Outcomes of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Following Failed Superior Capsular Reconstruction

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for massive rotator cuff tears without glenohumeral arthritis can improve clinical outcomes despite history of prior rotator cuff repair: A systematic review

IMPORTANCE

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is often used to surgically address massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCT) without arthritis. The impact of prior attempted rotator cuff repair (RCR) on outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare functional outcomes, range of motion, and complications in patients with a MIRCT without arthritis who underwent RSA as a primary procedure versus after prior RCR.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review was performed on RSA for a MIRCT. The search was conducted from February to March of 2022 using the MEDLINE database. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs), range of motion (ROM), and complications were extracted. These outcomes were weighted and analysed based on whether the reverse was performed as the primary procedure or following a prior RCR.

FINDINGS

Seven studies were included in the analysis, consisting of 343 cases in the primary RSA group and 95 cases in the prior RCR group, with a mean follow-up of 40.8 months. There were no demographic differences between cohorts. Postoperative PROs and ROM were comparable between groups, although the prior RCR group had a higher maximal percentage of improvement (MPI%) for the Constant-Murley Score and Simple Shoulder Test. There was a higher risk for complications (relative risk [RR] 6.26) and revisions (RR 3.91) in the prior RCR group. The most common complications were acromial stress fractures and prosthetic dislocation.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Patients undergoing RSA for MIRCT following a prior RCR have functional outcomes that are largely comparable to those who have a primary RSA, but they may be at higher risk of complications and revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Reversing chronic pseudoparesis secondary to massive, irreparable rotator cuff tear: superior capsular reconstruction vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have defined pseudoparesis as limited active forward elevation between 45° and 90° and maintained passive range of motion (ROM) in the setting of a massive rotator cuff tear (RCT). Although pseudoparesis can be reliably reversed with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) or superior capsular reconstruction (SCR), the optimal treatment for this indication remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of RSA to SCR in patients with pseudoparesis secondary to massive, irreparable RCT (miRCT).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients aged 40-70 years with pseudoparesis secondary to miRCT who were treated with either RSA or SCR by a single fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon from 2016 to 2021 with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Multivariate linear regression modeling was used to compare active ROM, visual analog pain scale (VAS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score between RSA and SCR while controlling for confounding variables.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were included in the RSA cohort and 23 patients were included in the SCR cohort with similar mean follow-up times (26.2 ± 21.1 vs. 21.9 ± 14.7 months, respectively). The patients in the RSA group were significantly older than those in the SCR group (65.2 ± 4.4 vs. 54.2 ± 7.8 years, P < .001) and had more severe arthritis (1.8 ± 0.9 vs. 1.2 ± 0.5 Samilson-Prieto, P = .019). The pseudoparesis reversal rate among the RSA and SCR cohorts was 96.3% and 91.3%, respectively. On univariate analysis, the RSA cohort demonstrated significantly greater mean improvement in active FF (89° ± 26° vs. 73° ± 30° change, P = .048), greater postoperative SSV (91 ± 8% vs. 69 ± 25%, P < .001), lower postoperative VAS pain scores (0.6 ± 1.2 vs. 2.2 ± 2.9, P = .020), and less postoperative internal rotation (IR; 4.6° ± 1.6° vs. 6.9° ± 1.8°, P = .004) compared with SCR. On multivariate analysis controlling for age and osteoarthritis, RSA remained a significant predictor of greater SSV (β = 21.5, P = .021) and lower VAS scores (β = -1.4, P = .037), whereas SCR was predictive of greater IR ROM (β = 3.0, P = .043).

CONCLUSION

Although both RSA and SCR effectively reverse pseudoparesis, patients with RSA have higher SSV and lower pain scores but less IR after controlling for age and osteoarthritis. The results of this study may inform surgical decision making for patients who are suitable candidates for either procedure.

Complication rates following reverse and anatomic shoulder replacement in treatment of glenohumeral arthritis: a 10-year Medicare review study

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare the complication rates after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for primary glenohumeral arthritis in a Medicare population.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a shoulder arthroplasty were identified from the 5% subset of Medicare parts A/B between 2009 and 2019. Patients with less than 1-year follow-up were excluded. A total of 8846 patients with a diagnosis of glenohumeral arthritis were then subdivided into those who received aTSA (5935 patients) and RSA (2911 patients). A multivariate Cox regression analysis was then performed comparing complication rates at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years.

RESULTS

Statistically significant increased rates of instability (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.46), fracture of the scapula (HR = 7.76), infections (HR = 1.45), early revision (HR = 1.79), and all complications (HR = 1.32) were seen in the RSA group. There was no significant difference in revision rate at 5 years between the 2 groups. There was no difference in patient characteristics or comorbid conditions (smoking status, diabetes, Charlson score, etc.) or hospital characteristics (location, teaching status, public vs. private, etc.) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

An increased rate of early complications was observed with the use of RSA compared with aTSA for the treatment of primary glenohumeral arthritis, including instability, scapula fracture, infection, and all cause complication. No difference in revision rate between RSA and aTSA at 5 years was observed.

Superior capsular reconstruction for irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears

Although the superior portion of the shoulder joint capsule is a clearly distinct structure, its ability to prevent vertical humeral head translation in irreparable rotator cuff tears remains controversial. The clinical results of superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) in this context are satisfactory but the radiological outcomes are poor in up to two-thirds of patients. Moreover, there is no proof that SCR is more beneficial than simply doing a subacromial debridement, a partial repair or a tenotomy of the long head of biceps. Furthermore, graft healing is not predictive of success. Given the lack of comparative studies with high level of evidence (level 1 or 2), we cannot conclude that this surgical technique (and its many variants) has a place in our treatment paradigm. Also, it seems that xenografts are no longer being used given the high rate of structural failure seen on MRI and the large number of complications. If the long head of biceps tendon is still intact at the time of surgery, it is a feasible option for SCR given the reasonable cost and minimal complications. If it is not - but the subscapularis tendon is intact or repairable - an allograft or a non-local autograft should be considered, despite its unpredictable clinical results. Surgeons should inform patients of the high rate of radiological repair failure and the worse results if a reverse shoulder arthroplasty should be needed subsequently. Level of evidence: 4.

Minimal inter-surgeon agreement on the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis in patients with massive rotator cuff tears

BACKGROUND

Pseudoparalysis is commonly used to describe patients with severe loss of active elevation associated with advanced rotator cuff disease, but its definition in the literature has been variable. This study aimed to determine how 15 expert shoulder surgeons use the term "pseudoparalysis" when presented with clinical cases and assess clinical agreement on the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis.

METHODS

Fifteen expert shoulder surgeons were surveyed regarding 18 patients with magnetic resonance imaging-diagnosed massive rotator cuff tears, restricted active range of motion (ROM), full passive ROM, and without advanced rotator cuff arthropathy (Hamada grade <3). The survey included 18 patient vignettes with key clinical details and a deidentified video demonstrating the physical examination of the patient. For all patients, surgeons were instructed to assume that the patient has a full passive ROM. An anteroposterior radiograph and T2 sequences of the patient's coronal, axial, and sagittal magnetic resonance imaging were also provided. After each case, the surgeons were asked: (1) does the patient have pseudoparalysis, and (2) if so, how severe it is. At the end of the patient vignettes, surgeons were asked to define pseudoparalysis using a checklist with predefined options. Surgeons were also asked if there was a difference between the term pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. Fleiss' kappa (κ) correlation coefficient was used to determine intersurgeon agreement.

RESULTS

There was minimal inter-rater agreement on the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis (κ = 0.360) and no agreement on describing the severity of pseudoparalysis (κ = -0.057). Although 80% of surgeons stated that an active glenohumeral elevation less than 90° was a diagnostic feature of pseudoparalysis, there was disagreement on the remaining criteria, leading to no agreement on a set of universal criteria that defines pseudoparalysis. A total of 67% included maintained full passive elevation, 33% included the absence of pain, 67% included elevation causing anterosuperior escape, and 27% included an additional unlisted factor. There was minimal agreement among the 15 surgeons on the diagnostic criteria of pseudoparalysis (κ = 0.092). Finally, 7 surgeons stated that pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis are identical, whereas 8 surgeons stated that they are 2 different clinical diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

Among this panel of expert shoulder surgeons, there was a lack of consensus on the definition of pseudoparalysis and minimal agreement on the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis based on clinical scenarios. In addition, half the surgeons believed that pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis are identical, whereas the other half believed that they represent 2 separate clinical entities. A standardized definition of pseudoparalysis would be of value to facilitate communication and research efforts.