Search

Anxiety and depression are the two most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in the US. 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 preoperative diagnosis of anxiety and depression and its association with postoperative outcomes after TSA. The secondary goals were to determine whether patients contemporaneously being treated with medicine for their mental health diagnosis fared better than a non-medicated cohort and to examine the degree to which PROMIS Mental Health (PROMIS-MH) scores correlate with patient outcomes. Our hypothesis is that a history of anxiety and/or depression will negatively impact patient outcomes after TSA.A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively collected cohort at a single institution. Anatomic and reverse TSA patients (aTSA, rTSA) with either anxiety and/or depression (aTSApsych+, rTSApsych+) were identified and compared to a cohort of patients without a mental health diagnosis enrolled in an institutional registry from 2011 to 2020. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, implant type, range of motion (ROM), adverse events (AE) and clinical outcome metric scores:PROMIS-MH, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart Score (SAS) were recorded. Outcomes between cohorts were analyzed using conventional statistics as well as stratification by MCID and SCB thresholds where applicable.218 patients (114 rTSA and 95 aTSA) had a diagnosis of either anxiety and/or depression and 378 (153 rTSA and 217 aTSA) had no history. Although both cohorts achieved MCID and SCB for postoperative ASES, the psych+ cohort resulted in lower postoperative outcomes scores (p0.05), higher AE, and significantly lower Δ differences in all variables when compared to the psych negative cohort. There were no differences in outcome scores after rTSApsych+ or aTSApsych+ between patients being treated for anxiety/depression compared to not receiving treatment. PROMIS-MH score was positively correlated with postoperative outcomes and patient satisfaction.The current study demonstrates that patients with anxiety and/or depression who undergo TSA have inferior postoperative outcomes and higher rates of AE compared to a cohort without a mental health diagnosis. Additionally, patients on medications for treatment of depression and/or anxiety did not gain any significant benefit in terms of their postoperative shoulder outcomes or satisfaction rate compared to those with a diagnosis but not on medication. Additionally, we found that, independent of a patient's underlying shoulder pathology or psychiatric diagnosis, lower PROMIS-MH scores was correlated with worse postoperative outcomes.

Glenoid baseplate augments have recently been introduced as a way of managing glenoid monoplanar or biplanar abnormalities in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the difference in clinical outcomes, complications, and revision rates between augmented and standard baseplates in RSA for rotator cuff arthropathy patients with glenoid deformity.A multicenter retrospective analysis of 171 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent RSA with and without augmented baseplates was performed. Preoperative inclusion criteria included minimum follow-up of 2 years and preoperative retroversion of 15°-30° and/or a beta angle 70°-80°. Version and beta angle were measured on computed tomographic scans, when available, and plain radiographs. Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes were obtained from preoperative and multiple postoperative time points.The study consisted of 84 standard baseplate patients and 87 augmented baseplate patients. The augment cohort had greater mean preoperative glenoid retroversion (17° vs. 9°, P .001). At5-year follow-up, the increase in postoperative active abduction (52° vs. 31°, P = .023), forward flexion (58° vs. 35°, P = .020), and internal rotation score (2.8° vs. 1.1°, P = .001) was significantly greater in the augment cohort. Additionally,5-year follow-up American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score (87.0 ± 16.6 vs. 75.9 ± 22.4, P = .022), Constant score (78.0 ± 9.7 vs. 64.6 ± 15.1, P .001), and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score (81.2 ± 6.5 vs. 71.2 ± 13.6, P = .003) were significantly higher in the augment cohort. Revision rate was low overall, with no difference between the augment and no augment groups (0.7% vs. 3.0%, P = .151).In comparing augments to standard nonaugment baseplates in the setting of RSA with glenoid deformity, our results demonstrate greater postoperative improvements in multiple planes of active ROM in the augment cohort. Additionally, the augment cohort demonstrated greater postoperative level and improvement in scores for multiple clinical outcome metrics up to5 years of follow-up with no difference in complication or revision rates, supporting the use of augmented glenoid baseplates in RSA with glenoid deformity.

Since the introduction of the Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the humeral stem design has been modified with improved clinical outcomes. Two distinct humeral designs have been used extensively: the inlay design, in which the humeral tray is seated within the metaphysis, and the onlay design, in which the humeral tray sits on the metaphysis at the level of the humeral neck cut. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether there are differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates between these designs.The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to perform this systematic review. A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase was performed to identify all studies comparing the clinical results of both humeral designs. Primary outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures, shoulder range of motion, and incidence of complications.From the 156 identified publications, 12 studies were included in the final review. A total of 1447 patients were included, with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. At final follow-up, both implants demonstrated significant improvements in comparison to preoperative baseline. On comparison of the inlay vs. onlay groups, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was higher in the inlay group (mean difference, 2.53 [95% confidence interval, 0.27-4.78]; P = .03). Postoperative motion, even if statistically greater in the onlay group (differences of 5° in forward flexion [P .001], 3° in abduction [P = .003], and 4° in external rotation [P .001]), was not clinically different. On comparison of complications, the inlay group showed more instances of scapular notching (93 of 322 patients vs. 70 of 415 patients; odds ratio, 0.35; P .001) but fewer scapular spine fractures (26 of 727 patients vs. 21 of 559 patients, P = .09).Inlay and onlay humeral tray designs in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty demonstrate similar clinical improvements postoperatively. Onlay implants have a low rate of scapular notching but a higher rate of scapular spine fracture. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 humeral tray designs is important to provide surgeons with options to tailor surgical plans for high-risk patients.

This study's purpose is to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and an intact rotator cuff with no previous history of shoulder surgery using a single platform TSA system at a minimum follow-up of 2 years.A total of 370 aTSA patients and 370 rTSA patients matched for age, sex, and length of follow-up from an international multi-institutional Western Institutional Review Board approved registry with a minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed for this study. All patients had a diagnosis of OA, an intact rotator cuff, and no previous shoulder surgery. All patients were evaluated and scored preoperatively and at latest follow-up using six outcome scoring metrics and four active range of motion measurements.Mean follow-up was 41 months, and the mean age was 73 years. Preoperatively, the rTSA patients had lower outcome metrics and less motion. Postoperatively, aTSA and rTSA patients had similar clinical outcomes, motion, and function, with the only exception being greater external rotation in aTSA exceeding the minimal clinically important difference. Pain relief was excellent, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. Humeral radiolucent lines were similar in both groups (8%). Complications were significantly higher with aTSA (aTSA = 4.9%; rTSA = 2.2%; P = 0.045), but revisions were similar (aTSA = 3.2%; rTSA = 1.4%; P = 0.086).At a mean of 41 month follow-up, primary aTSA and rTSA patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff with no previous history of shoulder surgery had similar clinical and radiographic outcomes. Greater external rotation was noted in aTSA patients at follow-up. However, aTSA patients had a significantly greater rate of complications compared with rTSA patients. rTSA is a viable treatment option in patients with an intact rotator cuff and no previous shoulder surgery, offering similar clinical outcomes with a lower complication rate.Level III.

Background The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) after prior shoulder stabilization versus matched cohorts without previous stabilization surgery. Hypotheses were as follows: (1) patients undergoing aTSA or rTSA after stabilization procedures would have worse outcomes than matched cohorts and (2) patients undergoing TSA would have better outcomes after soft-tissue stabilization procedures (aTSAST or rTSAST) than after bony stabilization procedures (aTSAB or rTSAB). Methods Retrospective cohort study was performed comparing (1) 36 patients who underwent aTSA and (2) 32 patients who underwent rTSA with prior shoulder stabilization with 3-to-1 matched cohorts (based on age, gender, and follow-up length) with no prior shoulder instability or surgery. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, adverse events (AEs), radiographic outcomes, functional outcome scores, range of motion (ROM), and patient satisfaction were analyzed. Subgroup analyses compared patients who underwent aTSAST or rTSAST with patients who underwent aTSAB or rTSAB. Results The postoperative AE rate was 8.3% and 4.6% in the aTSA group and matched cohort, respectively (P = .404), with a trend toward a significantly higher incidence of aseptic glenoid loosening in the aTSA group (8.3% vs. 1.9%, P = .067). Functional outcomes, ROM, and patient satisfaction did not differ at follow-up >4 years. In the subgroup analysis, two AEs required reoperation among 25 patients who underwent aTSAST versus one among 11 patients who underwent aTSAB, all related to aseptic loosening. There was a trend toward greater functional outcomes and satisfaction among patients who underwent aTSAST. There was a trend toward a clinically significant difference in active abduction at final follow-up favoring aTSAST (128 vs. 108 degrees, P = .096). The postoperative AE rate was 6.3% and 4.2% among the rTSA group and matched cohort, respectively (P = .632). Functional outcomes, ROM, and patient satisfaction did not differ at 4-year follow-up. In the subgroup analysis, no AEs were reported among 18 patients who underwent rTSAST and 14 patients who underwent rTSAB. A trend toward greater functional outcomes and patient satisfaction favored patients who underwent rTSAB, who achieved greater improvements in ROM from baseline and greater ROM in all planes at the final follow-up. Conclusion Both aTSA and rTSA are reliable options for the treatment of dislocation arthropathy in appropriately selected patients. aTSA and rTSA after prior shoulder stabilization procedures have nearly equal rates of AEs and yield similar clinical and functional outcomes as matched cohorts. There may be an increased risk of glenoid aseptic loosening in aTSA after prior shoulder stabilization. Functional outcomes tend to be greater for patients who underwent aTSAST than those for patients who underwent aTSAB. On the contrary, rTSA may optimize postoperative function when performed for dislocation arthropathy after bony rather than soft-tissue stabilization procedures. Level of evidence Level III; Retrospective Cohort Design; Treatment Study

Introduction We use machine learning to create predictive models from preoperative data to predict the Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the Constant score at multiple postoperative timepoints and compare the accuracy of each algorithm for anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty. Methods Clinical data from 2,270 aTSA and 4,198 rTSA patients were analyzed using 3 supervised machine learning techniques to create predictive models for the SAS, ASES, and Constant score at 6 different postoperative timepoints using a full input feature set and the 2 different minimal feature sets. Mean absolute errors (MAE) quantified the difference between actual and predicted outcome scores for each model at each postoperative timepoint. The performance of each model was also quantified by its ability to predict improvement greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) patient satisfaction thresholds for each outcome measure at 2-3 years after surgery. Results All 3 machine learning techniques were more accurate at predicting aTSA and rTSA outcomes using the SAS score (aTSA: ±7.41 MAE; rTSA: ±7.79 MAE), followed by the Constant score (aTSA: ±8.32 MAE; rTSA: ±8.30 MAE), and finally the ASES score (aTSA: ±10.86 MAE; rTSA: ±10.60 MAE). These prediction accuracy trends were maintained across the 3 different model input categories for each of the SAS, ASES, and Constant models at each postoperative timepoint. For aTSA patients, the XGBoost predictive models achieved 94-97% accuracy in MCID with an AUROC between 0.90-0.97 and 89-94% accuracy in SCB with an AUROC between 0.89-0.92 for the 3 clinical scores using the full feature set of inputs. For rTSA patients, the XGBoost predictive models achieved 95-99% accuracy in MCID with an AUROC between 0.88-0.96 and 88-92% accuracy in SCB with an AUROC between 0.81-0.89 for the 3 clinical scores using the full feature set of inputs. Discussion Our study demonstrated that the SAS score predictions are more accurate than the ASES and Constant predictions for multiple supervised machine learning techniques, despite requiring less input data for the SAS model. Additionally, we predicted which patients will, and will not achieve clinical improvement that exceeds the MCID and SCB thresholds for each score; this highly accurate predictive capability effectively risk-stratifies patients for a variety of outcome measures using only preoperative data.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to determine why athletes did not return to play (RTP) following operative management of superior-labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears, compare these athletes to those who did RTP, and evaluate the SLAP-Return to Sport after Injury (SLAP-RSI) score to assess the psychological readiness of athletes to RTP after operative management of SLAP tears. METHODS: A retrospective review of athletes who underwent operative management of SLAP tears with a minimum of 24-month follow-up was performed. Outcome data, including visual analog scale (VAS) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, patient satisfaction, and whether they would undergo the same surgery again was collected. Additionally, the rate and timing of return to work (RTW), the rate and timing of RTP, SLAP-RSI score, and VAS during sport were evaluated, with subgroup analysis among overhead and contact athletes. The SLAP-RSI is a modification of the Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SI-RSI) score, with a score >56 considered to be a passing score for being psychologically ready to RTP. RESULTS: The study included 209 athletes who underwent operative management of SLAP tears. A significantly higher percentage of patients who were able to return to play passed the SLAP-RSI benchmark of 56 compared to those who were unable to return (82.3% vs 10.1%; P < .001), and the mean overall SLAP-RSI scores were also significantly higher among those capable of returning to play (76.8 vs 50.0; P < .0001). Additionally, there was a significant difference between the two groups in every component of the SLAP-RSI score (P < .05 for all). Fear of reinjury and the feeling of instability were the most common reasons for not returning to play among contact athletes. Residual pain was the most common complaint among overhead athletes. A binary regression model predicting return to sports was performed, which demonstrated ASES score (odds ratio [OR]: 1.04, 95%; (confidence interval [CI]: 1.01–1.07; P = .009), RTW within 1 month after surgery (OR: 3.52, 95%; CI: 1.01–12.3; P = .048), and SLAP-RSI score (OR: 1.03, 95%; CI: 1.01–1.05; P = .001) were all associated with greater likelihood of return to sports at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Following the operative management of SLAP tears, patients who are unable to RTP exhibit poor psychological readiness to return, which may be due to residual pain in overhead athletes or fear of reinjury in contact athletes. Lastly, the SLAP-RSI tool in combination with ASES proved to be useful in identifying patients’ psychological and physical readiness to RTP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic case series.

PURPOSE: To assess the preoperative and postoperative performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE, version 2.0) outcome score in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) instruments in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. METHODS: This prospective longitudinal study included 91 patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. Patients completed the PROMIS-UE, ASES, and WORC instruments preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between these tools was calculated at each time point. Correlations were graded as excellent (>0.7), excellent-good (0.61-0.7), good (0.4-0.6), or poor (

Background The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and preference for telemedicine vs. in-person visits for outpatient shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal consultation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and in the future. Methods Patients who had telemedicine visits for shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal complaints at a single institution from March through June 2020 were invited to respond to a post-visit survey. The survey included a standardized questionnaire that focused on the patient’s satisfaction with the telemedicine visits during the pandemic and preference for using the telemedicine platform in the future, following the pandemic. Additional details regarding their virtual visits (severity of medical condition, as well as previous virtual or emergency department visits) were also obtained. Data regarding patient demographic characteristics and visit details (primary diagnosis, type of visit, length of visit, and treating physician) were extracted from the electronic medical records. Results In total, 153 patients participated in the study. Overall, high satisfaction scores regarding the telemedicine visits were noted: 91% of patients reported that their concerns were adequately addressed, 89% would recommend telemedicine to a friend, and 94% stated that they would use the telemedicine platform again in the presence of a situation similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the majority of patients (76%) reported a preference for in-person visits for the same musculoskeletal complaint if it were not for COVID-19. A telemedicine visit duration > 10 minutes and a first-time telemedicine visit correlated with higher satisfaction rates (P = .037 and P = .001, respectively). Conclusions COVID-19 has provided a boost to the use of our telemedicine platform, with a high satisfaction rate among patients with shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal complaints, largely owing to safety reasons and limited access to in-person doctor visits. However, a considerable number of patients would have preferred in-person visits for similar health complaints if there were no pandemic. Further research on optimizing the selection of patients for telemedicine visits and addressing their expectations and concerns regarding their visits will improve patients’ preference for future telemedicine visits.

It is important to educate and equip the orthopaedic community with tools to address health care disparities and improve orthopaedic specialty recruitment for racial minorities. How patients and providers are affected by systemic racism in healthcare and what that means in orthopaedic surgery, methods to identify bias and improve access to orthopaedic care for racial minorities, and how to structure a program and department environment to encourage and promote diversity are important topics of discussion.

Background Massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCT) are challenging problems for both patients and surgeons. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a treatment option for patients with MIRCTs. However, previous reports have shown inconsistent results, varying patient satisfaction, and higher complication rates. Methods This is a retrospective multi-institutional study (22 institutions, 24 surgeons) of 203 patients (average age, 71 years) who underwent RTSA for MIRCT without glenohumeral arthritis with a mean follow-up of 50 months. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on preoperative shoulder active forward elevation (aFE) ( 120°). Clinical outcomes were assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROs), postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient satisfaction, and complication rate. Radiographic outcomes assessment included evaluation of postoperative scapular notching and humeral radiolucent lines. Results Patients in each group had significant (P≤ 0.02) improvements in PROs and ROM postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was highest in the group with >120° preoperative aFE (44/44, 100%). Scapular notching and humeral radiolucency were noted in 6% and 7% of patients, respectively. There were only 3 complications that required 2 revision surgeries. Overall, the complication rate (1.6%) and reoperation rate (1.1%) were considerably lower than previously reported. Conclusion RTSA is a reliable treatment for MIRCTs without glenohumeral arthritis that results in significant improvements in PROs and shoulder ROM. Compared to previous studies, we report a substantially higher satisfaction rates in all patients, especially in those with better preoperative ROM (aFE >120°), and a lower overall complication rate. Level of evidence Level IV; Therapeutic Study

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the clinical outcomes and associated predictors of outcomes for chronic glenohumeral dislocations treated with arthroplasty. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed with Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, BIOSIS, and CINAHL databases from the inception of these databases through January 1, 2021 to identify all articles that examined outcomes or predictors of outcomes of arthroplasty in patients with chronic glenohumeral dislocations. Studies that examined outcomes for patients with a chronic glenohumeral dislocation (≥3 weeks) treated with hemiarthroplasty, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were included. Those with acute or subacute dislocations (

Coracoid fracture is a rare injury. The aim of this study is to present the demographics, clinical and radiologic characteristics, and outcomes of coracoid fracture in a cohort of 32 patients. We queried our institutional electronic medical record database (years 2012–2020) to identify patients with coracoid fractures using specific International Classification of Disease-10 codes. Demographic data, injury details including mechanism of injury and associated injuries, imaging performed, and treatment outcomes were obtained from retrospective chart review. A radiologist reviewed all available imaging studies (radiographs/CT/MRI) and classified the fractures according to Ogawa and Eyres classifications. Missed diagnoses were determined by comparing initial imaging reports with the follow-up imaging obtained in the office. Thirty-two patients with coracoid fractures were identified during the study period. Sixteen fractures (50%) occurred in the setting of low-energy trauma. Twelve fractures were missed on initial radiographs, and diagnosis with three-view radiographs (AP, scapular-Y and axillary) was 88% compared to 33% (p

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.

Background The purpose of this study was to determine if addition of CT to axillary radiographs (AXR) alters preoperative decision making for shoulder arthroplasty. Methods Preoperative deidentified images (XR alone and XR with CT) of 50 patients with glenohumeral arthritis were reviewed independently by 3 reviewers in a blinded fashion. Each reviewer graded images for glenoid wear pattern as simple (Walch A1 or B1) or advanced [A2, B2, C]), adequacy of AXR and need for advanced imaging. The reviewers determined a preoperative plan for all patients based on XR alone vs. XR and CT including the arthroplasty type (anatomic or reverse total shoulder) and their plan for treating glenoid wear (eccentric or standard reaming vs. bone graft or augment). Kappa values (κ) were calculated to determine inter-rater agreement and consistency among multiple reviewers. Fisher's exact test was used to assess any difference in preoperative plan once the shoulders were separated into simple and advanced glenoid wear patterns. Results The 3 reviewers agreed that quality of AXRs was significantly inadequate (P Conclusion Axillary radiographs are often inadequate for preoperative planning in shoulder arthritis with advanced glenoid wear patterns (Walch A2, B2, C types). Addition of CT imaging to radiographs in shoulder arthritis with advanced glenoid wear can affect the preoperative decision with respect to type of shoulder arthroplasty and/or plan for addressing glenoid wear (reaming, bone graft or augmented glenoids). Level of evidence Level IV

While lateralization of the glenohumeral center of rotation during reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has benefits of maintaining tension on the remaining rotator cuff and decreasing implant impingement on the glenoid, few clinical studies have evaluated the isolated effect of glenoid lateralization in RSA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if clinical outcomes are affected by isolated glenosphere lateralization using a single implant design.A retrospective review from a multicenter shoulder arthroplasty research database was performed between 2011 and 2018 using a single implant system to perform this case-controlled study. Inclusion criteria included primary RSAs with adequate preoperative and postoperative active and passive range of motion (ROM) measurements, outcome scores, and a minimum two-year follow-up. Revision shoulder arthroplasties and RSA for fractures were excluded from analysis. 102 RSAs (61 females, 41 males) using a +4mm lateralized glenosphere were compared to 102 sex, age, and glenosphere diameter matched control shoulders with standard glenospheres (whose center of rotation (CoR) is 2mm lateral to the glenoid fossa). The mean age at surgery was 70.4 years. Mean follow up was 43.6 + 18.9 months. All RSAs were performed with the same implant system (Equinoxe, Exactech, Gainesville, FL). Clinical outcome measures included ROM, ASES, Constant, UCLA, SST, SPADI scores, and VAS pain scores. We used the chi-squared test and Fisher exact test for bivariate analysis and the student t-test for continuous variables.Both groups were of similar average age and follow-up. They also had comparable rates of prior surgery and comorbidities. The lateralized glenosphere group had a slightly higher BMI (31.2 vs. 29.2, p=0.04). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all outcome scores that exceeded the MCID and the SCB. The groups demonstrated similar preoperative, postoperative and improvements in ROM as well as outcome scores. The overall complication rate was similar between groups (4% in lateralized and 5% in controls, p=0.73). Scapular or acromial fractures differences were not statistically significant between groups (1% in lateralized group vs. 3% in standard group, p=0.31). Scapular notching was more frequent in the standard group compared to the lateralized group (9% vs. 2%, p=0.03).In a medialized glenosphere/lateralized humerus design, a +4mm lateralized glenosphere provided no significant advantage in postoperative pain, ROM, or outcome scores. However, lateralized glenospheres did demonstrate significantly lower scapular notching rates.III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.

Introduction: Third-generation hemispheric, titanium porous-coated (HTPC) acetabular cups have been shown to achieve good biologic fixation through enhanced porous ingrowth surfaces. They also allow for a wide range of bearing options, including polyethylene, dual-mobility, and ceramic liners. The purpose of the study is to review the mid-term clinical outcomes an HTPC acetabular cup with a minimum of 7-year follow-up. Methods: A retrospective, observational study was conducted on all consecutive patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) with an HTCP acetabular cup at an urban, tertiary referral centre. Descriptive statistics were used describe baseline patient characteristics. Outcomes collected included postoperative complications, survival free of reoperations, and presence of osteolysis at latest imaging follow-up. Implant survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 118 cases (114 primary, 4 revision) underwent THA with the HTCP acetabular cup at an average follow-up of 8.16 ± 0.85 years (range 7.02–10.28 years). Mean patient age at the time of surgery was 61.29 ± 12.04 years. All cases utilised a high-molecular-weight polyethylene (HMWPE) liner. None of the acetabular cups showed loosening or migration at the latest follow-up. There were 2 revisions in our study, 1 for abductor mechanism disruption and 1 due to surgical site infection where the acetabular cup was revised. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis for all-cause revision at 7 and 10-year follow-up showed a survival rate of 99.1% (95% confidence interval, 94.1–99.9%). Survivorship analysis for aseptic acetabular revision at 10-year follow-up showed a survival rate of 100%. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, no radiologic and minimal clinical complications were identified in this series. The HTPC acetabular cup system, used in conjunction with a HMWPE liner, demonstrates excellent outcomes and survivorship when compared to earlier mid-term studies published in the literature.

Background An important psychometric parameter of validity that is rarely assessed is predictive value. In this study we utilize machine learning to analyze the predictive value of 3 commonly used clinical measures to assess 2-year outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Methods XGBoost was used to analyze data from 2790 TSA patients and create predictive algorithms for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scores and also quantify the most meaningful predictive features utilized by these measures and for all questions comprising each measure to rank and compare their value to predict 2-year outcomes after TSA. Results Our results demonstrate that the ASES, Constant, and UCLA measures rarely considered the most-predictive features relevant to 2-year TSA outcomes and that each outcome measure was composed of questions with different distributions of predictive value. Specifically, the questions composing the UCLA score were of greater predictive value than the Constant questions, and the questions composing the Constant score were of greater predictive value than the ASES questions. We also found the preoperative Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score to be of greater predictive value than the preoperative ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores. Finally, we identified the types of preoperative input questions that were most-predictive (subjective self-assessments of pain and objective measurements of active range of motion and strength) and also those that were least-predictive of 2-year TSA outcomes (subjective task-specific activities of daily living questions). Discussion Machine learning can quantify the predictive value of the ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores after TSA. Future work should utilize this and related techniques to construct a more efficient and effective clinical outcome measure that incorporates subjective and objective input questions to better account for the preoperative factors that influence postoperative outcomes after TSA. Level of Evidence Level III; Retrospective Comparative Study

The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between admission source and postoperative length of stay (LOS), index admission hospital charges, and discharge disposition, in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty.The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) was used to identify all patients that underwent elective shoulder arthroplasty from 1994 through 2015. Patients were grouped into institutionalized (INS) versus non-institutionalized (n-INS) groups based on admission source. The two groups were compared regarding demographics, Charleston comorbidity index (CCI), postoperative blood transfusion requirement, LOS, and total charges.A total of 33,248 patients were identified (32,875 n-INS, 373 INS). Patientsin the INS cohort were significantly older (71.9 versus 68.1 years) and had a higher CCI (1.3 vs. 0.7). The mean LOS in the INS group was nearly 1 week longer(9.5 days vs. 2.8 days) and had a significantly higher postoperative blood transfusion rate (37.5% vs. 9.2%, odds ratio: 5.9). The mean total hospital charges in the INS group were also significantly higher ($63,988 vs. $36,826).Institutionalized patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty have a protracted postoperative hospital course and this ultimately resulted in poorer outcomes and increased resource utilization.

To calculate and determine what factors are associated with achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR).The change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve analysis was used to calculate the anchor-based MCID and SCB. To assess the responsiveness of each PROM, effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated. To identify factors associated with attaining the MCID and SCB, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.A total of 323 patients with an average age of 59.9 ± 9.5 were enrolled in this study, of which, 187/323 [57.9%] were male and 136/323 [42.1%] were female. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was: 9.0, 7.5, and 11.2, respectively. The respective SCB was 10.9, 9.3, and 12.7. Effect size and SRM were: PROMIS UE (1.4, 1.3), P-Interference (1.8, 1.5), and P-Intensity (2.3, 2.0). Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores (p = 0.02), dominant arm involvement (p = 0.03), and concomitant biceps tenodesis (p = 0.03) were associated with patients achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE.A large responsiveness for each of the PROMIS instruments due to the majority of patients reporting great improvement after aRCR and a small standard deviation across all outcome measures was shown in our study. Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores and concomitant biceps tenodesis were associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. The knowledge of MCID and SCB values for PROMIS instruments will allow the surgeon to determine whether the improvements in the PROMIS scores after aRCR are clinically meaningful.Level III.