Primary Monoblock Inset Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Resulted in Decreased Pain and Improved Function

Variations in the Anatomic Morphology of the Scapular Spine and Implications on Fracture After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the role of anatomic scapular morphology in acromion and scapular spine fracture (SSAF) risk after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

METHODS

Twelve scapular measurements were captured based on pilot study data, including scapular width measurements at the acromion (Z1), middle of the scapular spine (Z2), and medial to the first major angulation (Z3). Measurements were applied to 3D-CT scans from patients who sustained SSAF after RSA (SSAF group) and compared with those who did not (control group). Measurements were done by four investigators, and the intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated. Regression analysis determined trends in fracture incidence.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-nine patients from two separate surgeons (J.L., A.M.) were matched by age and surgical indication of whom 51 sustained SSAF after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Average ages for the SSAF and control cohorts were 78.6 and 72.1 years, respectively. Among the SSAF group, 15 were Levy type I, 26 Levy type II, and 10 Levy type 3 fractures. The intraclass correlation coefficient of Z1, Z2, and Z3 measurements was excellent (0.92, 0.92, and 0.94, respectively). Zone 1 and 3 measurements for the control group were 18.6 ± 3.7 mm and 3.2 ± 1.0 mm, respectively, compared with 22.5 ± 5.9 mm and 2.0 ± 0.70 mm in the SSAF group, respectively. The fracture group trended toward larger Z1 and smaller Z3 measurements. The average scapular spine proportion (SSP), Z1/Z3, was significantly greater in the control 6.20 ± 1.80 versus (12.60 ± 6.30; P < 0.05). Regression analysis showed a scapular spine proportion of ≤5 was associated with a fracture risk <5%, whereas an SSP of 9.2 correlated with a 50% fracture risk.

DISCUSSION

Patients with a thicker acromions (Z1) and thinner medial scapular spines (Z3) have increased fracture risk. Understanding anatomic scapular morphology may allow for better identification of high-risk patients preoperatively.

Do the humeral radiographic changes at 5-year follow-up affect the clinical outcomes of press-fit humeral stems in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasties?

INTRODUCTION

The purposes of this study were to analyze and compare the functional outcomes and radiological changes around the press-fit humeral components in two contemporary medialized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) systems at a minimum of 5-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2003 and December 2015, 249 consecutive RTSAs were performed at our hospital. Of these, 68 primary uncemented RTSA met our inclusion criteria. The Constant-Murley score (CMS), the modified Constant score, a visual analog scale (VAS) and active shoulder range of motion (ROM) were measured pre- and postoperatively. Radiological assessment was performed by plain radiographs at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 80.2 months, there was no significant difference (p = .59) between the postoperative functional scores and range of motion of the two groups (Delta Xtend and Lima SMR). Radiological data of stress-shielding were observed in 38 patients (55.9%) being slightly more frequent in the Lima SMR group (21 patients) than in the Delta Xtend group (17 patients) (p = .62).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the good functional results are similar between the two uncemented RTSA systems used and that they do not depend on the presence of radiological changes (stress-shielding) in the humeral stem at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

Implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of data from worldwide arthroplasty registries and clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty is a rare complication after aseptic loosening, infection or persistent pain, resulting in malfunction of the components requiring revision surgery. This correlates with a high burden for the patient and increasing costs. Specific data of complication rates and implant breakage are available in detailed arthroplasty registries, but due to the rare occurrence and possibly underestimated value rarely described in published studies. The aim of this systematic review was to point out the frequency of implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty. We hypothesized that worldwide arthroplasty registry datasets record higher rates of implant breakage than clinical trials.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were utilized for this systematic review using the items "(implant fracture/complication/breakage) OR (glenoid/baseplate complication/breakage) AND (shoulder arthroplasty)" according to the PRISMA guidelines on July 3rd, 2023. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted according to the Cochrane standards. Case reports and experimental studies were excluded to reduce bias. The breakage rate per 100,000 observed component years was used to compare data from national arthroplasty registries and clinical trials, published in peer-reviewed journals. Relevant types of shoulder prosthetics were analyzed and differences in implant breakage were considered.

RESULTS

Data of 5 registries and 15 studies were included. Rates of implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty were reported with 0.06-0.86% in registries versus 0.01-6.65% in clinical studies. The breakage rate per 100,000 observed component years was 10 in clinical studies and 9 in registries. There was a revision rate of 0.09% for registry data and 0.1% for clinical studies within a 10-year period. The most frequently affected component in connection with implant fracture was the glenoid insert.

CONCLUSION

Clinical studies revealed a similar incidence of implant failure compared to data of worldwide arthroplasty registries. These complications arise mainly due to breakage of screws and glenospheres and there seems to be a direct correlation to loosening. Periprosthetic joint infection might be associated with loosening of the prosthesis and subsequent material breakage. We believe that this analysis can help physicians to advise patients on potential risks after shoulder arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Radiographic and anatomic variations on postoperative acromion fractures after inlay and lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative fracture of the acromion is a complication uniquely more common after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) than other forms of shoulder arthroplasty. There is limited knowledge regarding the etiology of these fractures or the anatomic risk factors. The purpose of this study is to identify associations of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint and relative humeral and glenoid positioning on the occurrence of acromial fractures after RSA.

METHODS

A retrospective case-controlled study was performed on primary RSA patients treated by a single surgeon from September 2009 to September 2019. Patients with a postoperative acromion fracture were matched in a 3:1 ratio based on gender, indication, and age to those without a fracture and with a 2-year minimum follow-up. Preoperative and the immediate postoperative radiographs were reviewed by 2 investigators to measure critical shoulder angle, acromion-humeral interval, global lateralization, delta angle, preoperative glenoid height, and the level of inlay or onlay of the humeral stem. The morphology, width, and stigmata of osteoarthritis in the AC joint were assessed using computed tomography scans taken preoperatively.

RESULTS

Of a total of 920 RSAs performed, 47 (5.1%) patients suffered a postoperative acromion fracture. These patients were compared with a control group of 141 patients, with a mean age of 76.4 years and similar distributions of gender and surgical indication. Patients in both groups had similar preoperative glenoid height (P = .953) and postoperative degree of inset or offset of humeral implant relative to the anatomic neck (P = .413). There were no differences in critical shoulder angle, acromion-humeral interval, global lateralization, and delta angle both preoperatively and postoperatively between the fracture and nonfracture groups. Computed tomography analysis also showed no differences in AC joint morphology (P = .760), joint space (P = .124), and stigma of osteoarthritis (P = .161).

CONCLUSION

There was no relation between the features of the AC joint and the anatomic parameters of the humerus relative to the glenoid and acromion on postoperative acromion fractures after RSA.

A cohort comparison of humeral implant designs in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: does implant design lead to lower rates of complications and revision?

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes, revisions, and complications between a first-generation cemented modular humeral implant and a second-generation monolithic, primarily uncemented humeral implant in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with 135° neck-shaft angle and varying degrees of metallic glenosphere offsets.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from 2004 to 2014 with a first-generation cemented modular humeral implant (400 patients) or second-generation monolithic humeral stem (231 patients), who had at minimum 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up.

RESULTS

Both groups of patients had similar improvement of clinical outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons +30 points vs. +34 points, respectively) with improvements in all planes of motion (forward flexion +70° vs. +75°, abduction +61° vs. +71°, external rotation +23° vs. +22°, and internal rotation +1.6 vs. +1.5 level improvement, respectively). The incidence of humeral loosening for the cemented group was 3.6%, whereas in the uncemented group it was 0.4% (P = .01). A total of 28 shoulders treated with the cementing technique (4.0%) and 6 patients treated with the press-fit technique (1.5%) were revised (P = .028). The rate of postoperative acromial fractures within the first year was 3.4% in the cemented group and 1.8% in the uncemented group (P = .177).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the first-generation cemented modular humeral stem implant and the second-generation monolithic humeral stem implant had equivalent clinical outcomes. In addition, with the monolithic stem primarily using press-fit fixation, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of radiographic loosening and the need for revision compared with a cemented stem.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for patients with minimal preoperative pain: a matched-cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Profound improvements in function have been described in patients following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Previous studies have demonstrated young age, high preoperative function, and neurologic dysfunction to be predictors of poor functional improvement. However, no study to date has focused on patients electing to undergo RSA for function more than pain. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RSA in patients with minimal preoperative pain with those in patients who have higher baseline pain.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective matched-cohort study of RSA patients treated by a single surgeon with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Patients with at least moderate baseline pain (function-pain group), predefined by existing literature as a visual analog scale pain score > 3, were matched 3:1 based on sex, indication, and age to patients with minimal pain (function group), defined as a visual analog scale score ≤ 3. Patient-reported outcome measures, active range of motion, and overall satisfaction were compared. The percentage of maximal improvement in outcomes and the proportion of patients exceeding the established threshold that predicts excellent satisfaction were also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 260 patients (195 in function-pain group and 65 in function group) were selected for matched analysis with a similar sex distribution; the mean age was 73.1 years, and the mean follow-up period was 50 months. No differences in most recent postoperative function, overall improvement in functional scores, and active motion were found between patients in the 2 groups (P > .05). However, pain scores improved only in patients with at least moderate baseline pain (P < .0001). Patient satisfaction was significantly different (P = .035), as 10.8% of patients who elected to undergo RSA for function were unsatisfied. The function cohort also had worse percentage of maximal Simple Shoulder Test score (P = .034) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P < .0001) improvement, and a lower proportion of these patients exceeded the threshold for the percentage of maximal improvement that predicts an "excellent" outcome (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

RSA patients with minimal preoperative pain achieve significant improvements in function and motion similar to those who choose to undergo RSA for both pain and function, but they are less satisfied and are less likely to achieve an excellent outcome. Patients electing to proceed with RSA with minimal pain should be counseled accordingly.

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

Background

Globally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has moved away from the Grammont design to modern prosthesis designs. The purpose of this study was to provide a focused, updated systematic review for each of the most common complications of RSA by limiting each search to publications after 2010. In this part II, the following were examined: (1) instability, (2) humerus/glenoid fracture, (3) acromial/scapular spine fractures (AF/SSF), and (4) problems/miscellaneous.

Methods

Four separate PubMed database searches were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Overall, 137 studies for instability, 94 for humerus/glenoid fracture, 120 for AF/SSF, and 74 for problems/miscellaneous were included in each review, respectively. Univariate analysis was performed with chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

Results

The Grammont design had a higher instability rate vs. all other designs combined (4.0%, 1.3%; P < .001), and the onlay humerus design had a lower rate than the lateralized glenoid design (0.9%, 2.0%; P = .02). The rate for intraoperative humerus fracture was 1.8%; intraoperative glenoid fracture, 0.3%; postoperative humerus fracture, 1.2%; and postoperative glenoid fracture, 0.1%. The rate of AF/SSF was 2.6% (371/14235). The rate for complex regional pain syndrome was 0.4%; deltoid injury, 0.1%; hematoma, 0.3%; and heterotopic ossification, 0.8%.

Conclusions

Focused systematic reviews of recent literature with a large volume of shoulders demonstrate that using non-Grammont modern prosthesis designs, complications including instability, intraoperative humerus and glenoid fractures, and hematoma are significantly reduced compared with previous studies. As the indications continue to expand for RSA, it is imperative to accurately track the rate and types of complications in order to justify its cost and increased indications.