Preoperative external rotation deficit does not predict poor outcomes or lack of improvement after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Outcomes of lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus latissimus dorsi transfer for external rotation deficit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Preoperative Risk Factors for Pain After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Despite being a generally successful procedure, pain following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is a known complication. The aim of this systematic review is to identify preoperative risk factors for pain following rTSA to encourage evidence-based interventions, inform clinicians, and aid in surgical planning. Studies that reported preoperative risk factors and pain after rTSA were included. Studies which reported outcome measures that incorporated pain scores yet did not display them independently, studies which only reported intraoperative risk factors, and studies involving participants under 18 were excluded. The search was conducted on May 31, 2023, across the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Four independent researchers conducted this systematic review, and a descriptive analysis was subsequently performed. Twenty-five studies were included following the evaluation of full-text articles, involving a total of 9,470 shoulders. Preoperative risk factors identified were categorised into the following groups: BMI, smoking, radiographic findings, age and sex, prior surgery, functional ability and pain, and psychosocial. The strongest associations identified were preoperative opioid use and smoking, which were both associated with worse pain outcomes following rTSA; other preoperative risk factors highlighted in this review showed either weak or no correlation. Preoperative opioid use and smoking are likely risk factors for the development of pain after rTSA. Although the studies included varying levels of quality, the identification of modifiable risk factors is useful in optimising management prior to surgery and guiding patient expectations. The lack of evidence regarding associations with non-modifiable risk factors further reinforces the potential benefits of the procedure on diverse population groups and is useful in itself for assessing the candidacy of patients for the procedure, particularly when postoperative pain is a factor being considered.

Initial clinical experience with a predictive clinical decision support tool for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) are software that generate patient-specific assessments that can be used to better inform healthcare provider decision making. Machine learning (ML)-based CDSTs have recently been developed for anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty to facilitate more data-driven, evidence-based decision making. Using this shoulder CDST as an example, this external validation study provides an overview of how ML-based algorithms are developed and discusses the limitations of these tools.

METHODS

An external validation for a novel CDST was conducted on 243 patients (120F/123M) who received a personalized prediction prior to surgery and had short-term clinical follow-up from 3 months to 2 years after primary aTSA (n = 43) or rTSA (n = 200). The outcome score and active range of motion predictions were compared to each patient's actual result at each timepoint, with the accuracy quantified by the mean absolute error (MAE).

RESULTS

The results of this external validation demonstrate the CDST accuracy to be similar (within 10%) or better than the MAEs from the published internal validation. A few predictive models were observed to have substantially lower MAEs than the internal validation, specifically, Constant (31.6% better), active abduction (22.5% better), global shoulder function (20.0% better), active external rotation (19.0% better), and active forward elevation (16.2% better), which is encouraging; however, the sample size was small.

CONCLUSION

A greater understanding of the limitations of ML-based CDSTs will facilitate more responsible use and build trust and confidence, potentially leading to greater adoption. As CDSTs evolve, we anticipate greater shared decision making between the patient and surgeon with the aim of achieving even better outcomes and greater levels of patient satisfaction.

Muscle activation patterns during active external rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an electrophysiological study of the teres minor and associated musculature

BACKGROUND

Preoperative teres minor insufficiency has been identified as a risk factor for poor restoration of external rotation (ER) after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). However, there has been little investigation regarding muscle activation patterns generating ER. This prospective study sought to determine the timing and activation levels of the shoulder girdle musculature during ER in well-functioning RTSAs with an intact teres minor using a lateralized design.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RTSA ≥1 year previously with functional ER, an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score >70, superior rotator cuff deficiency, and an intact teres minor were identified. Electrophysiological and kinematic analyses were performed during ER in the modified neutral position (arm at side with 90° of elbow flexion) and in abduction (AB) (shoulder abducted 90° with 90° of elbow flexion). Dynamometer-recorded torque and position were pattern matched to electromyography during ER. The root-mean-square and integrated electromyography (in microvolts × milliseconds with standard deviation [SD]), as well as median frequency (MF) (in hertz with SD), were calculated to determine muscle recruitment. Pair-wise t test analysis compared muscle activation (P < .05 indicated significance).

RESULTS

After an a priori power analysis, 16 patients were recruited. The average ASES score, visual analog scale pain score, and ASES subscore for ER in AB ("comb hair") were 87.7, 0.5, and 2.75 of 3, respectively. In AB, muscle activation began with the upper trapezius, middle trapezius, and latissimus dorsi, followed by the anterior deltoid activating to neutral. With ER beyond neutral, the teres major (9.6 μV × ms; SD, 9.2 μV × ms) initiated ER, followed by the teres minor (14.1 μV × ms; SD, 18.2 μV × ms) and posterior deltoid (11.1 μV × ms; SD, 9.3 μV × ms). MF analysis indicated equal contributions of the teres major (1.1 Hz; SD, 0.5 Hz), teres minor (1.2 Hz; SD, 0.4 Hz), and posterior deltoid (1.1 Hz; SD, 0.4 Hz) in ER beyond neutral. In the modified neutral position, the upper trapezius and middle trapezius were not recruited to the same level as in AB. For ER beyond neutral, the teres major (9.5 μV × ms [SD, 9 μV × ms]; MF, 1.1 Hz [SD, 0.5 Hz]), teres minor (11.4 μV × ms [SD, 15.1 μV × ms]; MF, 1.1 Hz [SD, 0.5 Hz]), and posterior deltoid (8.5 μV × ms [SD, 8 μV × ms]; MF, 1.2 Hz [SD, 0.3 Hz]) were activated in similar sequence and intensity as AB. No differences in muscle activation duration or intensity were noted among the teres major, teres minor, and posterior deltoid (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Active ER after RTSA is complex and is not governed by a single muscle-tendon unit. This study establishes a sequence, duration, and intensity of muscle activation for ER in well-functioning RTSAs. In both tested positions, the teres major, teres minor, and posterior deltoid function equally and sequentially to power ER.