Search

Background: This study’s purpose is to determine if there is a difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following shoulder arthroplasty (SA) based upon payer insurance type, with a secondary outcome of determining if any appreciable difference surpasses the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Methods: Subjects undergoing anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were prospectively enrolled between March 2019 and March 2021. Subjects completed patient reported outcomes measurement information system upper extremity (P-UE), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), and the simple shoulder test (SST) preoperatively and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, postoperatively. Descriptive statistics of baseline patient characteristics and preoperative PROMs (ASES, SST, and P-UE) were compared between insurance types. Results: 143 patients were identified who met the inclusion criteria for this study. There were 98 patients within the Medicare cohort and 45 patients with private insurance. Patients in the Medicare cohort were older (mean age 70.5 vs. 61.3 years), with high proportion of smokers, diabetics, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to the private payor cohort. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts with respect to outcomes scores except for significantly better SST in the private insurance cohort (69.3 vs. 79.4, P = .02). No significant differences were noted for the achievement of MCID between cohorts [P-UE (P = 1.0), ASES (P = .25), and SST (0.52)] and pre-to-postoperative improvements for P-UE (P = .62), ASES (P = .4), or SST (0.66). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that, at a tertiary-level academic institution in a metropolitan city, payor type does not have significant impact on achieving MCID or pre-to-postoperative improvements in PROMs after SA.

Background: The purpose of our study was to compare the outcomes and complications after a two- vs. six-week duration of sling immobilization following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review from our institutional database on 960 patients treated by primary rTSA between 2011 and 2021. Patients were separated into two cohorts of postoperative sling immobilization (a two-week and six-week group). Multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate what factors were associated with patients experiencing either a postoperative complication or requiring reoperation. Results: A total of 276 patients were instructed to keep their operative arm in a sling for six weeks postoperatively, and 684 patients discontinued use at two weeks. There was no difference in postoperative complication rate (15.0% vs. 12.0%, P = .21), dislocation rate (P = .79), acromion stress fractures (P = .06), implant loosening (P = .15), and periprosthetic joint infections (P = .48) between the six- and two-week sling cohorts. In the immediate 90-day postoperative time period, no difference was seen in the reoperation rates (P = .73). Discussion: Shorter duration of sling immobilization (two weeks) does not incur additional risk of complications compared to standard duration (six weeks) of sling immobilization following rTSA.

Background: Instability is one of the leading causes of revision for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Closed reduction (CR) of a dislocated RTSA is recommended by many as initial treatment with varying degrees of success. In this study, we describe polyethylene liner dissociation from the humeral tray (PDH) as a cause of failure of CR of dislocated RTSA. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients who underwent revision RTSA for instability were identified through our institutional database review using specific International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Pertinent clinical information including demographics, details of instability event (early vs. late), traumatic vs. atraumatic, outcomes of CR (if performed), and intraoperative findings during revision surgery were collected and analyzed. Results: Twenty-two patients met the inclusion criteria with average follow-up of 2 years. CR was attempted in 12 (55%) patients, prior to revision surgery, and was successful in 5 (23%) patients. During the revision surgery polyethylene liner dissociation from the humeral tray (PDH) was identified in 10 patients (45%). Five of these 10 patients had failed CR and the other 5 patients did not undergo CR due to primary surgeon’s preference. All patients with PDH event had onlay humeral tray RTSA system. Although not a consistent radiographic finding in our series, the presence of the metallic glenosphere in direct contact with the humeral tray on anteroposterior or axillary radiographs was diagnostic for PDH. Conclusion: Dissociation of polyethylene liner from the humeral tray can be associated with an RTSA dislocation and is a contraindication for CR. A radiographic finding of the metallic humeral tray articulating directly with the glenosphere is an indication that the polyethylene liner is dissociated from the humeral tray.

Background: The purpose of our study was to examine the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic scapulothoracic bursectomy for the treatment of scapulothoracic bursitis at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Methods: Twenty patients who underwent arthroscopic scapulothoracic bursectomy for the treatment of symptomatic snapping scapula syndrome were identified from a single surgeon’s database. Patients were indicated for surgery if their symptoms persisted for more than 6 months and if they failed nonoperative treatment. Acquired data included patient demographics, shoulder range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score, visual analog scale scores for pain, and the following Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores: Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0, pain intensity, and pain interference scores. Patient satisfaction and subjective shoulder value were also recorded out of 100. Fisher's test and unpaired t tests were performed for statistical analysis, and P values

Background: The purpose of this study is to report the outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic tuberoplasty for symptomatic irreparable rotator cuff tear (RCT). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing preoperative and postoperative data of patients undergoing arthroscopic tuberoplasty for symptomatic irreparable RCT. Exclusion criteria included open tuberoplasty, concomitant partial RCT repair, glenohumeral arthritis, concomitant ipsilateral extremity fractures,

Background: Patient's willingness and barriers for discharge after shoulder arthroplasty (SA) has not been studied. The aim of this study was to prospectively analyze patient's willingness for discharge and barriers to discharge beyond postoperative day #1 (POD#1) after SA. Methods: In this prospective study, patients undergoing primary or revision SA (anatomic, reverse, or hemiarthroplasty) at our institution were enrolled to determine their willingness and concerns for discharge after SA. Patient's willingness for discharge was inquired daily until discharge. Demographic information, patient's medical history, intraoperative details (duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, intraoperative complication), discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and reasons for extension of LOS beyond POD#1 were analyzed. Results: A total of 184 patients who underwent SA were included. Eight patients were discharged on POD#0, 114 patients on POD#1, 37 patients on POD#2, and 25 patients after POD#2. One hundred nineteen (119) patients were discharged to home, 40 were discharged to home with services, 15 were discharged to nursing facilities, and 10 were discharged to rehabilitation centers. Reasons for extension of LOS past POD#1 included patients failing to clear home safety evaluation (n = 4), inadequate pain control (n = 6), worsening of preexisting medical conditions (n = 8), delay in patient disposition (awaiting placement in a rehabilitation facility [n = 6] and awaiting culture results [n = 9]). Social reasons (n = 29) were the most common reasons for extension of LOS. These included patients requesting an extra day of stay (n = 20), patients requesting rehabilitation facility placement (n = 5), lack of a timely ride home (n = 2), and family-related reasons (death in the family [n = 1], lack of home help [n = 1]). Conclusions: This prospective study demonstrates modifiable factors associated with LOS beyond POD#1 (inadequate pain control, logistic delays in disposition, and patient-related social concerns) after SA. With increasing interest in same-day discharge and rising concerns to control cost and use bundled payment initiatives with SA, improving patient's willingness to discharge by addressing their concerns can improve early discharge after SA.

Background: History of prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) may adversely affect the outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), but there is no information regarding the influence of prior superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) surgery on the outcomes of RTSA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of RTSA following failed arthroscopic SCR. Methods: All patients who underwent RTSA for failed SCR (SCR cohort) at our institution were identified from our institutional database. A comparative cohort of patients who had RTSA with a history of failed RCR (Control cohort) was also reviewed. Demographic information, 90-day complication rate, 90-day emergency department visits, length of stay, and outcome scores (patient-reported outcomes measurement information system [PROMIS] physical function upper extremity, Visual Analog Scale score, and range of motion) were compared. Results: From 2015 to 2020, 87 arthroscopic SCRs were performed at our institution and of these, 13 patients underwent RTSA at a mean time of 14.6 months (5.8-32.4) after SCR and were followed up for an average of 17.9 months (1.6-44.6). The average number of shoulder surgeries prior to RTSA was 2.8 (1-7), with the last surgery being SCR. During the same period, we identified 15 patients who underwent an RTSA after a failed RCR (control cohort). The RTSA in the control cohort was performed on average at 12.8 months (1.5-39.5) following the last RCR, and patients were followed up for an average of 27.7 months (2.8-53.9). The average number of shoulder surgeries before the RTSA in the control cohort was 1.4 (1-3). Although the SCR cohort had significant improvements in pain scores and forward flexion (FF), there was only a modest functional improvement with PROMIS scores and no meaningful improvement with external rotation. Complications (23%) in the SCR cohort included 1 periprosthetic joint infection requiring 2-stage revision, 1 acromion stress fracture, and 1 ulnar neuritis. Overall, compared to the SCR cohort, patients in the control cohort had better function (PROMIS physical function upper extremity), lower Visual Analog Scale score, and greater range of motion (FF and external rotation) preoperatively and at last follow-up, but there were no differences in the length of stay and 90-day emergency department visits, infection, and complication rate between the 2 cohorts. Conclusion: RTSA after failed SCR improves pain and FF but is associated with modest functional improvements and high complication rates. However, these findings will require confirmation in a larger cohort with longer follow-up.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System minimal clinically important difference (PROMIS MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures provide clinical significance to patient-reported outcome measures scores. The goal of this study is to measure the MCID, SCB, and PASS of PROMIS Upper Extremity v2.0 (PROMIS UE) in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Methods: All patients who underwent TSA since October 2017 were identified from our institutional database. Patients who had completed the PROMIS UE outcome measure before surgery were asked to complete a PROMIS UE and anchor survey that contained two transition questions to assess patient satisfaction and change in symptoms since treatment. The anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as the change in PROMIS UE score that represented the optimal cutoff for a receiver operating characteristic curve. The distribution-based MCID was calculated as a range between the average standard error of measurement multiplied by 2 different constants: 1 and 2.77. Results: This study enrolled 165 patients. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE was calculated to be 8.05 with an AUC of 0.814. The anchor-based SCB was calculated to be 10.0 with an AUC of 0.727. The distribution-based MCID was calculated to be between 3.12 and 8.65. The PASS was calculated to be 37.2 with an AUC of 0.90. Conclusions: The establishment of MCID, SCB, and PASS for PROMIS UE scores after shoulder arthroplasty provides meaningful and objective clinical interpretation of the improvements in outcome scores after TSA.