome as an anatomic shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is an excellent treatment option for a variety of shoulder pathologies. Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains an excellent treatment for patients with glenohumeral arthritis and a functioning rotator cuff. RTSA has become a much more common procedure than TSA in recent times. It is currently unclear if patients who have a good outcome following TSA outperform patients who have a good outcome following RTSA. The purpose of this study was to compare the 2-year outcomes of patients with good outcomes, defined as having forward flexion of >130° and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of >70, following TSA and RTSA.MethodsAll patients who underwent TSA or RTSA between 2015 and 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up were eligible for inclusion. Patients were included if their postoperative forward flexion was >130° and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was >70. Patients were excluded if they were a revision surgery, were treated with an arthroplasty for fracture, or had a latissimus transfer. Demographic variables were analyzed between groups. Range of motion (ROM), strength, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were compared between groups.ResultsOverall, 318 TSAs were included; 155 (49%) met the criteria for a “good” outcome. Among RTSAs, 428 were included; 154 (36%) met the criteria for a “good” outcome. When comparing PROs between groups, RTSA patients had worse preoperative and postoperative PRO scores (all P < .05). When comparing preoperative physical examination findings, RTSA patients had worse ROM and strength (all P < .05) and worse Constant Power scores and Constant scores (P < .001 in both cases). Postoperatively, RTSA patients had worse ROM and strength (all P < .05) and worse Constant scores (P = .028). The magnitude of change (delta) from preoperative to postoperative function was often greater following RTSA than TSA. There were no significant differences in whether expectations were met or exceeded between RTSA and TSA patients in regards to pain control (99% vs. 98%; P = .177), motion and strength (93% vs. 96%; P = .559), ability to return to activities of daily living (98% vs. 99%; P = .333), or return to sporting activities (95% vs. 91%; P = .268).ConclusionPatients do well following both TSA and RTSA. In patients who have a good outcome following either TSA or RTSA, those patients who underwent TSA have superior outcomes to patients following RTSA. However, the change in outcome scores from pre- to post-surgery is often more significant with RTSA, as they often start out with worse motion and clinical scores.     

Assessing the validity of the distalization and lateralization shoulder angles following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe distalization shoulder angles (DSA) and lateralization shoulder angles (LSA) were developed to reproducibly measure DSA and LSA after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). In this study, we sought to validate these measurements and their associations with clinical outcomes following RSA.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 238 patients undergoing RSA between May 2016 and December 2017 by 1 single-fellowship trained surgeon (A.J.). Two raters (K.A.M and E.C.) independently measured DSA and LSA in preoperative and postoperative radiographs (AP/Grashey and humeral-length views) using DSA, LSA, and humeral lengthening methodologies. DSA and LSA were then compared to patient-reported outcomes and range of motion (ROM) collected at 2-year follow-up.ResultsInterobserver reliability analysis showed near perfect agreement for DSA, LSA, and humeral lengthening. Lateralized prostheses were associated with higher LSAs (88.26 ± 7.44 vs. 81.95 ± 6.49; P < .001) when compared to medialized prostheses. DSA and humeral lengthening measurements did not correlate (R = 0.02; P = .88). LSA weakly correlated with 2-year postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (R = 0.17, P < .05), but did not correlate with visual analog scale pain score or ROM. DSA did not correlate with patient-reported outcomes or ROM.ConclusionThe DSA and LSA shoulder angles are simple and highly reproducible measures, but seem to have marginal correlation with postoperative clinical outcomes. Further investigations into the prognostic utility of minimally cumbersome RSA measurement methodologies are warranted.Level of EvidenceLevel Ⅲ; Retrospective Cohort Study     

Failed prior rotator cuff repair is associated with worse clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to determine the comparative risk profile and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) without failed prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) compared with RTSA for CTA with prior RCR.MethodsFrom 2006 to 2014, all patients who underwent RTSA by two surgeons after failed RCR with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Patients who underwent RTSA with failed prior RCR were matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients undergoing primary RTSA, while controlling for demographic factors, prosthesis design, and surgeon. Postoperative active forward elevation and active external rotation were recorded. Outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Simple Shoulder Test. Perioperative complications and rates of secondary reoperation were noted, and comparative multivariate analysis was performed.ResultsOf 262 patients, 192 (73.3%) were available at minimum 2-year follow-up. The prior RCR group had a significantly higher complication rate (17.4%, n = 15) than the primary RTSA group (3.8%, n = 4) (P = .001), although no significant difference in periprosthetic infection (P = .469) or secondary revision rate (P = .136) was observed. At mean 36.3 ± 26.1-month follow-up, the prior RCR group had statistically worse American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P < .001), VAS (P = .001), Simple Shoulder Test (P < .001), and active forward elevation (P = .006). Patients with multiple failed RCR attempts (n = 38) before RTSA demonstrated no significant differences versus isolated failed RCR (n = 48; P > .05).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that patients with RTSA after prior failed RCR have significantly worse patient-reported outcomes and greater rate of perioperative complications than patients undergoing primary RTSA for CTA.     

The effect of humeral stem alignment in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe impact of stem alignment on hip arthroplasty outcomes has been thoroughly evaluated, but there is limited data assessing this relationship in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). In this study, we investigated the association of humeral stem alignment with patient outcomes following RSA.MethodsUsing our prospectively maintained institutional registry, we identified patients who underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty between July 2015 and September 2017 with minimum 2-year follow-up. Two raters independently assessed stem alignment using full-length humeral view radiographs. Stem alignment was correlated to American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, range of motion, complications, and scapular notching at 2-year follow-up.ResultsOf the 117 patients that fit our inclusion criteria, 68 (58%) had neutral or valgus alignment and 49 (42%) had varus alignment. ASES score, VAS pain score, range of motion, complications, and scapular notching showed no differences between the 2 cohorts at 2-years postoperatively. Change (mean, SD) in ASES scores (52.5 ± 17.7 vs. 41.3 ± 21.2, P = .01) and VAS pain scores (−5.7 ± 2.5 vs. −4.6 ± 2.6, P = .02) were greater in the neutral/valgus cohort compared to the varus cohort. Demographics analysis revealed that the neutral or valgus cohort had a larger female population (74% vs. 59%, P < .01) while men were more likely to be in the varus cohort.ConclusionHumeral stem alignment does not appear to affect clinical outcomes at 2-years postoperatively. Improvement in ASES score and VAS pain score were slightly inferior in varus patients, however this difference was not clinically relevant. There may be a correlation between male gender and varus alignment, likely due to better bone quality and larger musculature. Further investigation into the association between stem angulation and clinical outcomes is warranted.Levels of EvidenceLevel III; Retrospective Cohort Study.     

Mid-term outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the alternate scapular line baseplate orientation for glenoid bone loss

BackgroundGlenoid-sided bone loss poses a challenge when performing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Placing the baseplate in an anteverted position along the alternate scapular line is an option when dealing with glenoid erosion or cavitary defects. Although this allows for stable initial baseplate fixation, questions remain about the effects of placing the baseplate in a more anteverted position relative to the standard glenoid center line. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcomes of patients treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty using an alternate scapular line baseplate orientation in the setting of glenoid bone loss.Materials and methodsFrom September 2007 to March 2014, 71 patients underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty using the alternate scapular line baseplate orientation and had a minimum of 5 years of follow up. Patients with no prior surgery, prior nonarthroplasty surgery, and prior arthroplasty surgery were included in this analysis. Patients were followed clinically (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, range of motion analysis, patient satisfaction) as well as radiographically, with data recorded at the 2-year point and their last recorded follow-up after a minimum of 60 months.ResultsAt the final follow-up point (average 78 months) patients had maintained their improvement in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (75 [P<.0001]), Simple Shoulder Test score (7.8 [P < .0001]), forward elevation (1300 [P < .0001]), external rotation (310 [P < .0001]) with no change in internal rotation (62% with full IR [P = 1.0]). No significant deterioration in outcome scores or motion was noted between the 2-year and final follow-up time point. At final follow-up, 92% remained satisfied with their outcome. There was a 7% complication rate (3 acromial fractures, 1 hematoma, 1 dislocation), with 1 patient requiring revision surgery secondary to instability.ConclusionUtilizing the alternate scapular line baseplate orientation in cases with glenoid bone loss resulted in clinical improvements with no deterioration in outcome scores, range of motion or patient satisfaction at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. Anteverting the baseplate in this position allowed for stable glenoid-sided fixation with no mechanical failures of the baseplate and did not appear to compromise the patient's functional outcomes. In patients with significant glenoid bone loss, where adequate bone stock along the standard glenoid line may be in question, use of the alternate scapular line for baseplate orientation is an effective option yielding sustained clinical improvements and a low rate of complications.Level of evidenceLevel IV; Case Series; Treatment Study     

Outcomes of nonoperative management of acromial stress fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

IntroductionAcromial stress fractures (ASF) and stress reactions (ASR) are common complications after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), and have been shown to compromise outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the functional outcomes of patients with ASF and ASR treated nonoperatively.MethodsA total of 958 patients that underwent RSA were retrospectively reviewed. 43 (4.5%) were found to have ASF and 56 (5.7%) were found to have ASR. ASF were defined by tenderness over the acromion with identified fracture on radiographic imaging, and ASR was defined as tenderness without radiographic evidence of fracture. Functional outcomes were assessed via American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and VAS (Visual Analog scale) pain at a minimum of 2 years after RSA and one year from diagnosis of acromial pathology. The ASF patients were matched 3:1 to RSA controls without acromial pathology based on age, sex, indication, and implant.ResultsTwenty seven ASF and 35 ASR patients met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of 50.3 months after surgery (range: 24-108 months). Symptom onset after RSA occurred at 8.1 ± 8.9 months (range: 0.8-49.8) in ASFs and 7.5 ± 6.8 months (range: 1.0-41.3) in ASRs (P = .700). The ASF group included 20 (74%) females with an average age of 71.8 years, and the ASR group included 30 (86%) females with an average age of 72.9 years. ASF patients had inferior outcomes compared to controls in ASES (57.8 vs. 76.0, P = .001), SANE (59.1 vs. 78.8, P = .001), SST (5.1 vs. 7.5, P = .001), and VAS (3.3 vs. 1.2, P = .002). Additionally, ASF patients had significantly worse scores compared to ASR patients by VAS Pain (3.3 vs 1.7, P = .020), ASES (57.8 vs. 76.7, P = .001), SANE (59.1 vs. 81.1, P = .001), and SST (5.1 vs. 7.5, P = .001). Patients with ASR had comparable pain and function to controls in ASES (P = .858), SANE (P = .508), SST (P = .956), and VAS (P = .264) scores. Twenty-one (77.7%) ASF patients experienced fracture displacement and 13 (48.1%) went on to nonunion.ConclusionEarly follow-up of patients treated nonsurgically for ASF after RSA demonstrated worse pain and function compared to controls. The majority demonstrated further displacement after diagnosis and almost half developed a nonunion. Patients with ASR experienced temporary dysfunction with little impact on final outcome. Strategies to prevent and treat ASFs remain an area in need of innovation.Level of evidenceLevel IV; Case series     

The impact of subscapularis integrity on functional outcome in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty utilizing a 135˚ stem

BackgroundReverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) predictably restores overhead function and provides pain relief in patients with glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. Implant design with an anatomic inclination angle of 135˚ may provide an advantage in the healing rates of subscapularis tendon (SST) repairs. The purpose of this study was to use ultrasound to evaluate the subscapularis repair healing rate, and secondarily, to compare outcomes between healed and non-healed SSTs, in patients undergoing RSA with a 135˚ inclination angle.MethodsA prospectively collected, multicenter shoulder arthroplasty registry was queried to identify patients undergoing RSA with a 135˚ inclination stem with a minimum of 1 year follow-up. Ultrasound analysis was performed at final follow-up to assess subscapularis integrity. Exclusion criteria included RSA for fracture, fracture sequelae or failed prior arthroplasty. Outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS), Single Anatomic Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Constant scores. Additionally, subscapularis functional assessments included range of motion, belly-press and shirt-tuck tests. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, Chi-square, and student t-tests with SPSS. Results were considered significant at P < .05.ResultsSeventy-eight patients meeting the inclusion criteria were identified from the registry, however, only seventy-five patients had ultrasound and healing data. The subscapularis was repaired in 60 patients and healing via ultrasound was noted in 56.7% (34/60). In most cases, a subscapularis peel was performed, with lesser tuberosity osteotomy performed in 9.38% of cases. Patients whose subscapularis was repaired were found to be older (72.2 vs. 64.9, P < .001) and the majority of patients with an unrepaired subscapularis were male (13/15, 86.7% unrepaired vs. 27/60, 45.0% repaired). Both healed and non-healed patient cohorts showed statistical improvement in all pain and functional outcome scores from their baselines. However, there were no significant differences in outcome scores between healed and non-healed SST. With regards to SST repair, only overall WOOS (Δ+15.62, P = .049) and physical component of the WOOS score (Δ+15.97, P = .040) were higher in patients with nonrepaired SST. There was no correlation between the ability to perform a belly-press or shirt-tuck test and subscapularis repair or evidence of radiographic healing. Patients who did not have their subscapularis repaired demonstrated greater passive external rotation at the side from 31° to 51° (P = .044). A significant increase in passive forward flexion was noted in patients with healed subscapularis from 117° to 135° (P = .042). There was no statistical difference in active range of motion between either the repaired/nonrepaired or healed/non-healed cohorts.ConclusionOur study demonstrates a healing rate of 57% following repair in patients undergoing RSA with a 135˚ angle. Standardized outcome measures overall demonstrated no difference between patients with a healed subscapularis compared to those with a non-healed or unrepaired subscapularis.Level of EvidenceIV, case series, treatment study.     

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients receiving Social Security Disability Insurance or workers’ compensation

BackgroundEvidence suggests that reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) patients receiving workers’ compensation (WC) have worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs) than those not receiving WC. It is unknown whether Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) recipients also have worse outcomes of RSA. Our goals were to (1) compare PROs and range of motion (ROM) after RSA according to whether patients were receiving SSDI, WC, or neither form of assistance, and (2) identify factors associated with poor PROs.MethodsFrom a US institutional database of 454 patients who underwent RSA from January 2009 through December 2016, we identified 19 SSDI recipients and 25 WC recipients. From the same database, we created a control group of 81 patients not receiving SSDI or WC, matched by demographic variables. Between groups, we compared age, sex, operative arm dominance, preoperative diagnosis, number of previous shoulder surgeries, primary or revision arthroplasty, and Charlson Comorbidity Index value. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively by physical examination, including range of motion, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, L'Insalata score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) score. Significance was set at P< .05. Clinical relevance of improvements in forward flexion and abduction, VAS for pain, ASES, and SST were evaluated using established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values.ResultsBoth the SSDI and WC groups experienced statistically significant improvements from preoperatively to postoperatively; these improvements exceeded MCID thresholds for forward flexion and abduction, VAS for pain, ASES (except in WC group), and SST score (all, P< .05). These outcomes were not significantly different between the SSDI and WC groups. Compared with the control group, both the SSDI and WC groups had statistically significantly worse outcomes for these same measures. The only factor associated with poor clinical outcomes was having undergone ≥2 previous surgical procedures on the same shoulder for which RSA was performed in both SSDI (odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.0-5.4) and WC (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-4.5) groups.ConclusionAmong RSA patients, SSDI recipients did not have worse clinical outcomes than WC recipients. Having undergone ≥2 previous procedures on the same shoulder was associated with poor outcomes in both groups. These findings should be considered when determining the appropriateness of RSA for SSDI and WC recipients.Level of evidenceLevel III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study     

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: trends in the incidence,indications and complications as reported by ABOS part II oral examination candidates from 2005 through 2017

BackgroundThe experience of early-career orthopedic surgeons performing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has not been previously reported. The aims of this study were to evaluate (1) the temporal trends in the incidence of and indications for RSA procedures performed among board-eligible orthopedic surgeons, (2) the temporal trends in the incidence of reported complications after RSA, and (3) the patient-related and surgeon-related variables that affected the reported complication rate.MethodsA query of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) Part II Oral Examination database for all cases of RSA from 2003 through 2017 was performed. The data over this time period was analyzed for incidence, indications, and complications. Risk factors for complication including patient demographic factors and shoulder fellowship training were also evaluated.ResultsFrom 2003 to 2017, a total of 2,633 RSA procedures were reported. There was an increased incidence of RSA (23-fold) and increased proportion of candidates performing RSA (19-fold) (P-trend < .001). While there was an increasing trend seen in the proportion of primary (P-trend = .009) and trauma cases (P-trend < .001), declining trend was seen in the proportion of revision cases (P-trend < .001). An increasing trend was seen in the proportion of RSA cases for off-label indications (P-trend < .001). Shoulder fellowship-training was reported by 27% of the candidates, and these candidates performed 42% of all RSA procedures. The complication rate over this time period was 34% and the incidence of medical, surgical and anesthesia complications was 18%, 15%, and 1.2%, respectively. The incidence of complications increased over the study period (P-trend < .001). Mortality, reoperation, and readmission rates were 0.6%, 3.2%, and 6.4%, respectively. Risk factors for medical complications were age and trauma cases, whereas revision RSA was a risk factor for surgical complications. Shoulder fellowship-training experience was not associated with a decrease in any of the complications.ConclusionThere was a dramatic increase in the use of RSA among board eligible orthopedic surgeons in the United States. The early complication rates for ABOS candidates performing RSA are above others reported in the literature and showed an increasing trend over the study period. Despite the improvements in the literature, and shoulder fellowship training, there has been no decrease in the incidence of surgical complications over the decade represented in this study.Level of evidenceLevel III; Cross-Sectional Design; Treatment Study     

Risk factors and reasons for revision after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundAs the indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) continue to expand, the need for revision surgery after RSA will become more frequent. The objective of this study was to characterize patient-related risk factors for revision RSA and to compare reasons for early vs. late revision after RSA.MethodsPatients who underwent primary and revision RSA from 2015 to 2019 were identified in a national insurance database. Subgroups of early revision (defined as revision within 1 year postoperatively) and late revision (more than 1 year postoperatively) were also identified. The primary outcome of interest was patient-related risk factors for revision RSA. Secondary outcomes of interest were patient-related risk factors for early vs. late revision RSA and to compare surgical diagnoses for early vs. late revision RSA. Univariate analysis using chi-square tests was performed to analyze any differences in reasons for revision. Multivariate regression was subsequently utilized to control for any confounding variables when identifying risk factors for revision.ResultsA total of 28,880 patients were identified who underwent RSA, with 553 (1.9%) patients undergoing revision RSA. Three hundred eighty-five patients (69.6%) were classified as early revision (within one year), while 141 (30.4%) underwent late revision more than a year postoperatively. Risk factors for overall revisions included age <65 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23, P = .032), male sex (OR = 2.21, P < .001), type I diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.44, P = .039), congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR = 1.79, P < .001), and depression (OR = 1.33, P = .002) in addition to RSAs performed for fracture (OR = 1.63, P < .001) and glenohumeral instability (OR = 2.25, P < .001) compared to RSA performed for arthritis. Risk factors for early revision RSA included male sex (OR = 2.54, P < .001) and CHF (OR = 1.81, P < .001) in addition to RSAs performed for fracture (OR = 1.84, P < .001) and glenohumeral instability (OR = 2.44, P < .001). Risk factors for late revision RSA included male sex (OR = 1.62, P = .004), CHF (OR = 1.83, P = .005), steroid use (OR = 1.79, P = .036), human immunodeficiency virus (OR = 3.50, P = .038), and RSA performed for glenohumeral instability (OR = 1.92, P = .004). Early revision RSA was more commonly performed for instability (63.1% vs. 25.0%, P < .001) and stiffness (5.5% vs. 1.2%, P = .021) than late revisions.ConclusionRevision RSA is uncommon at early follow-up. Overall patient-related risk factors for revision include male sex, age <65 years, type I diabetes mellitus, CHF, and depression in addition to RSAs performed for fracture and glenohumeral instability. Instability and stiffness were more common indications for early compared to late revision. Instability remained the most common reason for overall revision followed by periprosthetic infection.     

Onlay versus inlay reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes

IntroductionRecent innovations in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have presented 2 distinct humeral stem designs: an onlay system that rests above the anatomic neck and an inlay component that rests within the metaphysis. The purpose of this study is to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes between inlay and onlay-designed humeral stems in lateral center of rotation RSA implant systems.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed on primary RSA patients treated by 2 surgeons at 2 separate hospitals with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were categorized based on treatment with an onlay or inlay humeral design and matched 1:1 by indication and age. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and Visual Analog Score for pain, as well as active motion (forward elevation, internal rotation) were recorded at pre- and postoperative intervals. An Inlay-Onlay index assessed the degree of inset or offset of each particular implant referencing the anatomic neck. Radiographic analysis focused on scapular notching, bone resorption around the humeral stem, and acromion stress fractures.ResultsA total of 92 patients participated in the 1:1 matched analysis (46 each group). Cohorts were similar in age, gender, indication, follow-up length, and preoperative PROMs, with the exception of Simple Shoulder Test. At the most recent follow-up, there were no differences in all PROMs between groups. There were no differences in active internal rotation, but patients with an onlay-configuration demonstrated greater external rotation (P< .001) and forward flexion (P< .001). Greater tuberosity and calcar resorption occurred in 34 (74%) and 18 (39%) patients with an onlay-designed prosthesis, compared to 13 (28%) and 1 (2%) in the inlay group, respectively (P< .0001). Both groups had low rates of scapular notching (P= 1.0), while acromial fractures occurred in 6 patients with an onlay stem and in 4 patients with the inlay stem (P= .73).ConclusionThere were no differences in clinical outcomes or incidence of acromial fractures following RSA with an onlay- or inlay-style humeral stem prosthesis. Bone resorption of the proximal humerus occurred more frequently in patients with an onlay prosthesis, suggesting that an inlay prosthesis may afford better prevention of humeral stress shielding.Level Of EvidenceLevel III; Retrospective Comparative Study     

Anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff: a retrospective comparison of patient-reported outcomes using the systems outcomes database with up to 5-year follow-up

BackgroundThe growing enthusiasm for the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with an intact rotator cuff is based on data derived from single-center studies with limited generalizability and follow-up. This study compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between RSA and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for the treatment of primary GHOA with up to 5-year follow-up and examined temporal trends in the treatment of GHOA between 2012 and 2021.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on patients with primary GHOA undergoing primary arthroplasty surgery from the Surgical Outcomes System global registry between 2012 and 2021. PROs including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were compared between RSA and TSA at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively.ResultsA total of 4451 patients were included, with 2693 (60.5%) undergoing TSA and 1758 (39.5%) undergoing RSA. Both RSA and TSA provided clinically excellent outcomes at 1 year postoperatively (ASES: 80.8 ± 17.9 vs. 85.9 ± 15.2, respectively; SANE: 74.8 ± 24.7 vs. 79.5 ± 22.9; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.0 vs. 1.1 ± 1.7; all P < .05) that were maintained at 2 years (ASES: 81.3 ± 19.3 vs. 87.3 ± 14.9; SANE: 74.8 ± 26.2 vs. 79.7 ± 24.7; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.1 vs. 1.0 ± 1.6; all P < .05) and 5 years (ASES: 81.7 ± 16.5 vs. 86.9 ± 15.3; SANE: 71.6 ± 28.5 vs. 78.2 ± 25.9; VAS pain: 1.0 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 1.7; all P < .05), with statistical significance favoring TSA. After controlling for age and sex, there was an adjusted difference of 4.5 units in the ASES score favoring TSA (P = .005) at 5 years postoperatively but no differences in adjusted SANE (P = .745) and VAS pain (P = .332) scores. The use of RSA for GHOA grew considerably over time, from representing only 17% of all replacements performed for GHOA in 2012 to nearly half (47%) in 2021 (P < .001).ConclusionRSA as a treatment for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff seems to yield PROs that are largely clinically equivalent to TSA extending to 5 years postoperatively. The observed statistical significance favoring TSA appears to be of marginal clinical benefit based on established minimal clinically important differences and may be a result of the large sample size. Further research using more granular clinical data and examining differences in range of motion and complications is warranted as it may change the value analysis.     

Outcomes for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty after failed open reduction internal fixation versus primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to determine the clinical and radiographic outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) after failed open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) and compare them to outcomes of primary RTSA for PHF.MethodsWe performed a retrospective comparative study of patients who underwent RTSA between 2008 and 2015 at our institution by one of two fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeons for an acute PHF or for continued pain or functional limitations following ORIF of a PHF. We compared the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores, range-of-motion, and radiographic measurements between cohorts.ResultsIn total, there were 20 patients treated with RTSA after failed ORIF and 30 patients treated acutely with RTSA for PHF. The average ASES score was significantly greater for primary RTSA (82.0 ± 13.5) than for delayed RTSA (64.0 ± 27.2, P = 0.016). The average SST score for primary RTSA (69.4%±19.1%) was significantly higher than the average for delayed RTSA (49.1%±8.9%, P = 0.020). Forward elevation achieved postoperatively was significantly greater for patients treated with primary RTSA versus those with delayed RTSA (130±31° vs 107±31°, P = 0.035). No difference was detected between groups in postoperative external rotation (P = 0.152) or internal rotation (P = 0.872). Radiographically, the tuberosities healed in an anatomic position in 70% of the primary cases versus the prior ORIF group in which the tuberosities were in an anatomic position in all cases (P = 0.007).ConclusionsIn an elderly population, primary RTSA for PHF resulted in better clinical outcomes compared to RTSA following failed ORIF in this retrospective cohort study.Level of EvidenceLevel III; Retrospective Comparative Study     

Minimum clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score after revision shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundPatients undergoing revision total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) typically achieve smaller improvements in outcome measurements than those undergoing primary TSA. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire for primary shoulder arthroplasty ranges from 13.6 to 20.9, but the MCID for revision shoulder arthroplasty remains unclear. This study aims to define the MCID in ASES score for revision TSA and ascertain patient factors that affect achieving the MCID threshold.MethodsPatients were identified from an institutional shoulder arthroplasty database. Prospective data collected included demographic variables, prior shoulder surgeries, primary and revision implants, indication for revision, and pre- and postoperative ASES scores. All patients provided informed consent to participate. An anchor-based method was used with a binary answer choice. The MCID was calculated using the receiver-operator curve (ROC) method, and the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were obtained from the ROC. MCID values were compared between groups using Student's t-test. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to determine significant predictors for reaching MCID. Significance was defined as P< .05.ResultsA total of 46 patients underwent revision TSA with minimum 2-year follow-up. The MCID using ROC method was 16.7 with 71% sensitivity and 62% specificity. There was a trend toward males being more likely to reach MCID after revision arthroplasty (P= .058). There were also trends toward increased forward flexion and abduction range of motion in patients who met MCID (P= .08, P= .07). Multivariate logistic regression modeling demonstrated male sex to be associated with achieving MCID (P= .03), while younger age and fewer prior shoulder surgeries demonstrated a trend to association with achieving MCID (P= .06, P= .10).ConclusionThe MCID for ASES score in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty is similar to previously reported MCID values for patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty. Younger, male patients with fewer prior shoulder surgeries were more likely to achieve MCID after revision TSA.Level of EvidenceLevel III; Retrospective Comparative Treatment Study     

The effect of an early mobilization rehabilitation protocol on outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundGiven the continued growth of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), it is important to optimize factors that contribute to successful outcomes. Rehabilitation after RSA is critical to achieve successful outcomes including patient function and satisfaction; however, the ideal rehabilitation program has not been established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of early mobilization (EM) compared with delayed mobilization (DM) on outcomes and function after RSA.MethodsA retrospective study of prospectively collected data was performed comparing 67 patients who underwent RSA in two groups: the EM group began a rehabilitation program immediately after surgery, and the DM group began after 4-6 weeks postoperatively. Preoperative and postoperative Constant shoulder score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Penn Shoulder Score (PSS), shoulder satisfaction value as well as demographics, opioid usage, range of motion, 90-day complications, reoperation, and readmission rates were collected. Statistical analysis was performed between each group’s outcomes and for the change (delta) of outcomes from baseline to each postoperative time point.ResultsAt 6 weeks postoperatively, the EM group showed significantly higher scores in ASES function, PSS, active forward elevation, passive forward elevation, active external rotation, and passive external rotation. There was significantly lower narcotic usage in the EM group at 6 weeks. At 3 months postoperatively, the EM group showed a lower numerical rating score for pain and higher active forward elevation. At the last follow-up, there was a lower numerical rating score and greater degree for all ranges of motion for the EM group than that for the DM group. A greater change from baseline to 6 weeks postoperatively was seen for the EM group in shoulder satisfaction value, ASES function, PSS, active forward elevation, passive forward elevation, and internal rotation. From baseline to 3 months postoperatively, ASES pain, PSS, active forward elevation, and passive forward elevation improved significantly in the EM group. At the final follow-up, active forward elevation increased greater for the EM group. There were 3 complications (2 hematomas and 1 infection) in the DM group and none in the EM group.ConclusionThe EM rehabilitation protocol after RSA achieved lower opioid usage at 6 weeks, lower pain scores at each time point, and better range of motion during the final follow-up than DM protocol. There were no complications reported with the EM protocol, suggesting it is a safe alternative for postoperative recovery. Orthopedic surgeons should consider the EM rehabilitation protocol after RSA.     

Use of preoperative advanced imaging for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundIn order to avoid implant related complications related to glenosphere malposition, there has been an increased interest in the use of advanced imaging, including computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for preoperative planning and patient-specific instrumentation for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). While recent literature has demonstrated improved component position when this technology is applied, the clinical benefits remain largely hypothetical and unproven. Thus, the goals of the current study were to utilize a national database to describe current trends in the use of preoperative advanced imaging and investigate the relationship between such imaging and postoperative complications compared to matched controls without any preoperative imaging.MethodsPatients undergoing RSA for non-fracture indications were identified within the Mariner dataset within the PearlDiver database from 2010 to 2018Q2. Patients who underwent preoperative advanced imaging (MRI and/or CT) within a year prior to surgery were then identified as study cohorts. A matched cohort undergoing RSA without preoperative advanced imaging was created for comparison purposes. The incidence of imaging over time and rates of loosening/osteolysis, periprosthetic fracture, prosthetic dislocation, and revision shoulder arthroplasty of all groups were compared using a regression analysis.ResultsThe percentage of patients who underwent preoperative CT (141% increase, P < .0001), and either MRI or CT (107% increase, P = .002) increased significantly during the study period, while there was no significant increase in MRI utilization (P = .122). Patients who underwent preoperative CT experienced significantly lower rates of revision shoulder arthroplasty (2.4% vs. 3.3%, OR = 0.72, P = .004) and periprosthetic dislocation (2.8% vs. 3.3%, OR 0.80, P = .039) within 2 years of RSA compared to patients who did not undergo preoperative CT, while preoperative MRI was associated with significantly lower rates of periprosthetic fracture (0.2% vs. 0.4%, OR 0.44, P = .005), revision shoulder arthroplasty (2.1% vs. 2.6%, OR = 0.75, P = .006), and periprosthetic dislocation (2.5% vs. 3.2%, OR 0.78, P = .003) within 2 years of RSA compared to patients without an MRI.ConclusionThere has been a significant increase in the utilization of preoperative CT as compared to MRI for RSA during the time period studied. The utilization of preoperative advanced imaging may be associated with a statistically significant reduction in multiple implant related complications following RSA for non-fracture indications, although these findings are of unclear clinical significance given limitations of the database and low percentage difference in complication rates.Level of Evidence: Level III     

Prior surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures is associated with increased complications following subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare complication rates between patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after a prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) to those undergoing RSA as a primary treatment for PHFs, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).MethodsPatients who underwent RSA between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Mariner database. Patients were separated into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) RSA for osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear, or CTA (Control-RSA); (2) RSA as a primary treatment for PHF (PHF-RSA); and (3) RSA for patients with prior ORIF of PHFs (ORIF-RSA). Ninety-day medical and 2-year postoperative surgical complications were identified. In addition, patients in the PHF-RSA group were subdivided into those undergoing RSA for PHF within 3 months of the fracture (acute) vs. those treated greater than 3 months from diagnosis (delayed). Multivariate regression was performed to control for differences in comorbidities and demographics.ResultsA total of 30,824 patients underwent primary RSA for arthritis or CTA, 5389 patients underwent RSA as a primary treatment for a PHF, and 361 patients underwent RSA after ORIF of a PHF. ORIF before RSA was associated with an increased risk of overall revision (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, P = .002), infection (OR 2.40, P < .001), instability (OR 2.43, P < .001), fracture (OR 3.24, P = .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.59, P = .008), and readmission (OR 2.55, P = .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. RSA as a primary treatment for PHF was associated with an increased risk of 2-year revision (OR 1.60, P < .001), infection (OR 1.51, P < .001), instability (OR 2.84, P < .001), and fracture (OR 2.54, P < .001) in addition to major medical complications (OR 2.02, P < .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.92, P < .001), 90-day emergency department visits (OR 1.26, P < .001) and 90-day readmission (OR 2.03, P < .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. The ORIF-RSA group had an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (OR 1.94, P = .002) when compared with the PHF-RSA cohort. There were no differences in medical or surgical complications in the RSA-PHF cohort between patients treated in an acute or delayed fashion.ConclusionRSA following ORIF of a PHF is associated with increased complications compared with patients undergoing RSA for nonfracture indications. Prior ORIF of a PHF is also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection after RSA compared with patients who undergo RSA as a primary operation for fracture. The timing of RSA as a primary operation for PHF does not appear to impact the rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications.     

Clinical outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty for post-instability arthropathy after open anterior bone block stabilization

BackgroundPost-instability glenohumeral arthropathy can occur after nonanatomic instability repairs. With advanced secondary arthritis, subsequent shoulder arthroplasty may be complicated by altered surgical anatomy, poor range of motion, subscapularis deficiency, unique glenoid wear patterns, and/or aberrant neurovascular anatomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty after previous open nonanatomic anterior shoulder stabilization, particularly glenoid bone block procedures.MethodsBetween 2008 and 2014, all patients with shoulder arthroplasty for symptomatic post-instability glenohumeral arthropathy after prior open stabilizations were identified from surgical case logs of two senior shoulder surgeons. Demographic variables were extracted from electronic medical records, operative reports, and preoperative and postoperative radiographs, and a minimum 24-month follow-up with completion of patient-reported questionnaires was required. Postoperative active forward elevation and active external rotation were recorded. The primary outcome measures were the visual analog scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder score, and the Simple Shoulder Test. Perioperative complications and rates of secondary reoperation were extracted.ResultsA total of 12 patients were identified with an average age of 63 ± 12 years (range, 46-83), including 7 males and 5 females, and index surgery included open Bristow (n = 7), open Latarjet (n = 2), iliac crest bone graft (n = 1), and Putti-Platt procedure (n = 2). Seven patients underwent anatomic TSA, 4 reverse TSA, and 1 hemiarthroplasty. At an average of 44 ± 21 months follow-up, average active forward elevation and active external rotation improved from 100 ± 36 preoperatively to 132 ± 41 (P = .12) postoperatively and 19 ± 15 to 49 ± 11 (P < .01), respectively. The average visual analog scale decreased from 5 ± 3 to 1 ± 2 (P < .01) and mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons improved from 44 ± 23 to 79 ± 17 (P < .01); and the average Simple Shoulder Test improved from 4 ± 2 to 9 ± 3 (P < .01). No perioperative complications or secondary reoperations were required, and only one patient experienced subsequent instability due to subsequent shoulder trauma.ConclusionDespite the surgical complexity and unique challenges associated with post-instability arthropathy, shoulder arthroplasty after prior open anterior bone block procedure or nonanatomic reconstruction is a safe procedure with low risk of perioperative complication, subsequent shoulder instability, or secondary revision surgery. All patients experienced significant improvements in pain, range of motion, and self-reported function at short- to mid-term follow-up.