Clinical outcomes and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty used for failed prior shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement

BACKGROUND

When patients require reoperation after primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Furthermore, although the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit are commonly used to assess clinically relevant success, these metrics are limited by ceiling effects that may cause inaccurate estimates of patient success. Our purpose was to define the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement (MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI) for commonly used pain and functional outcome scores after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients who underwent first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcome scores included 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. We used an anchor-based method to calculate the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI. In addition, we calculated the MCI-%MPI using a distribution-based method for historical comparison. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed. The influence of sex, type of primary shoulder arthroplasty, and reason for revision rTSA were also assessed by calculating cohort-specific thresholds.

RESULTS

Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. The mean age of the patients was 67 years; 56% were female, and the average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n = 47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n = 21), rTSA (n = 15), and humeral head resurfacing (n = 10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n = 24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n = 23) and subluxation and unexplained pain (n = 11 for both). The anchor-based MCI-%MPI thresholds (% of patients achieving) were ASES = 33% (49%), raw Constant = 23% (64%), normalized Constant = 30% (61%), UCLA = 51% (53%), SST = 26% (68%), and SPADI = 29% (58%). The anchor-based SCI-%MPI thresholds (% of patients achieving) were ASES = 55% (31%), raw Constant = 41% (27%), normalized Constant = 52% (22%), UCLA = 66% (37%), SST = 74% (25%), and SPADI = 49% (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to establish thresholds for the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI at minimum 2 years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

Impact of constrained humeral liner on impingement-free range of motion and impingement type in reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a computer simulation

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is a major complication of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The humeral liner may be changed to a constrained type when stability does not improve by increasing glenosphere size or lateralization with implants, and patients, particularly women with obesity, have risks of periprosthetic instability that may be secondary to hinge adduction on the thorax, but there are few reports on its impact on the range of motion (ROM). This study aimed to determine the influence of humeral liner constraint on impingement-free ROM and impingement type using an RSA computer simulation model.

METHODS

A virtual simulation model was created using 3D measurement software for conducting a simulation study. This study included 25 patients with rotator cuff tears and rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Impingement-free ROM and impingement patterns were measured during flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, external rotation, and internal rotation. Twenty-five cases with a total of 4 patterns of 2 multiplied by 2, making a total of 100 simulations: glenosphere (38 mm normal type vs. lateralized type) and humeral liner constraint (normal type vs. constrained type). There were 4 combinations: normal glenosphere and normal humeral liner, normal glenosphere and constrained humeral liner, lateralized glenosphere and normal humeral liner, and lateralized glenosphere and constrained humeral liner.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found in all impingement-free ROM in 1-way analysis of variance (abduction: P = .01, adduction: P < .01, flexion: P = .01, extension: P = .02, external rotation: P < .01, and internal rotation: P < .01). Tukey's post hoc tests showed that the impingement-free ROM was reduced during abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation with the combination of the normal glenosphere and constrained humeral liner compared with the other combinations, and improved by glenoid lateralization compared with the combination of the lateralized glenosphere and constrained humeral liner. In the impingement pattern, the Pearson χ2 test showed significantly greater proportion of impingement of the humeral liner into the superior part of the glenoid neck in abduction occurring in the combination of the normal glenosphere and constrained humeral liner group compared with the other groups (P < .01). Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that the combination of the normal glenosphere and constrained humeral liner was significantly different from that of the lateralized glenosphere and constrained humeral liner (P < .01). Using constrained liners resulted in early impingement on the superior part of the glenoid neck in the normal glenosphere, whereas glenoid lateralization increased impingement-free ROM.

CONCLUSION

This RSA computer simulation model demonstrated that constrained humeral liners led to decreased impingement-free ROM. However, using the lateralized glenosphere improved abduction ROM.

Predictors of dislocations after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a study by the ASES complications of RSA multicenter research group

BACKGROUND

Instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is one of the most frequent complications and remains a clinical challenge. Current evidence is limited by small sample size, single-center, or single-implant methodologies that limit generalizability. We sought to determine the incidence and patient-related risk factors for dislocation after RSA, using a large, multicenter cohort with varying implants.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicenter study was performed involving 15 institutions and 24 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members across the United States. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients undergoing primary or revision RSA between January 2013 and June 2019 with minimum 3-month follow-up. All definitions, inclusion criteria, and collected variables were determined using the Delphi method, an iterative survey process involving all primary investigators requiring at least 75% consensus to be considered a final component of the methodology for each study element. Dislocations were defined as complete loss of articulation between the humeral component and the glenosphere and required radiographic confirmation. Binary logistic regression was performed to determine patient predictors of postoperative dislocation after RSA.

RESULTS

We identified 6621 patients who met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of 19.4 months (range: 3-84 months). The study population was 40% male with an average age of 71.0 years (range: 23-101 years). The rate of dislocation was 2.1% (n = 138) for the whole cohort, 1.6% (n = 99) for primary RSAs, and 6.5% (n = 39) for revision RSAs (P < .001). Dislocations occurred at a median of 7.0 weeks (interquartile range: 3.0-36.0 weeks) after surgery with 23.0% (n = 32) after a trauma. Patients with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff had an overall lower rate of dislocation than patients with other diagnoses (0.8% vs. 2.5%; P < .001). Patient-related factors independently predictive of dislocation, in order of the magnitude of effect, were a history of postoperative subluxations before radiographically confirmed dislocation (odds ratio [OR]: 19.52, P < .001), primary diagnosis of fracture nonunion (OR: 6.53, P < .001), revision arthroplasty (OR: 5.61, P < .001), primary diagnosis of rotator cuff disease (OR: 2.64, P < .001), male sex (OR: 2.21, P < .001), and no subscapularis repair at surgery (OR: 1.95, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The strongest patient-related factors associated with dislocation were a history of postoperative subluxations and having a primary diagnosis of fracture nonunion. Notably, RSAs for osteoarthritis showed lower rates of dislocations than RSAs for rotator cuff disease. These data can be used to optimize patient counseling before RSA, particularly in male patients undergoing revision RSA.

Short- to medium-term outcomes and future direction of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Current concepts

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is typically indicated for patients with severe shoulder osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear arthropathy, or proximal humerus fractures that have failed to heal properly. The primary goal of reverse shoulder arthroplasty is to improve shoulder function and reduce pain, while also restoring the ability to perform daily activities. There is a growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in improving shoulder function and reducing pain in patients with severe shoulder osteoarthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is associated with significant improvements in shoulder function and pain reduction compared to non-surgical treatments. This paper aims to summarize current knowledge, practices and present a summary of the long-term effects of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) on patient outcomes, including how these outcomes are defined and what measures are typically used to assess them. It will also cover newer definitions of outcomes for RSA that have been developed in recent years in order to better understand the long-term effects of the procedure on patient-reported outcomes and functional ability, as well as information on revision surgery and implant survivorship, and the future of RSA (3D-navigation, patient-specific instrumentation, robotics and artificial intelligence) and its effects on outcomes.

Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state

BACKGROUND

When patients require revision of primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Our purpose was to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for outcome scores and range of motion (ROM) after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcomes scores included the ASES, raw and normalized Constant, SPADI, SST, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores. ROM measures included abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR) score. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate the MCID, SCB, and PASS. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed.

RESULTS

Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n = 47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n = 21), rTSA (n = 15), and resurfacing (n = 10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n = 24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n = 23), subluxation and unexplained pain (n = 11 for both). The anchor-based MCID thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 20.1 (42%); normalized Constant, 12.6 (80%); UCLA, 10.2 (54%); SST, 0.9 (78%); SPADI, -18.4 (58%); abduction, 13° (83%); FE, 18° (82%); ER, 4° (49%); and IR, 0.8 (34%). The SCB thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 34.1 (25%); normalized Constant, 26.6 (43%); UCLA, 14.1 (28%); SST, 3.9 (48%); SPADI, -36.4 (33%); abduction, 20° (77%); FE, 28° (71%); ER, 15° (15%); and IR, 1.0 (29%). The PASS thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES, 63.5 (53%); normalized Constant, 59.1 (61%); UCLA, 25.4 (48%); SST, 7.0 (55%); SPADI, 42.4 (59%); abduction, 98° (61%); FE, 110° (56%); ER, 19° (73%); and IR, 3.3 (59%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes thresholds for the MCID, SCB, and PASS at minimum 2-years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to counsel patients and assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

Trends in outcomes following aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty

PURPOSE

As the incidence of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, RSA) increases, revision procedures will also increase with a corresponding need for counseling patients regarding outcomes. We hypothesized that different revision categories would have different complication profiles depending on both the indication as well as the nature of the prior hardware.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 1773 cases performed at a single tertiary health system utilized case postings and diagnoses to identify revision shoulder arthroplasty cases. Revisions were classified based on the prior hardware present, with basic demographics and other perioperative and postoperative outcomes recorded within the limits of available follow-up.

RESULTS

166 surgical cases involving revision of prior shoulder arthroplasty metal hardware were identified with an average follow-up of 1.0 years. Immediate perioperative outcomes of revision cases were similar relative to the companion cohort of 1607 primary cases. 137 cases (83%) required no further revision surgery, while 19 cases (11%) underwent aseptic revision, and 10 cases (6%) were revised for periprosthetic infection. RSA hardware revised to another RSA had the highest repeat revision rate relative to the other revision categories (32% vs < 14%).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision of reverse shoulder arthroplasty to a repeat reverse has the highest rate of subsequent all-cause revision, and these repeat revisions often occurred for periprosthetic infection. Despite a relatively high long-term complication rate following revision shoulder arthroplasty, immediate perioperative outcomes remain similar to primary cases, providing some preliminary evidence for policymakers considering inclusion in future value-based care models.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Treatment Study.

Healthcare costs of failed rotator cuff repairs

Background

The goal of this study was to estimate the short-term (∼2 years) healthcare costs of failed primary arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) in the United States.

Methods

A review of current literature was performed to estimate the number of RCR performed in the United States in the year 2022 and the rate of progression of these patients to lose repair continuity, reach clinical failure, and progress to nonoperative intervention and revision procedures. A review of the current literature was performed to estimate the costs incurred by these failures over the ensuing 2-year postoperative time period.

Results

The direct and indirect healthcare costs of structural and clinical failure of primary RCR performed in 2022 are estimated to reach $438,892,670 in the short-term postoperative period. The majority of the costs come from the estimated $229,390,898 in nonoperative management that these patients undergo after they reach clinical failure.

Conclusion

The short-term healthcare costs of failed arthroscopic RCR performed in the United States in 2022 are predicted to be $438,892,670. Although RCR improves quality of life, pain, function, and is cost-effective, there remains great potential for reducing the economic burden of failed RCR repairs on the US society. Investments into research aimed to improve RCR healing rates are warranted.

Clinical Relevance

Although RCR improves quality of life, pain, function, and is cost-effective, this study provides evidence that there remains great potential for reducing the economic burden of failed RCR repairs on the US society. Investments into research aimed to improve RCR healing rates are warranted.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Both anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are being increasingly performed. In the event of a complication necessitating revision, RTSA is more commonly performed in both scenarios. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of a prospective single-institution shoulder arthroplasty database. All revision RTSAs performed between 2007 and 2019 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were initially included. After excluding patients with a preoperative diagnosis of infection, an oncologic indication, or incomplete outcomes assessment, we included 45 revision RTSAs performed for failed primary aTSA and 15 for failed primary RTSA. Demographics, surgical characteristics, active range of motion (external rotation [ER], internal rotation, forward elevation [FE], abduction), outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, and University of California, Los Angeles score), and the incidence of postoperative complications was compared between groups.

Results

Primary aTSA was most often indicated for degenerative joint disease (82%), whereas primary RTSA was more often indicated for rotator cuff arthropathy (60%). On bivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in any range of motion or clinical outcome measure were found between revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA. On multivariate linear regression analysis, revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA was not found to significantly influence any outcome measure. Humeral loosening as an indication for revision surgery was associated with more favorable outcomes for all four range of motion measures and all five outcome scores assessed. In contrast, an indication for revision of peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with poorer outcomes for three of four range of motion measures (ER, FE, abduction) and four of five outcome scores (Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, University of California, Los Angeles). A preoperative diagnosis of fracture was associated with a poorer postoperative range of motion in ER, FE, and abduction, but was not found to significantly influence any outcome score. However, only two patients in our cohort had this indication. Complication and re-revision rates after revision RTSA for failed primary aTSA and RTSA were 27% and 9% vs. 20% and 14% (P = .487 and P = .515), respectively.

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly differ based on whether aTSA or RTSA was initially performed. However, larger studies are needed to definitively ascertain the influence of the primary construct on the outcomes of revision RTSA.

Patient outcomes after revision total shoulder arthroplasty in an inpatient vs. outpatient setting

BACKGROUND

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is becoming an increasingly common surgical procedure for numerous shoulder conditions. The incidence of revision TSA is increasing because of the increase in primary TSA and the increased utilization of TSA in younger patients. Conducting revision TSA as an outpatient procedure would be beneficial in limiting expenditure and resource allocation but must show a similar complication profile compared to inpatient revision TSA in order to justify its clinical value. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of outpatient revision TSA to inpatient revision TSA and outpatient primary TSA.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried from 2010-2019 to identify all patients who underwent revision TSA (n = 1456) in either an inpatient or outpatient setting, as well as patients who underwent primary TSA in an outpatient setting (n = 2630). Relevant demographic characteristics were compared between the outpatient revision group and both the inpatient revision and outpatient primary groups. Postoperative complications, readmission, and reoperation rates were also compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing inpatient revision TSA exhibited increased rates of preoperative hypertension (P = .013) and had increased prevalence of severe American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P = .021) compared to patients undergoing outpatient revision TSA. Patients undergoing outpatient revision TSA were significantly more likely to experience complications (P < .001), have longer surgical times (P < .001), and undergo readmission (P = .006) and reoperation (P = .049) compared to patients undergoing outpatient primary TSA. There was no significant increase in rates of overall complication, readmission, or reoperation between patients undergoing revision TSA in an outpatient vs. an inpatient setting.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient revision TSA has higher complication rates, readmission, and reoperation rates compared to outpatient primary TSA, similar to previous findings when comparing revision and primary TSA done as an inpatient. However, there was no increased risk of complications, readmission, or reoperation for outpatient revision TSA compared to inpatient revision TSA. Outpatient revision TSA should be considered by orthopedic surgeons in patients who are medically healthy to undergo the procedure as an outpatient surgery.

[Revision of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty]

With the increasing number of primary arthroplasties, revisions of anatomical prostheses are becoming increasingly important. The most common reasons for revision are glenoid loosening, including protrusion, rotator cuff insufficiency, including instability, and early/late infection. The reconstruction of glenoid defects can be done with an autograft or allograft. Depending on the size and situation, it is carried out in one or two stages. The stemless humeral head replacement and the short-stem prostheses that have been used more frequently in recent years have significantly simplified humeral revision. Platform systems take a different approach with the option of conversion without major interventions on the glenoid or revision stem. Intraoperative complications mainly occur on the humeral side. Postoperative complications include dislocation, component loosening, and infection. Revision of anatomical to reverse arthroplasty shows better clinical outcomes and lower complication rates than anatomical revision.

Do patients with poor early clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty ultimately improve?

BACKGROUND

Although most patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) have substantial improvement in pain and function at early follow-up, improvements in pain and range of motion progress more slowly during postoperative rehabilitation in a subset of patients. The purpose of this study was to define a patient's risk of persistent shoulder dysfunction beyond the early postoperative period and identify risk factors for persistent poor performance.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 292 primary rTSAs with early poor performance and a preoperative diagnosis of osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, or rotator cuff tear from a multicenter database. Early poor performance was defined as a postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score below the 20th percentile at 3 months (58 points) or 6 months (65 points) postoperatively. Persistent poor performance at 2 years was defined as failure to achieve the patient acceptable symptomatic state for rTSA (77.3 points for the ASES score). The primary outcome was the rate of persistent poor performance. Secondarily, we compared the clinical outcomes of persistent poor performers vs. shoulders that improved at 2-year follow-up and assessed risk factors for persistent poor performance.

RESULTS

At 2-year follow-up, 61% of patients (n = 178) with poor performance at either 3- or 6-month follow-up had persistent poor performance. The rate increased to 85% if poor performance occurred at both 3- and 6-month follow-up. The minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit for range of motion and outcome scores were exceeded by early poor performers at rates of 83%-92% and 60%-77%, respectively, at 2-year follow-up. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of persistent poor performance after rTSA were lack of hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-0.57; P < .001), heart disease (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.24-6.77; P = .011), uncemented humeral fixation (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-1.18; P = .037), previous shoulder surgery (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.06-4.30; P = .031), lower preoperative ASES score (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97; P = .002), and lower preoperative subjective rating of pain at its worst (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .038).

DISCUSSION

Despite the fact that 85% of rTSA patients with an ASES score below the 20th percentile at early follow-up exceeded the minimal clinically important difference for improvement in the ASES score at 2-year clinical follow-up, 61% still had persistent poor performance, with failure to achieve the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the ASES score. Persistent poor performance after rTSA was best predicted by a history of shoulder surgery and a poorer preoperative ASES score. These findings can aid surgeons when counseling patients both preoperatively and postoperatively. In the setting of early poor performance, the risk of persistent poor performance must be balanced against the potential outcomes of revision surgery when considering early surgical intervention.

Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review

Background

Thus, the purpose of the present study was to (1) characterize common postoperative complications and (2) quantify the rates of revision in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revisional surgery. We hypothesize that hardware loosenings will be the most common complication to occur in the sample, with the humeral component being the most common loosening.

Methods

This systematic review adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. For our inclusion criteria, we included any study that contained intraoperative and/or postoperative complication data, and revision rates on patients who had undergone revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to a failed hemiarthroplasty. Complications include neurologic injury, deep surgical site infections, hardware loosening/prosthetic instability, and postoperative fractures (acromion, glenoid, and humeral fractures).

Results

The study contained 22 studies that assessed complications from shoulders that had revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from a hemiarthroplasty, with a total sample of 925 shoulders. We found that the most common complication to occur was hardware loosenings (5.3%), and of the hardware loosenings, humeral loosenings (3.8%) were the most common. The revision rate was found to be 10.7%.

Conclusion

This systematic review found that revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed hemiarthroplasty has a high overall complication and reintervention rates, specifically for hardware loosening and revision rates.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failed tendon transfer for irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears

BACKGROUND

Tendon transfers (TTs) can be successful for the management of selected posterosuperior functionally irreparable rotator cuff tears. However, when these procedures fail to provide adequate pain relief or functional improvement, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is commonly considered the next treatment option. The effect of prior TT on RSA remains largely unknown. The purposes of this investigation were to evaluate the outcomes of RSA after previous TT performed for posterosuperior functionally irreparable rotator cuff tears and to determine the effect of various TT types on RSA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 2 institutional databases identified 33 patients who underwent RSA implantation between 2006 and 2019 with a previous failed tendon transfer (FTT) of the shoulder and at least 2 years of clinical follow-up. FTTs included 21 latissimus dorsi transfers, 6 latissimus dorsi and teres major (LD-TM) transfers, and 6 lower trapezius transfers. RSAs were performed at an average of 5.5 years (range, 0.3-28 years) after FTT, with a mean follow-up period of 4.1 ± 2.0 years. Outcomes evaluated included the visual analog scale pain score, range of motion, absolute Constant-Murley score (CS) and relative CS, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Subjective Shoulder Value, complications, and implant survivorship free of reoperation or revision.

RESULTS

RSA significantly improved pain and function, with improvements in the visual analog scale pain score (6.2 preoperatively vs. 2.2 at most recent follow-up, P < .001), active elevation (85° vs. 111°, P < .001), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (51 vs. 74, P = .001), absolute CS (34 vs. 48, P = .003), and relative CS (42% vs. 59%, P = .002), exceeding the minimal clinically important difference threshold. There were 7 complications (21%) across the entire cohort, with dislocation (n = 3, 9.1%) as the most common complication. Comparison across TT groups showed that LD-TM transfer had the highest complication rate (3 shoulders, 50%), followed by lower trapezius transfer (1 shoulder, 16.7%); latissimus dorsi transfer had the lowest rate (3 shoulders, 14.3%; P = .037). Survivorship free of revision or reoperation was estimated to be 90.1% at 1 year, 84.9% at 2 years, and 71.2% at 5 years, with no difference among TT groups (P = .654).

CONCLUSIONS

RSA can serve as a viable salvage option for FTT procedures. At mid-term follow-up, RSA led to significant improvements in pain, range of motion, and patient-reported outcomes. Patients with prior LD-TM transfers may have a higher complication rate, but no other differences were found between TT groups.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty After Prior Rotator Cuff Repair: A Matched Cohort Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Rotator cuff repair (RCR) is commonly performed before reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with conflicting evidence on the effect on arthroplasty outcomes. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of a prior RCR on the outcomes and complications of primary RSA.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2017, 438 RSAs performed in patients with a prior RCR and 876 case-matched controls were identified from a multicenter database. Patients were grouped based on a preoperative diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) and rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). Data collected included range of motion, strength, complications, and revisions. Additional clinical metrics included American Shoulder and Elbow Society score, Constant score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, and the University of California Los Angeles shoulder score.

RESULTS

Compared with controls, both GHOA and CTA study groups demonstrated lower postoperative forward elevation (FE) (133° versus 147°, P < 0.001; 133° versus 139°, P = 0.048) and FE trength (6.5 versus 8.2, P = 0.004; 6.1 versus 7.3, P = 0.014). In addition, inferior improvements were observed in the GHOA and CTA study groups with respect to abduction (38° versus 52°, P = 0.001; 36° versus 49°, P = 0.001), FE (41° versus 60°, P < 0.001; 38° versus 52°, P = 0.001), ER (16° versus 25°, P < 0.001; 10° versus 17°, P = 0.001), and Constant score (28.4 versus 37.1, P < 0.001; 26.2 versus 30.9, P = 0.016). Compared with controls, no differences were observed in the GHOA and CTA study groups with respect to notching (11.2% versus 5.6%, P = 0.115; 5.8% versus 7.9%, P = 0.967), complications (4.3% versus 1.6%, P = 0.073; 2.5% versus 2.7%, P = 0.878), and revision surgery (3.1% versus 0.9%, P = 0.089; 1.1% versus 1.3%, P = 0.822).

CONCLUSION

RSA after a prior RCR improves both pain and function, without increasing scapular notching, complications, or revision surgery. However, compared with patients without a prior RCR, postoperative shoulder function may be slightly decreased.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; Retrospective Cohort Study.

Maximizing Muscle Function in Cuff-Deficient Shoulders: A Rehabilitation Proposal for Reverse Arthroplasty

Purpose

The purpose of this review is to describe the role of altered joint biomechanics in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and to propose a rehabilitation protocol for a cuff-deficient glenohumeral joint based on the current evidence.Methods and Materials: The proposed rehabilitation incorporates the principles of pertinent muscle loading while considering risk factors and surgical complications.

Results

In light of altered function of shoulder muscles in reverse arthroplasty, scapular plane abduction should be more often utilized as it better activates deltoid, teres minor, upper trapezius, and serratus anterior. Given the absence of supraspinatus and infraspinatus and reduction of external rotation moment arm of the deltoid in reverse arthroplasty, significant recovery of external rotation may not occur, although an intact teres minor may assist external rotation in the elevated position.

Conclusion

Improving the efficiency of deltoid function before and after reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a key factor in the rehabilitation of the cuff deficient shoulders. Performing exercises in scapular plane and higher abduction angles activates deltoid and other important muscles more efficiently and optimizes surgical outcomes.

Biomechanical Value of a Protective Proximal Humeral Cerclage in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a commonly performed salvage procedure for failed proximal humeral fracture fixation. The rate of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures is higher compared to primary RSA. The goal of this study was to investigate the biomechanical value of a protective cerclage during stem impaction in a revision surgery setting. Twenty-eight fresh-frozen human humeri were used to assess different configurations for steel wire and FiberTape cerclages. A custom-built biomechanical test setup simulated the mallet strikes during the stem impaction process with the Univers Revers prothesis stem. The mallet energy until the occurrence of a first crack was not different between groups. The total energy until progression of the fracture distally to the cerclage was significantly higher in the cerclage groups compared to the native humerus (9.5 J vs. 3.5 J, respectively; p = 0.0125). There was no difference between the steel wire and FiberTape groups (11.4 J vs. 8.6 J, respectively; p = 0.2695). All fractures were located at the concave side of the stem at the metaphyseal calcar region. This study demonstrates that a protective cerclage can successfully delay the occurrence of a fracture during stem impaction in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. A FiberTape cerclage is biomechanically equally efficient compared to a steel wire cerclage.

Functional Outcomes of Bilateral Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Purpose  To answer the question whether bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a safe and effective treatment which results in satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes with low complications rates. A second question to be answered was: what is the quality of the evidence of the already published studies which investigate the use of bilateral RTSA?

Methods  Two reviewers independently conducted a systematic search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These databases were queried with the terms “reverse” AND “total” AND “shoulder” AND “arthroplasty” AND “clinical.” Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.

Results  From the 394 initial studies we finally selected and assessed 6 clinical studies which were eligible to our inclusion–exclusion criteria. The aforementioned studies included in total 203 patients (69% females; mean age range: 67.1–75 years; mean follow-up range: 12–61 months). From those, 168 patients underwent staged bilateral RTSA (mean duration between first and second operation range: 8–21.6 months) and the rest of them a unilateral RTSA as controlled treatment. Almost all mean clinical and functional scores, which were used to assess the therapeutic value of bilateral RTSA, depicted significant postoperative improvement in comparison with the mean preoperative values. The modified Coleman methodology score, which was used to assess the quality of the studies, ranged from a minimum of 36/100 to a maximum of 55/100.

Conclusion  Despite the lack of high-quality evidence, staged bilateral RTSA seems to be a safe and effective procedure for patients with cuff tear arthropathy, which results in significantly improved clinical and functional outcomes and low reoperations' rates.

Level of Evidence  Systematic review of level III-IV therapeutic studies.

Anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients 70 years of age and older: a comparison cohort at early to midterm follow-up

BACKGROUND

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has gained popularity in elderly patients because of its limited reliance on rotator cuff function and high survivorship rates. However, although there are theoretical advantages of RSA over anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) in elderly patients, there is little data to guide surgeons on implant selection in this population.

METHODS

Patients were identified from our prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty registry. We included patients between the age of 50 and 89 years who underwent primary TSA for osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff or primary RSA for cuff tear arthropathy. The minimum and mean clinical follow-up was 2 and 3.1±1.3 years, respectively. Four patient groups were formed for analysis: (1) TSA age 50-69 years (n=274), (2) TSA age 70-89 years (n=208), (3) RSA age 50-69 years (n=81), and (4) RSA age 70-89 years (n=104). We evaluated age group differences in pain, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, patient satisfaction, complications, and revisions.

RESULTS

All groups showed significant improvements from preoperative to final follow-up for all outcome measures (P < .001). Visual analog scale for pain average score decreased from 5.8 preoperatively to 1.1, with no significant differences between groups (TSA P = .180; RSA P = .103). Final ASES scores and improvement from preoperative ASES score between the age groups were not significantly different (TSA P = .520; RSA P = .065). There were no significant differences in outcomes between TSA in patients older than 70 years vs. patients younger than 70 years (all P > .05); however, older RSA patients reported better function during activities of daily living (P = .020) than their younger counterparts. Patients undergoing TSA had a lower revision rate of 3.9% compared with 8.1% in the RSA group (P = .043).

CONCLUSIONS

TSA and RSA are reliable procedures for patients older than 70 years, and have comparable results to their respective patient cohorts younger than 70 years. Although some surgeons anecdotally advocate for RSA in patients older than 70 years with primary osteoarthritis and an intact rotator cuff, we found no difference in outcomes for TSA based on our age cutoff. Given satisfactory results following TSA in patients 70 years of age and older, we do not routinely perform RSA for primary osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff solely based on age. Further studies and longer follow-up are needed to determine the optimal implant selection for elderly patients with primary osteoarthritis.

Bone Allograft and Locking Plate for Severe Proximal Humeral Fractures: Early and Late Outcomes

Background

Early failure of osteosyntheses is common even with use of locking plates. In patients with comminuted fractures and epiphyseal osseous defects, we performed a series of osteosyntheses by locking plate in combination with an allograft bone augmentation. Because of encouraging short-term results in the literature, we assumed that the method could be a potential alternative to a reverse shoulder prosthesis.

Material/Methods

Twenty-six patients with a dislocated proximal humeral fracture (Neer IV/V/VI) were studied. A lyophilized allogeneic bone graft was used to reinforce the humeral head fragments before locking plate osteosynthesis. The outcomes of fractures were assessed with Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and Constant-Murley (Constant) scores, range of motion, a visual analog scale, and with radiological testing. The Constant-Murley scores were the endpoint of our study.

Results

The Neer classification of the fractures was type IV in 4 patients, type V in 20 patients, and type VI in 2 patients. The mean DASH score was 52.85 (range, 4.17–79.3) and the mean Constant score was 39.26 (range, 17–88). We observed late necrosis of the humeral head in 15 of 24 patients (62.5%), although early radiological follow-up showed that the humeral head had been anatomically reconstructed.

Conclusions

Long-term follow-up demonstrated inferior functional results, as displayed by poor Constant scores. There was a high incidence of necrosis, in spite of initial anatomical reconstruction. Biointegration of the allogeneic bone graft and revascularization of the humeral head fragments could be impaired in geriatric patients who have gross dislocation. Therefore, augmentation of the humeral head with allogeneic bone grafts cannot be recommended in these patients.

Clinical Outcome of Two-Stage Revision after Periprosthetic Shoulder Infection

Background: Periprosthetic shoulder infections are devastating complications after shoulder arthroplasty. A potential treatment concept is a two-stage prosthesis exchange. Data are sparse in terms of clinical outcome, including infection-free survival and patient satisfaction after this procedure. In the present study, we investigated recurrence of infection, revision-free survivorship and clinical outcome following two-stage revision due to periprosthetic shoulder infection. Furthermore, reasons for poor outcome were analyzed. Methods: Sixteen patients undergoing two-stage revision after shoulder joint infection were retrospectively identified. Recurrence of infection was analyzed by Kaplan–Meier survival curve. Clinical outcome was quantified with subjective shoulder value (SSV), “quick” Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (qDASH) and Rowe score. Range of motion (ROM) was measured pre- and postoperatively. Postoperative scores and ROM were compared in a subgroup analysis according to different reimplanted prosthesis types. Results: The reinfection-free implant survival was 81% after one year and at final follow-up (FU; mean of 33.2 months). The overall revision-free survival amounted to 56% after one year and at final FU. Patients who received reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) as part of reimplantation had less disability and long-term complications. This group demonstrated better subjective stability and function compared to patients revised to megaprostheses or large-head hemiarthroplasties. Conclusions: Two-stage revision following periprosthetic joint infection of the shoulder allows appropriate infection control in the majority of patients. However, the overall complications and revision rates due to mechanical failure or reinfection are high. Reimplantation of RSA seem superior to alternative prosthesis models in terms of function and patient satisfaction. Therefore, bone-saving surgery and reconstruction of the glenoid may increase the likelihood of reimplantation of RSA and potentially improve outcome in the case of infection-related two-stage revision of the shoulder.

The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I

Background

Globally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has moved away from the Grammont design to modern prosthesis designs. The purpose of this 2-part study was to systematically review each of the most common complications of RSA, limiting each search to publications in 2010 or later. In this part (part I), we examined (1) scapular notching (SN), (2) periprosthetic infection (PJI), (3) mechanical failure (glenoid or humeral component), and (4) neurologic injury (NI).

Methods

Four separate PubMed database searches were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Overall, 113 studies on SN, 62 on PJI, 34 on mechanical failure, and 48 on NI were included in our reviews. Univariate analysis was performed with the χ² or Fisher exact test.

Results

The Grammont design had a higher SN rate vs. all other designs combined (42.5% vs. 12.3%, P < .001). The onlay humeral design had a lower rate than the lateralized glenoid design (10.5% vs. 14.8%, P < .001). The PJI rate was 2.4% for primary RSA and 2.6% for revision RSA. The incidence of glenoid and humeral component loosening was 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively. The Grammont design had an increased NI rate vs. all other designs combined (0.9% vs. 0.1%, P = .04).

Conclusions

Focused systematic reviews of the recent literature with a large volume of RSAs demonstrate that with the use of non-Grammont modern prosthesis designs, complications including SN, PJI, glenoid component loosening, and NI are significantly reduced compared with previous studies. As the indications for RSA continue to expand, it is imperative to accurately track the rates and types of complications to justify its cost and increased indications.