Axillary view: arthritic glenohumeral anatomy and changes after ream and run

Minimum 10-year follow-up of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and ream-and-run arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Reports on long term outcomes and failures of shoulder arthroplasty are uncommon. The purpose of this study is to present minimum 10-year outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing ream-and-run and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for primary glenohumeral arthritis.

METHODS

This study analyzed consecutive patients who had undergone a ream-and-run or TSA with minimum 10-year follow-up. Pain scores and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) values were obtained preoperatively and at a minimum of 10 years postoperatively via e-mail or mail-in response. Percentage of maximum possible improvement (%MPI) was also calculated.

RESULTS

Of 127 eligible patients, 63 (50%) responded to a 10-year survey. This included 34 patients undergoing ream-and-run arthroplasty and 29 patients undergoing TSA. The ream-and-run patients were significantly younger than the TSA patients (60 ± 7 vs. 68 ± 8, P < .001), predominantly male (97% vs. 41%, P < .001), and had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P = .018). In the ream-and-run group, the mean pain score improved from a preoperative value of 6.5 ± 1.9 to 0.9 ± 1.3 (P < .001), and the mean SST score improved from 5.4 ± 2.4 to 10.3 ± 2.1 at 10-year follow-up (P < .001). Twenty-eight (82%) achieved an SST improvement above the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of 2.6. Four patients (12%) underwent single-stage exchange to another hemiarthroplasty, whereas 1 (3%) required manipulation under anesthesia. In the TSA group, the pain score improved from a preoperative value of 6.6 ± 2.2 to 1.2 ± 2.3 (P < .001), and the SST score improved from 3.8 ± 2.6 to 8.9 ± 2.6 at 10-year follow-up (P < .001). Of the 29 patients who underwent a TSA, 27 (93%) achieved an SST improvement above the MCID of 1.6. No patient in the TSA group required reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Although the characteristics of the patients differ between the 2 groups, excellent functional results can be obtained with the ream-and-run arthroplasty and TSA for glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Diagnosis and Nonoperative Treatment of Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries in Athletes and Guide for Return to Play

Injury to the acromioclavicular (AC) joint accounts for approximately 40% to 50% of all shoulder injuries. In contact sports, the prevalence of AC joint injury increases. This injury is frequently encountered and treated by fellowship-trained as well as general orthopedic surgeons. As such, it is important to understand the diagnostic and treatment pathways for AC joint disruption. The treatment pathways in athletes may be different from those in the general population. This article will focus on the diagnosis and nonoperative treatment of AC joint injuries in athletes. We will also comment on return-to-play guidelines after this nonoperative treatment.

Risk Factors for Stiffness Requiring Intervention After Ream-and-Run Arthroplasty

Ream-and-run arthroplasty can improve pain and function in patients with glenohumeral arthritis while avoiding the complications and activity restrictions associated with a prosthetic glenoid component. However, stiffness is a known complication after ream-and-run arthroplasty and can lead to repeat procedures such as a manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) or open surgical revision. The objective of this study was to determine risk factors associated with repeat procedures indicated for postoperative stiffness after ream-and-run arthroplasty.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of our shoulder arthroplasty database to identify patients who underwent ream-and-run arthroplasty and determined which patients underwent subsequent repeat procedures (MUA and/or open revision) indicated for postoperative stiffness. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. We collected baseline demographic information and preoperative and 2-year patient-reported outcome scores and analyzed preoperative radiographs. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the factors significantly associated with repeat procedures to treat postoperative stiffness.

Results

There were 340 patients who underwent ream-and-run arthroplasty. The mean Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores for all patients improved from 5.0 ± 2.4 preoperatively to 10.2 ± 2.6 postoperatively (p < 0.001). Twenty-six patients (7.6%) underwent open revision for stiffness. An additional 35 patients (10.3%) underwent MUA. Univariate analysis found younger age (p = 0.001), female sex (p = 0.034), lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (p = 0.045), posterior decentering on preoperative radiographs (p = 0.010), and less passive forward elevation at the time of discharge after ream-and-run arthroplasty (p < 0.001) to be significant risk factors for repeat procedures. Multivariate analysis found younger age (p = 0.040), ASA class 1 compared with class 3 (p = 0.020), and less passive forward elevation at discharge (p < 0.001) to be independent risk factors for repeat procedures. Of the patients who underwent open revision for stiffness, 69.2% had multiple positive cultures for Cutibacterium.

Conclusions

Younger age, ASA class 1 compared with class 3, and less passive forward elevation in the immediate postoperative period were independent risk factors for repeat procedures to treat postoperative stiffness after ream-and-run arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Revision of total shoulder arthroplasty to hemiarthroplasty: results at mean 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Although there is a trend to manage failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (aTSA) with revision to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, such revisions can be complicated by difficulties in baseplate fixation, instability, and acromial stress fractures. Some cases of failed aTSA may be safely revised to a hemiarthroplasty (HA). The objectives of this study were to report patient-reported outcomes after conversion from aTSA to HA and assess patient and shoulder characteristics associated with a successful outcome.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision from aTSA to HA between 2009 and 2018 were contacted. Patient demographics, surgical history, intraoperative findings, and microbiology results were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were collected with minimum 2-year follow-up. Preoperative radiographic characteristics were reviewed for component positioning and component loosening. Patients with a clinically significant improvement exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) were compared with those patients who did not improve past the MCID.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients underwent conversion from aTSA to HA with a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 1.8 years. Intraoperative glenoid or humeral component loosening was found in all 29 patients. Pain improved in 25 of 30 patients (87%), and mean pain scores improved from 6.2 ± 2.3 to 3.1 ± 2.4 (P < .001). SST scores improved from 4.1 ± 3.1 to 7.3 ± 3.2 (P < .001), and 18 of 29 patients (62%) had improvement above the SST MCID threshold of 2.4. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score at the latest follow-up was 64 ± 19, and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was 65 ± 23. Twenty-two of 29 (76%) patients were satisfied with the procedure. Four patients (14%) required conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty-2 to anatomic and 2 to reverse. An additional 3 patients (10%) had a revision HA performed. No significant differences in patient or shoulder characteristics were found in those patients who improved greater than the MCID of the SST compared patients who improved less than the MCID of the SST. Fifty-nine percent of patients had ≥2 positive cultures with the same bacteria, and 82% of these were with Cutibacterium. Seven of 8 patients (88%) with a loose humeral component had ≥2 positive cultures with the same bacteria.

DISCUSSION

Component loosening is a common failure mode after aTSA. Revision to HA can improve pain and patient-reported outcomes in most patients.

Early clinical and radiographic outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a biconvex posterior augmented glenoid for patients with posterior glenoid erosion: minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Glenoid bone loss in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) remains a controversial and challenging clinical problem. Previous studies have shown high rates of glenoid loosening for aTSA in shoulders with retroversion, posterior bone loss, and posterior humeral head subluxation. This study is the first to present minimum 2-year follow-up data of an all-polyethylene, biconvex augmented anatomic glenoid component for correction of glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head subluxation.

METHODS

This study is a multicenter, retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients from 7 global clinical sites. All patients underwent aTSA using the biconvex posterior augmented glenoid (PAG). Inclusion criteria were preoperative computed tomographic (CT) scan, minimum 2 years since surgery, preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative range of motion examination, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Glenoid classification, glenoid retroversion, and posterior humeral head subluxation were measured from preoperative CT and radiography and postoperative radiography. Statistical comparisons between pre- and postoperative values were performed with a paired t test.

RESULTS

Eighty-six of 110 consecutive patients during the study period (78% follow-up) met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Mean follow-up was 35 ± 10 months, with a mean age of 68 ± 8 years (range 48-85). Range of motion statistically improved in all planes from pre- to postoperation. Mean visual analog scale score improved from 5.2 preoperation to 0.7 postoperation, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score from 43.2 to 89.5, Constant score from 41.8 to 76.9, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score from 49.8 to 86.7 (all P < .0001). Mean glenoid retroversion improved from 19.3° to 7.4° (P < .0001). Posterior subluxation improved from 69.1% to 53.5% and posterior decentering improved from 5.8% to -3.0% (P < .0001). There was 1 patient with both a prosthetic joint infection and radiographic glenoid loosening that required revision. Seventy-nine of 86 patients had a Lazarus score of 0 (no radiolucency seen about peg or keel) at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that at minimum 2-year follow-up, a posterior-augmented all-polyethylene glenoid can correct glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head subluxation. Clinically, there was significant improvement in both range of motion and PROMs.

Subluxation in the Arthritic Shoulder

»

The term "subluxation" means partial separation of the joint surfaces. In the arthritic shoulder, "arthritic glenohumeral subluxation" refers to displacement of the humeral head on the surface of the glenoid.

»

The degree of arthritic glenohumeral subluxation can be measured using radiography with standardized axillary views or computed tomography (CT).

»

Shoulders with a type-B1 or B2 glenoid may show more posterior subluxation on an axillary radiograph that is made with the arm in an elevated position than on a CT scan that is made with the arm at the side.

»

The degree of arthritic glenohumeral subluxation is not closely related to glenoid retroversion.

»

The position of the humeral head with respect to the plane of the scapula is related to glenoid retroversion and is not a measure of glenohumeral subluxation.

»

Studies measuring glenohumeral subluxation before and after arthroplasty should clarify its importance to the clinical outcomes of shoulder reconstruction.

Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty with Nonprosthetic Glenoid Arthroplasty: The Ream-and-Run Procedure

»

Glenoid component wear and loosening are the principal failure modes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA).

»

The ream-and-run (RnR) procedure is an alternative glenohumeral arthroplasty for patients who wish to avoid the risks and limitations of a prosthetic glenoid component.

»

During the RnR procedure, the arthritic glenoid is conservatively reamed to a single concavity, while the prosthetic humeral component and soft tissues are balanced to provide both mobility and stability of the joint.

»

The success of the RnR procedure depends on careful patient selection, preoperative education and engagement, optimal surgical technique, targeted rehabilitation, and close postoperative communication between the surgeon and the patient.

»

While the RnR procedure allows high levels of shoulder function in most patients, the recovery can be longer and more arduous than with aTSA.

»

Patients who have undergone an RnR procedure occasionally require a second closed or open procedure to address refractory shoulder stiffness, infection, or persistent glenoid-sided pain. These second procedures are more common after the RnR than with aTSA.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With a Nonspherical Humeral Head and Inlay Glenoid in Elite Weight Lifters: A Prospective Case Series

Background:

Weight lifting after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) can place significant stresses on implants that could lead to instability, loosening, and increased wear. A TSA system with nonspherical humeral head resurfacing and inlay glenoid—which improves the biomechanics and thus reduces instability, wear, and potential loosening—may be able to tolerate repetitive loads from weight lifting.

Purpose:

To determine clinical and radiographic outcomes after TSA in weight lifters.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

We prospectively enrolled 16 weight lifters (mean ± SD age, 57.2 ± 7.8 years; 15 male) undergoing primary anatomic TSA (n = 17 shoulders, 1 staged bilateral) with nonspherical humeral head resurfacing and inlay glenoid replacement for glenohumeral osteoarthritis between February 2015 and February 2019. Exclusion criteria were rotator cuff deficiency, revision TSA, post-traumatic arthritis, and inflammatory arthritis. Outcome measures included the rate of return to weight lifting, results of patient-reported outcome measures (Penn Shoulder Score, Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic, and 12-Item Veterans RAND Health Survey), radiographic outcomes, and complication rate.

Results:

Follow-up was obtained on all patients at a mean of 38 months (range, 14-63 months). All patients returned to competitive weight lifting at 15.6 ± 6.9 weeks. Compared to the preoperative weight lifting level, at last follow-up patients reported performance at the following level: lighter weight, 1 (6%); same weight, 8 (50%); heavier weight, 7 (44%). Preoperative eccentric posterior glenoid wear was common (71% Walch B2 classification; 12/17), but posterior humeral subluxation improved at follow-up according to the Walch index (mean, 55.5% preoperative vs 48.5% postoperative; P < .001) and contact point ratio (mean, 63.9% preoperative vs 50.1% postoperative; P < .001). Pre- to postoperative improvements were seen in Penn Shoulder Score (44.3 vs 82.6; P < .001), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (50.6 vs 91.1; P < .001), and 12-Item Veterans RAND Health Survey physical component score but not mental component score. No signs of radiographic loosening were detected in follow-up images, nor were there any postoperative instability episodes or revision surgeries.

Conclusion:

There were substantial improvements in shoulder function and a high rate of return to weight lifting after TSA with a nonspherical humeral head resurfacing and inlay glenoid component. Radiographically, the humeral head centralized on the glenoid after surgery, and there was no evidence of component loosening at a mean 38-month follow-up.

Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with All-Polyethylene Glenoid Component for Primary Osteoarthritis with Glenoid Deficiencies

This study evaluated the ability of shoulder arthroplasty using a standard glenoid component to improve patient self-assessed comfort and function and to correct preoperative humeral-head decentering on the face of the glenoid in patients with primary glenohumeral arthritis and type-B2 or B3 glenoids.

Do glenoid retroversion and humeral subluxation affect outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty?

Background

Glenoid retroversion and humeral head subluxation have been suggested to lead to inferior outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). There are limited data to support this suggestion. We investigated whether preoperative glenoid retroversion and humeral head subluxation are associated with inferior outcomes after TSA and whether change of retroversion influences outcomes after TSA.

Methods

Patients undergoing TSA with minimum 2-year follow-up were included from a prospectively collected institutional shoulder arthroplasty database. Retroversion and humeral head subluxation before and after surgery were measured on axillary radiographs. Postoperative radiographs were -evaluated for glenoid component loosening and compared between groups. Spearman correlations were determined between retroversion measurements and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores. Patients were analyzed in groups based on retroversion and humeral head subluxation.

Results

There were 113 patients (50% follow-up rate) evaluated at 4.2 years postoperatively. The mean preoperative retroversion (15.3° ± 7.7°) was significantly higher than postoperative retroversion (10.0° ± 6.8°; P < .0001). There was no correlation between postoperative glenoid version or humeral head subluxation and ASES scores. For patients with preoperative retroversion of >15°, there was no difference in outcome scores based on postoperative retroversion. There were no differences in preoperative or postoperative version for patients with or without glenoid lucencies.

Discussion

We observed no significant relationship between postoperative glenoid retroversion or humeral head subluxation and clinical outcomes in patients following TSA. For patients with preoperative retroversion >15°, change of retroversion during TSA had no impact on their clinical outcomes at short-term follow-up.

Do Preoperative and Postoperative Glenoid Retroversion Influence Outcomes After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Background

There are limited data on the effect of glenoid retroversion in clinical outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate if surgical correction of retroversion affects outcomes following RTSA.

Methods

An institutional database was utilized to identify 177 patients (mean age: 68.2 ± 10.1 years) with minimum 2-year follow-up after primary RTSA. Glenoid version was measured on preoperative and postoperative radiographs. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores and range of motion were collected before and after RTSA. Change in retroversion was determined by comparing preoperative and postoperative glenoid retroversion on radiographs using paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to investigate relationships between ASES scores and glenoid retroversion.

Results

The mean postoperative ASES composite score (75.5 ± 22.7) was significantly higher than preoperative (36.8 ± 19.2; P < .0001). The mean preoperative glenoid retroversion was 9.1 ± 6.7° compared to 6.5 ± 5.1° postoperatively (P < .0001). There was no correlation between postoperative ASES scores and preoperative retroversion (r = .014, P = .85) or postoperative retroversion (r = −.043, P = .57). There was no statistical relationship between postoperative retroversion and range of motion, though there is a risk of inadequate power given the sample size.

Conclusions

Patient-reported outcomes and range of motion measurements following RTSA at short-term follow-up appear to be independent of either preoperative or postoperative glenoid retroversion.

Comparing the Use of Axillary Radiographs and Axial Computed Tomography Scans to Predict Concentric Glenoid Wear

Background:

Axillary radiographs traditionally have been considered sufficient to identify concentric glenoid wear in osteoarthritic shoulders; however, with variable glenoid wear patterns, assessment with use of computed tomography (CT) has been recommended. The purpose of the present study was to compare the use of axillary radiographs and mid-glenoid axial CT scans to identify glenoid wear.

Methods:

Preoperative axillary radiographs and mid-glenoid axial CT scans for 330 patients who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty were reviewed. Five independent examiners with differing levels of experience characterized the glenoid morphology as either concentric or eccentric. The morphologies determined with use of axillary radiographs and CT scans were assessed for correlation, and both intraobserver and interobserver consistency were calculated.

Results:

Concentric wear identified with use of radiographs was confirmed with use of CT scans in an average of 61% of cases (range, 53% to 76%). Intraobserver consistency averaged 75% for radiographs and 73% for CT scans. There was significant interobserver consistency, as higher levels of training corresponded with greater consistency between imaging analyses (p < 0.001). The most senior observer identified the highest proportion of concentric wear on radiographs (p < 0.001), showed the greatest consistency between attempts when using CT (p < 0.001), and had the greatest agreement of radiographs and CT evaluating glenoid morphology (p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

For the experienced shoulder surgeon, concentric glenoid wear identified on axillary radiographs will appear concentric on 2-dimensional CT in approximately 75% of cases. Obtaining a CT scan to confirm glenoid wear patterns most greatly benefits less-experienced surgeons. Across all levels of experience, axillary radiographs and single-slice, mid-glenoid CT scans appear insufficient for consistently predicting wear patterns.

Level of Evidence:

Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Prearthroplasty glenohumeral pathoanatomy and its relationship to patient's sex, age, diagnosis, and self-assessed shoulder comfort and function

BACKGROUND

There is great current interest in characterizing the prearthroplasty glenohumeral pathoanatomy because of its role in guiding surgical technique and its possible effects on arthroplasty outcome.

METHODS

We examined 544 patients within 6 weeks before arthroplasty with the goals of characterizing the following: demographic and radiographic characteristics; relationships of the radiographic pathoanatomy to the patient's age, sex, and diagnosis; inter-relationships among glenoid type, glenoid version, and amount of decentering of the humeral head on the glenoid; and relationships of the pathoanatomy to the patient's self-assessed comfort and function.

RESULTS

Male patients had a higher frequency of B2 glenoids and a lower frequency of A2 glenoids. The arthritic shoulders of men were more retroverted and had greater amounts of posterior decentering. Patients with types A1 and C glenoids were younger than those with other glenoid types. Shoulders with osteoarthritis were more likely to be type B2 and to be retroverted. Types B2 and C had the greatest degree of retroversion, whereas types B1 and B2 had the greatest amounts of posterior decentering. Shoulders with glenoid types B1 and B2 and those with more decentering did not have worse self-assessed shoulder comfort and function.

CONCLUSIONS

Glenohumeral pathoanatomy was found to have previously unreported relationships to the patient's sex, age, and diagnosis. Contrary to what might have been expected, more advanced glenohumeral pathoanatomy (ie, type B glenoids, greater retroversion, greater decentering) was not associated with worse self-assessed shoulder comfort and function.

Radiographic outcomes of impaction-grafted standard-length humeral components in total shoulder and ream-and-run arthroplasty: is stress shielding an issue?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate humeral stress shielding in shoulder arthroplasties performed with a smooth, standard-length humeral stem fixed with impaction autografting.

METHODS

Two-year outcomes were evaluated for 48 ream-and-run arthroplasties and 78 total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) performed at a single institution. Postoperative radiographs were analyzed for adaptive changes, calcar osteolysis, and component shift or subsidence. Radiographic outcomes were analyzed for associations with patient demographic characteristics, humeral stem filling ratios, and glenoid loosening; clinical outcomes were assessed using the Simple Shoulder Test.

RESULTS

At 2 years after surgery, the ream-and-run procedures showed partial calcar osteolysis in 9 cases (19%). The TSAs showed partial calcar osteolysis in 19 cases (24%) and complete calcar osteolysis in 2 (3%). Humeral component subsidence or component shift was observed in 3 ream-and-run procedures (6%) and in 8 TSAs (10%). These radiographic findings were not significantly associated with patient demographic characteristics, canal-filling ratios, or clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

When inserted with impaction autografting, a smooth, standard-length humeral stem offers a secure bone-preserving approach for humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty. These results with a conventional prosthesis can serve as a basis for comparison for new component designs and fixation methods.

What can be learned from an analysis of 215 glenoid component failures?

BACKGROUND

Glenoid component failure is a prevalent mechanical complication of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to identify surgeon-controlled factors that may be addressed to reduce the rate of glenoid component failure that is sufficiently symptomatic to merit surgical revision.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical and radiographic features of 215 total shoulder arthroplasties that we revised for symptomatic glenoid component failure.

RESULTS

Glenoid component failure was associated with poor patient self-assessed shoulder function (mean Simple Shoulder Test score, 3.0 ± 2.7). These shoulders often showed multiple failure modes; 72% had glenoid component loosening, 69% had polyethylene wear, 51% had glenohumeral decentering, and 25% had humeral component loosening. Metal-backed/hybrid and keeled glenoid designs had higher rates of loosening (P = .010), malposition (P = .007), dislocation (P < .001), and early failure (P = .044) in comparison to pegged designs. Glenoid components with cement on the backside were more prevalent among those revised sooner than 5 years after the index surgery (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Glenoid component failure remains a major cause of poor patient outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty. The occurrence of severe glenoid component failure might be reduced by paying attention to glenoid component design and insertion technique, restoring the normal balance of the humeral head in the center of the glenoid, and considering a reverse total shoulder when the shoulder is unstable because of soft tissue deficiency.

Does Postoperative Glenoid Retroversion Affect the 2-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

While glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head decentering are common preoperative features of severely arthritic glenohumeral joints, the relationship of postoperative glenoid component retroversion to the clinical results of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unclear. Studies have indicated concern for inferior outcomes when glenoid components are inserted in 15° or more retroversion.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a population of patients undergoing TSA in whom no specific efforts were made to change the version of the glenoid, we asked whether at 2 years after surgery patients having glenoid components implanted in 15° or greater retroversion had (1) less improvement in the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score and lower SST scores; (2) higher percentages of central peg lucency, higher Lazarus radiolucency grades, higher mean percentages of posterior decentering, and more frequent central peg perforation; or (3) a greater percentage having revision for glenoid component failure compared with patients with glenoid components implanted in less than 15° retroversion.

METHODS

Between August 24, 2010 and October 22, 2013, information for 201 TSAs performed using a standard all-polyethylene pegged glenoid component were entered in a longitudinally maintained database. Of these, 171 (85%) patients had SST scores preoperatively and between 18 and 36 months after surgery. Ninety-three of these patients had preoperative radiographs in the database and immediate postoperative radiographs and postoperative radiographs taken in a range of 18 to 30 months after surgery. Twenty-two patients had radiographs that were inadequate for measurement at the preoperative, immediate postoperative, or latest followup time so that they could not be included. These excluded patients did not have substantially different mean age, sex distribution, time of followup, distribution of diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, alcohol use, smoking history, BMI, or history of prior surgery from those included in the analysis. Preoperative retroversion measurements were available for 11 (11 shoulders) of the 22 excluded patients. For these 11 shoulders, the mean (± SD) retroversion was 15.8° ± 14.6°, five had less than 15°, and six had more than 15° retroversion. We analyzed the remaining 71 TSAs, comparing the 21 in which the glenoid component was implanted in 15° or greater retroversion (mean ± SD, 20.7° ± 5.3°) with the 50 in which it was implanted in less than 15° retroversion (mean ± SD, 5.7° ± 6.9°). At the 2-year followup (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 0.6 years; range, 18-36 months), we determined the latest SST scores and preoperative to postoperative improvement in SST scores, the percentage of maximal possible improvement, glenoid component radiolucencies, posterior humeral head decentering, and percentages of shoulders having revision surgery. Radiographic measurements were performed by three orthopaedic surgeons who were not involved in the care of these patients. The primary study endpoint was the preoperative to postoperative improvement in the SST score.

RESULTS

With the numbers available, the mean (± SD) improvement in the SST (6.7 ± 3.6; from 2.6 ± 2.6 to 9.3 ± 2.9) for the retroverted group was not inferior to that for the nonretroverted group (5.8 ± 3.6; from 3.7 ± 2.5 to 9.4 ± 3.0). The mean difference in improvement between the two groups was 0.9 (95% CI, - 2.5 to 0.7; p = 0.412). The percent of maximal possible improvement (%MPI) for the retroverted glenoids (70% ± 31%) was not inferior to that for the nonretroverted glenoids (67% ± 44%). The mean difference between the two groups was 3% (95% CI, - 18% to 12%; p = 0.857). The 2-year SST scores for the retroverted (9.3 ± 2.9) and the nonretroverted glenoid groups (9.4 ± 3.0) were similar (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, - 1.1 to 1.4; p = 0.697). No patient in either group reported symptoms of subluxation or dislocation. With the numbers available, the radiographic results for the retroverted glenoid group were similar to those for the nonretroverted group with respect to central peg lucency (four of 21 [19%] versus six of 50 [12%]; p = 0.436; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.4-6.9), average Lazarus radiolucency scores (0.5 versus 0.7, Mann-Whitney U p value = 0.873; Wilcoxon rank sum test W = 512, p value = 0.836), and the mean percentage of posterior humeral head decentering (3.4% ± 5.5% versus 1.6% ± 6.0%; p = 0.223). With the numbers available, the percentage of patients with retroverted glenoids undergoing revision (0 of 21 [0%]) was not inferior to the percentage of those with nonretroverted glenoids (three of 50; [6%]; p = 0.251).

CONCLUSION

In this small series of TSAs, postoperative glenoid retroversion was not associated with inferior clinical results at 2 years after surgery. This suggests that it may be possible to effectively manage arthritic glenohumeral joints without specific attempts to modify glenoid version. Larger, longer-term studies will be necessary to further explore the results of this approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the Ream-and-Run Procedure for Primary Glenohumeral Arthritis

BACKGROUND

The ream-and-run procedure can provide improvement in shoulder function and comfort for selected patients with primary glenohumeral arthritis who wish to avoid a prosthetic glenoid component. The purpose of this study was to evaluate factors associated with medialization of the humeral head after this procedure as well as the relationship of medialization to the clinical outcome.

METHODS

We collected patient, shoulder, and procedure characteristics along with Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores before surgery and at the time of follow-up. Medialization was determined by comparing the position of the humeral head prosthesis in relation to the scapula on postoperative baseline radiographs made within 6 weeks after surgery with that on comparable follow-up radiographs made ≥18 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Two-year clinical outcomes were available for 101 patients (95% were male). Comparable radiographs at postoperative baseline and follow-up evaluations were available for 50 shoulders. For all patients, the mean SST score (and standard deviation) increased from 4.9 ± 2.8 preoperatively to 10.3 ± 2.4 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Significant clinical improvement was observed for glenoid types A2 and B2. Shoulders with a type-A2 glenoid morphology, with larger preoperative scapular body-glenoid angles, and with lower preoperative SST scores, were associated with the greatest clinical improvement. Clinical outcome was not significantly associated with the amount of medialization.

CONCLUSIONS

The ream-and-run procedure can be an effective treatment for advanced primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in active patients. Further study will be necessary to determine whether medialization affects the clinical outcome with follow-up of >2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Management of intraoperative posterior decentering in shoulder arthroplasty using anteriorly eccentric humeral head components

BACKGROUND

Posterior humeral decentering presents a challenge in glenohumeral arthroplasty. Soft tissue releases and osteophyte resection can lead to intraoperative decentering not evident preoperatively. Inferior outcomes result if decentering is not addressed as a part of the arthroplasty. When there is >50% posterior subluxation of the humeral head on passive elevation of the arm at surgery, we have used an anteriorly eccentric humeral head component to improve centering of the humeral articular surface on the glenoid.

METHODS

We reviewed the 2-year outcomes for 33 shoulder arthroplasties in which anteriorly eccentric humeral heads were used to manage posterior decentering identified at surgery. Rotator interval plication was performed in 16 cases as an adjunctive stabilizing procedure. Shoulders were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Radiographic centering was characterized before surgery and at follow-up on standardized axillary radiographs with the arm held in a position of functional elevation.

RESULTS

With the anteriorly eccentric head component, preoperative radiographic humeral decentering was reduced from 10.4% ± 7.9% to 0.9% ± 2.3% postoperatively (P < .001). SST scores improved from 4.8 ± 2.3 to 10.0 ± 2.3 (P < .001). Preoperative posterior humeral head decentering did not correlate with preoperative glenoid version. Glenoid retroversion was 19.8° ± 8.9° preoperatively and 15.5° ± 7.5° postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior decentering identified at surgery when standard trial components are in place can be addressed by replacing the anatomic humeral head with an anteriorly eccentric humeral head component.

What Factors are Predictive of Patient-reported Outcomes? A Prospective Study of 337 Shoulder Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Although shoulder arthroplasties generally are effective in improving patients' comfort and function, the results are variable for reasons that are not well understood.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We posed two questions: (1) What factors are associated with better 2-year outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty? (2) What are the sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values of a multivariate predictive model for better outcome?

METHODS

Three hundred thirty-nine patients having a shoulder arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy, ream and run arthroplasty, total shoulder or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty) between August 24, 2010 and December 31, 2012 consented to participate in this prospective study. Two patients were excluded because they were missing baseline variables. Forty-three patients were missing 2-year data. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the relationship of baseline patient, shoulder, and surgical characteristics to a "better" outcome, defined as an improvement of at least 30% of the maximal possible improvement in the Simple Shoulder Test. The results were used to develop a predictive model, the accuracy of which was tested using a 10-fold cross-validation.

RESULTS

After controlling for potentially relevant confounding variables, the multivariate analysis showed that the factors significantly associated with better outcomes were American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I (odds ratio [OR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.03-3.65; p = 0.041), shoulder problem not related to work (OR, 5.36; 95% CI, 2.15-13.37; p < 0.001), lower baseline Simple Shoulder Test score (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23-1.42; p < 0.001), no prior shoulder surgery (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.18-2.70; p = 0.006), humeral head not superiorly displaced on the AP radiograph (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.15-4.02; p = 0.017), and glenoid type other than A1 (OR, 4.47; 95% CI, 2.24-8.94; p < 0.001). Neither preoperative glenoid version nor posterior decentering of the humeral head on the glenoid were associated with the outcomes. The model predictive of a better result was driven mainly by the six factors listed above. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve generated from the cross-validated enhanced predictive model was 0.79 (generally values of 0.7 to 0.8 are considered fair and values of 0.8 to 0.9 are considered good). The false-positive fraction and the true-positive fraction depended on the cutoff probability selected (ie, the selected probability above which the prediction would be classified as a better outcome). A cutoff probability of 0.68 yielded the best performance of the model with cross-validation predictions of better outcomes for 236 patients (80%) and worse outcomes for 58 patients (20%); sensitivity of 91% (95% CI, 88%-95%); specificity of 65% (95% CI, 53%-77%); positive predictive value of 92% (95% CI, 88%-95%); and negative predictive value of 64% (95% CI, 51%-76%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found six easy-to-determine preoperative patient and shoulder factors that were significantly associated with better outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty. A model based on these characteristics had good predictive properties for identifying patients likely to have a better outcome from shoulder arthroplasty. Future research could refine this model with larger patient populations from multiple practices.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Humeral Head Arthroplasty and Meniscal Allograft Resurfacing of the Glenoid: A Concise Follow-up of a Previous Report and Survivorship Analysis

The two to five-year results of humeral head arthroplasty and lateral meniscal allograft resurfacing of the glenoid in patients fifty-five years of age or younger were previously reported by the senior author (M.A.W.). The purpose of the present study was to report the survival rate, clinical findings, and radiographic results of the original thirty shoulders (thirty patients) followed for a mean duration of 8.3 years (range, five to twelve years). The scores on the visual analog scale for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scoring system, and Simple Shoulder Test were significantly improved at the latest follow-up evaluation compared with the preoperative findings (p < 0.001). Radiographic indices of posterior subluxation did not significantly increase from the immediate postoperative imaging to the latest radiographs, while the glenohumeral joint space demonstrated a gradual decrease. Nine (30%) of thirty shoulders were known to have undergone a reoperation. The present study demonstrated that biological glenoid resurfacing combined with hemiarthroplasty can provide significant improvement in shoulder function and pain relief in young patients with glenohumeral arthritis; however, mid-term follow-up at a mean of over eight years demonstrated a high reoperation rate.

Self-assessed and radiographic outcomes of humeral head replacement with nonprosthetic glenoid arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Active and young patients who place frequent demands on their shoulder present a treatment dilemma when glenohumeral arthritis progresses to a point at which surgical intervention is considered. Humeral head replacement with nonprosthetic glenoid arthroplasty ("ream-and-run") has been proposed to address the limitations of total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in this population. Several reports from a single institution have shown substantial improvement in self-assessed comfort and function after this procedure. However, to the best of our knowledge, no clinical results pertaining to this technique have been reported from other institutions.

METHODS

Hemiarthroplasty with nonprosthetic glenoid arthroplasty was performed in 17 patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were clinically evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with physical examination, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale, and standardized radiographs. Preoperative radiographs and patient demographics were assessed for correlation with outcome measures.

RESULTS

Improvement of >30% of preoperative SST score was noted in 14 of 17 patients at a mean follow-up of 3.9 years (range, 2.0-6.8 years). SST score improved from mean 3.2 ± 3.1 preoperatively to 10.0 ± 2.6 at latest follow-up (P < .0001). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from mean 42 ± 23 to 90 ± 13 (P < .0001). Male patients had higher SST scores (P = .03) and greater external rotation (P = .03) at latest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonprosthetic glenoid arthroplasty demonstrated results that correlate with prior data published by the center at which the procedure was initially described. Patients with concentric glenoid morphology preoperatively did not demonstrate results superior to those of patients with eccentric glenoids.

Glenoid bone loss in anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: literature review and surgical technique

Despite major advances in total shoulder arthroplasty, management of severe posterior glenoid bone loss remains controversial. Several companies have provided alternative treatment options for type C glenoids associated with posterior subluxation of the humeral head. However, preoperative planning, proper selection of glenoid size, and recognition of the operative pitfalls are crucial for successful outcomes. A review of the literature and presentation of the surgical technique for the management of severe posterior glenoid bone loss are presented.

Can the ream and run procedure improve glenohumeral relationships and function for shoulders with the arthritic triad?

BACKGROUND

The arthritic triad of glenoid biconcavity, glenoid retroversion, and posterior displacement of the humeral head on the glenoid is associated with an increased risk of failure of total shoulder joint replacement. Although a number of glenohumeral arthroplasty techniques are being used to manage this complex pathology, problems with glenoid component failure remain. In that the ream and run procedure manages arthritic pathoanatomy without a glenoid component, we sought evidence that this procedure can be effective in improving the centering of the humeral head contact on the glenoid and in improving the comfort and function of shoulders with the arthritic triad without the risk of glenoid component failure.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked, for shoulders with the arthritic triad, whether the ream and run procedure could improve glenohumeral relationships as measured on standardized axillary radiographs and patient-reported shoulder comfort and function as recorded by the Simple Shoulder Test.

METHODS

Between January 1, 2006 and December 14, 2011, we performed 531 primary anatomic glenohumeral arthroplasties for arthritis, of which 221 (42%) were ream and run procedures. Of these, 30 shoulders in 30 patients had the ream and run procedure for the arthritic triad and had two years of clinical and radiographic follow-up. These 30 shoulders formed the basis for this case series. The average age of the patients was 56 ± 8 years; all but one were male. Two of the 30 patients requested revision to total shoulder arthroplasty within the first year after their ream and run procedure because of their dissatisfaction with their rehabilitation progress. For the 28 shoulders not having had a revision, we determined on the standardized axillary views before and after surgery the glenoid type, glenoid version (90° minus the angle between the plane of the glenoid face and the plane of the body of the scapula), and location of the humeral contact point with respect to the anteroposterio dimension of the glenoid (the ratio of the distance from the anterior glenoid lip to the contact point divided by the distance between the anterior and posterior glenoid lips). We also recorded the patient's self-assessed shoulder comfort and function before and after surgery using the 12 questions of the Simple Shoulder Test.

RESULTS

For the 28 unrevised shoulders the mean followup was 3.0 years (range, 2-9.2 years). In these patients, the ream and run procedure resulted in improved centering of the humeral head on the face of the glenoid (preoperative: 75% ± 7% posterior; postoperative: 59% ± 10% posterior; mean difference 16% [95% CI, 13%-19%]; p < 0.001), notably this improved centering was achieved without a significant change in the glenoid version. Patient-reported function was improved (preoperative Simple Shoulder Test: 5 ± 3, postoperative Simple Shoulder Test: 10 ± 4, mean difference 5 [95% CI, 4-6], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For shoulders with the arthritic triad, the ream and run procedure can provide improvement in humeral centering on the glenoid and in patient-reported shoulder comfort and function without the risk of glenoid component failure. In that ream and run is a new procedure, substantial additional clinical research with long-term follow-up is needed to define specifically the shoulder characteristics, the patient characteristics and the technical details that are most likely to lead to durable improvements in the comfort and function of shoulders with the challenging pathology known as the arthritic triad.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

The ream and run: not for every patient, every surgeon or every problem

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to provide some essential and basic information concerning the ream and run technique for shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

In a total shoulder arthroplasty, the humeral head prosthesis articulates with a polyethylene glenoid surface placed on the bone of the glenoid. Failure of the glenoid component is recognised as the principal cause of failure of total shoulder arthroplasty. By contrast, in the ream and run procedure, the humeral head prosthesis articulates directly with the glenoid, which has been conservatively reamed to provide a stabilising concavity and maximal glenohumeral contact area for load transfer. While no interpositional material is placed on the surface of the glenoid, animal studies have demonstrated that the reamed glenoid bone forms fibrocartilage, which is firmly fixed to the reamed bony surface. Glenohumeral motion is instituted on the day of surgery and continued daily after surgery to mold the regenerating glenoid fibrocartilage. When the healing process is complete - as indicated by a good and comfortable range of motion - exercises and activities are added progressively without concern for glenoid component failure. 

RESULTS

The experience to date indicates that a technically well done ream and run procedure can restore high levels of comfort and function to carefully selected patients with osteoarthritis, capsulorrhaphy arthroplathy, and posttraumatic arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considering the ream and run procedure should understand that this technique avoids the risks and limitations associated with a polyethylene glenoid component, but that it requires strong motivation to follow through on a rehabilitation course that may require many months. The outcome of this procedure depends on the body's regeneration of a new surface for the glenoid and requires rigorous adherence to a daily exercise program. This paper explains in detail the principal factors in patient selection and the key technical elements of the procedure. Clinical examples and outcomes are demonstrated.