Search

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER)., Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications., Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was -14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was -11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone., Conclusions: Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss. Level of Evidence: IV.

Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared clinical outcome measures in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) with healed versus non-healed greater tuberosity (GT)., Methods: We performed a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines querying PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane for studies that stratified results by the GT healing status. Studies that did not attempt to repair the GT were excluded. We extracted and compared clinical outcomes including postoperative forward flexion (FF), external rotation (ER), internal rotation (IR), Constant score, and complications and revision rates., Results: Of the included patients, 295 (78.5%) demonstrated GT healing while 81 did not (21.5%). The healed GT cohort exhibited increased postoperative FF (P < .001), ER (P < .001), IR (P = .006), and Constant score (P = .006) compared to the non-healed GT cohort. The overall dislocation rate was 0.8% with no study differentiating GT status of dislocation cases., Conclusion: Healing of the GT after RSA for PHF yields improved postoperative range of motion and strength, whereas patient-reported pain and function were largely not affected by GT healing indicating merit to RSA for PHF regardless of the likelihood of the GT healing., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

» Instability and dislocation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty may occur in up to 31% of patients., » Clinical risk factors for instability include younger age, male sex, increased body mass index, preoperative diagnosis of proximal humerus fracture or rotator cuff pathology, history of instability of the native shoulder or after surgery, and a medical history of Parkinson's disease., » Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and decreased proximity to the coracoid may also be at greater risk., » In patients at a high risk of instability, surgeons should consider a more lateralized prosthesis (particularly in patients with an incompetent rotator cuff), repairing the subscapularis (particularly when using a medialized prosthesis), and upsizing the glenosphere (>40 mm in male and 38-40 mm in female patients)., » While potentially useful, less evidence exists for the use of a constrained liner (particularly with a lateralized glenosphere and/or in low-demand patients) and rotating the polyethylene liner posteriorly to avoid impingement., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSREV/B148)., (Copyright © 2024 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare the clinical outcomes after proximal humerus reconstruction with a reverse allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) versus reverse endoprosthesis., Methods: Per PRISMA guidelines, we queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of reverse APC or reverse endoprosthesis reconstruction of the proximal humerus for massive bone loss secondary to tumor, fracture, or failed arthroplasty. We compared postoperative range of motion, outcome scores, and the incidence of complications and revision surgery., Results: Of 259 unique articles, 18 articles were included (267 APC, 260 endoprosthesis). There were no significant differences between the APC and endoprosthesis cohort for postoperative forward elevation ( P  = .231), external rotation ( P  = .634), ASES score ( P  = .420), Constant score ( P  = .414), MSTS ( P  = .815), SST ( P  = .367), or VAS ( P  = .714). Rate of complications was 15% (31/213) in the APC cohort and 19% (27/144) in the endoprosthesis cohort. The rate of revision surgery was 12% after APC cohort and 7% after endoprosthesis. APC-specific complications included a 10% APC nonunion/malunion/resorption rate and 6% APC fracture/fragmentation rate., Discussion: Reverse APC and endoprosthesis are reasonable options for proximal humerus reconstruction. APC carries additional risks for complications, warranting evaluation of patients' healing capacity and surgeon experience., Level of Evidence: Level IV; Systematic Review., Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-024-01248-7., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestMr. Hao is a paid consultant for LinkBio Corp. Dr. Schoch receives royalties from Exactech, Innomed, and Responsive Arthroscopy. Dr. King is a paid consultant for Exactech, Inc. and LinkBio Corp. Dr. T. Wright is a paid consultant and receives royalties from Exactech, Inc. Dr. Fedorka is a paid consultant for Stryker Corporation. Dr. Srinivasan is a paid consultant for Acumed Exsomed LLC, Turner Imaging Systems and Hinge Health. The other authors, their immediate families, and any research foundations with which they are affiliated have not received any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article., (© Indian Orthopaedics Association 2024. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.)

Background: This study sought to characterize the tipping point values (the functional scores that patients deem dysfunctional enough to warrant surgery) for patients undergoing first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA)., Methods: This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Tipping point evaluation utilized preoperative scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), raw and normalized Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) scores, and active range of motion including abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation score (IR) prior to elective revision rTSA., Results: We included 125 revision rTSAs. Tipping points were 37.6 ASES score, 30.5 raw Constant score, 35.5 normalized Constant score, 68.1 SPADI, 3.7 SST, 13.2 UCLA score, 64° abduction, 69° FE, 23° ER, and 3.1 IR. Higher SST was found for older patients and patients with a lower body mass index. Lower abduction and FE tipping points were reported in patients undergoing revision rTSA for rotator cuff failure, unexplained pain, and implant wear., Discussion: These tipping points can help surgeons counsel patients regarding when to undergo revision rTSA., Level of Evidence: Level III; retrospective cohort study; treatment study., Competing Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: KAH has a consultancy agreement with LinkBio Corp. TWW is a paid consultant and receives royalties from Exactech, Inc. KWF is a paid consultant for Arthrex, Inc. and Exactech, Inc. BSS receives royalties from Exactech, Innomed, and Responsive Arthroscopy. JJK is a paid consultant for Exactech, Inc. and LinkBio Corp. The other authors, their immediate families, and any research foundations with which they are affiliated have not received any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: The ideal timing between bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unclear. The purpose of this study is to determine whether early outcomes after first TSA can be used to predict clinical outcomes after TSA of the contralateral shoulder and to evaluate the ideal time after TSA to perform the contralateral shoulder., Methods: A single-institution prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was reviewed. Patients who underwent bilateral primary anatomic or reverse TSA (aTSA + rTSA) without an indication of fracture, tumor, or infection were identified. Included patients had minimum 2-year follow-up on their second TSA and postoperative follow-up after their first TSA at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years. Our primary outcome was whether outcome scores and motion at 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up after first TSA predicted clinical success after second TSA at final follow-up, defined as achieving the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS = the highest level of symptoms beyond which patients consider themselves well). Outcomes included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant scores, abduction, forward elevation, and external/internal-rotation. Multivariable logistic regression determined whether postoperative outcomes after first TSA were predictive of achieving the PASS after second TSA independent of age, sex, and body mass index. Receiver operating characteristic analysis determined cutoffs of postoperative outcomes after first TSA at each time point that best predicted achieving the prosthesis-specific PASS after second TSA., Results: One hundred thirty-four patients were included in the final analysis (110 aTSA and 158 rTSA). Range of motion and outcome scores at late (1- or 2-year) follow-up after first aTSA were more predictive of achieving the second TSA PASS compared with early (3- or 6-month) outcomes. In contrast, outcomes after early and late follow-up after first rTSA were similarly predictive of achieving the second TSA PASS. Specifically, the Constant score threshold at 2 years after first aTSA (79.4; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.804) better differentiated achieving the second TSA PASS vs. the 6-month threshold (72.0; AUC = 0.600). In contrast, the Constant score threshold at 2 years after first rTSA (76.4; AUC = 0.703) was similarly discriminant of achieving the second TSA PASS compared with the 6-month threshold (65.8; AUC = 0.711)., Conclusions: Patients with good outcomes after first rTSA can be counseled on contralateral TSA as early as 3 months postoperatively with confidence of a similar result on the contralateral side. In contrast, success after first aTSA does not reliably predict contralateral success until ≥1 year., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Much of the current literature on total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has assessed the impact of preoperative medical comorbidities on postoperative clinical outcomes. The literature concerning the impact of psychological disorders such as depression on TSA has increased in popularity in recent years, but there lacks a thorough review of the influence of depression on postoperative pain and functional outcomes., Methods: We queried PubMed/MEDLINE and identified six clinical studies that evaluated the influence of a psychiatric diagnosis of depression on patient outcomes after TSA. Studies that discussed the impacts of depression on TSA, including PROs or adverse events in adults, were included. Studies focused on other psychologic pathology, non-TSA shoulder treatments, or TSA not for primary osteoarthritis were excluded. Non-clinical studies, systematic reviews, letters to the editor, commentaries, dissertations, books, and book chapters were excluded., Results: Three cohort studies described patient-reported pain and functional outcomes and three database studies assessed the risk of postoperative complications. Cohort studies demonstrated that the prevalence of depression in patients undergoing TSA decreased from preoperatively to 12-months postoperatively. Two studies demonstrated that depression is an independent predictor of less pre- to postoperative improvement in the ASES score at minimum 2-year follow-up; however, one study found the difference between patients with and without depression did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference. Database studies demonstrated that depression was associated with higher rates of blood transfusion (n = 1, OR = 1.8), anemia (n = 1, OR = 1.65), wound infection (n = 2, OR = 1.41-2.09), prosthetic revision (n = 1, OR = 1.92), and length of hospital stay (n = 3, LOS = 2.5-3 days)., Conclusion: Although patients with a preoperative diagnosis of depression undergoing TSA can achieve satisfactory relief of shoulder pain and restoration of function, they may experience poorer patient-reported outcomes and a higher risk of postoperative adverse events compared to their peers. Surgeons should be cognizant of the influence of depression in their patients to facilitate proper patient selection that maximizes patient satisfaction, function, and minimizes the risk of adverse events following TSA., Level of Evidence: Level IV., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Background: The need for capsular closure during arthroscopic hip labral repair is debated., Purpose: To compare pain and functional outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure., Study Design: Cohort study., Methods: Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure at up to 2 years postoperatively and with stratification by age and sex. Patients with lateral center-edge angle <20°, a history of instability, a history of prior arthroscopic surgery in the ipsilateral hip, or a history of labral debridement only were excluded. Subanalysis was performed between patients undergoing no capsular closure who were propensity score matched 1:1 with patients undergoing repair or plication based on age, sex, and preoperative Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS). We compared patients who underwent T-capsulotomy with concomitant capsular closure matched 1:5 with patients who underwent an interportal capsulotomy with concomitant capsular repair based on age, sex, and preoperative MHHS., Results: Patients undergoing capsular closure (n = 1069), compared with the no-closure group (n = 230), were more often female (68.6% vs 53.0%, respectively; P < .001), were younger (36.4 ± 13.3 vs 47.9 ± 14.7 years; P < .001), and had superior MHHS scores at 2 years postoperatively (85.8 ± 14.5 vs 81.8 ± 18.4, respectively; P = .020). In the matched analysis, no difference was found in outcome measures between patients in the capsular closure group (n = 215) and the no-closure group (n = 215) at any follow-up timepoint. No significant difference was seen between the 2 closure techniques at any follow-up timepoint. Patients with closure of the capsule achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate as those without closure (MCID, 50.3% vs 44.9%, P = .288; PASS, 56.8% vs 51.1%, P = .287, respectively). Patients with T-capsulotomy achieved the MCID and the PASS for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate compared with those with interportal capsulotomy (MCID, 50.1% vs 44.9%, P = .531; PASS, 65.7% vs 61.2%, P = .518, respectively)., Conclusion: When sex, age, and preoperative MHHS were controlled, capsular closure and no capsular closure after arthroscopic hip labral repair were associated with similar pain and functional outcomes for patients up to 2 years postoperatively., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: M.W.M. has received education payments from CGG Medical and Fortis Surgical LLC. K.W.F. has received nonconsulting fees from Arthrex, Arthrosurface Inc, Baudax Bio, and CGG Medical; education payments from CGG Medical and Arthrex; consulting fees from Exactech, Arthrex, and Flexion Therapeutics; and honoraria from Baudax Bio. R.P.R. has received education payments from CGG Medical, Arthrex, and Smith & Nephew and grant payments from Arthrex. K.H. has received consulting fees from LinkBio Corp. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Florida (reference No. 16614)., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Purpose: We aimed to compare outcomes in patients that underwent bilateral anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) vs. aTSA/ reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for rotator cuff-intact glenohumeral osteoarthritis (RCI-GHOA) to further elucidate the role of rTSA in this patient population., Methods: A single-institution prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was reviewed for patients undergoing bilateral total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for RCI-GHOA with a primary aTSA and subsequent contralateral aTSA or rTSA. Outcome scores (SPADI, SST, ASES, UCLA, Constant) and active range of motion (abduction, forward elevation [FE], external and internal rotation [ER and IR]) were evaluated. Clinically relevant benchmarks (minimal clinically important difference [MCID], substantial clinical benefit [SCB], and patient acceptable symptomatic state [PASS]) were evaluated against values in prior literature. Incidence of surgical complications and revision rates were examined in qualifying patients as well as those without  .05). The 2nd TSAs between groups were similar preoperatively, but aTSA/rTSA had superior outcome scores, overhead motion, and active abduction compared to patients that underwent aTSA/aTSA. There were no differences in active ER and IR scores or complication rates between groups., Conclusion: Patients with RCI-GHOA have excellent clinical outcomes after either aTSA/aTSA or aTSA/rTSA., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.)