Reassessing the minimum two-year follow-up standard after total shoulder arthroplasty-Is one year sufficient?

Clinically significant outcome thresholds and rates of achievement by shoulder arthroplasty type and preoperative diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Clinically significant outcome (CSO) benchmarks have been previously established for shoulder arthroplasty by assimilating preoperative diagnoses and arthroplasty types. The purpose of this study was to establish unique CSO thresholds and compare the time-to-achievement of these for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for osteoarthritis (GHOA), RSA for rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA), and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for GHOA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective RSA for GHOA, TSA for GHOA, or RSA for RCA between February 2015 and May 2020, with 2-year minimum follow-up, were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained single surgeon registry. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was administered preoperatively and postoperatively at 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year timepoints. Satisfaction and subjective overall improvement anchor questionnaires were administered at the time of final follow-up. Distribution-based methods were used to calculate the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), and anchor-based methods were used to calculate the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for each patient group. Median time to achievement, individual incidence of achievement at each time point, and cumulative incidence of achievement calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis with interval censoring were compared between groups for each CSO. Cox-regression analyses were also performed to determine which patient factors were significantly associated with early or delayed achievement of CSOs.

RESULTS

There were 471 patients eligible for study analysis: 276 RSA for GHOA, 107 TSA for GHOA, and 88 RSA for RCA. The calculated MCID, SCB, and PASS scores differed for each group. There were no significant differences in median time to achievement of any CSO between groups. Log-rank testing revealed that cumulative achievements significantly differed between groups for MCID (P = .014) but not for SCB (P = .053) or PASS (P = .620). On cox regression analysis, TSA patients had earlier achievement of SCB, whereas TSA and RSA for GHOA patients had earlier achievement of MCID. At 2-years, a significantly higher percentage of RSA for GHOA patients achieved MCID and SCB compared to RSA for RCA (MCID:100%, 95.5%, P = .003, SCB:94.6%, 86.4%, P = .036).

CONCLUSION

Calculated CSO thresholds differ according to preoperative diagnosis and shoulder arthroplasty type. Patients undergoing TSA and RSA for GHOA achieve CSOs earlier than RSA for RCA patients, and a significantly higher percentage of RSA for GHOA patients achieve CSOs by 2 years compared to RSA for RCA patients.

Disease diagnosis and arthroplasty type are strongly associated with short-term postoperative patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Prognostic factors for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) clinical outcomes are incompletely understood. This study investigates the associations of preoperative patient, disease-specific, and surgical factors with 1-year postoperative PENN Shoulder Score (PSS) in patients undergoing primary TSA.

METHODS

Cleveland Clinic patients undergoing primary anatomic TSA (aTSA) or reverse TSA (rTSA) for glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) between February 2015 and August 2019, and having complete preoperative and 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), were included. Twenty preselected preoperative patient, disease-specific, and surgical factors were used to fit multivariable models for 1-year PSS and its subscores.

RESULTS

Of 1427 eligible primary TSAs, 1174 had 1-year follow-up by PROMs (82%), with 1042 analyzed after additional exclusions, including 30% rTSAs for CTA (n = 308), 26% rTSAs for GHOA (n = 275), and 44% aTSAs for GHOA (n = 459). All PROMs showed statistically significant improvements postoperatively, with 89% of patients reaching an acceptable symptom state. Lower 1-year PSS was associated with younger age, female sex, current smoking, chronic pain diagnosis, history of prior surgery, worker's compensation claim, lower preoperative mental health, lower baseline PSS, absence of glenoid bone loss, and diagnosis-arthroplasty type (CTA-rTSA < GHOA-rTSA < GHOA-aTSA). The most important prognostic factors associated with 1-year PSS were diagnosis-arthroplasty type, baseline mental health status, and insurance status.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease diagnosis, arthroplasty type, and several other baseline factors are strongly and individually associated with PROMs following primary TSA, with patients undergoing aTSA for GHOA demonstrating the highest PROM scores at 1-year follow-up. Patient, disease-specific, and surgical factors can be used to guide postoperative prognosis following primary TSA for improved preoperative patient counseling regarding expected outcomes of these procedures.

Using PROMIS Scores to Provide Cost-Conscious Follow-up After Foot and Ankle Surgery

BACKGROUND

National campaigns in the United States, such as Choosing Wisely, emphasize that decreasing low-value office visits maximizes health care value. Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used to quantify postoperative outcomes, they have not been assessed as a tool to help guide clinicians consider alternatives or discontinue in-person follow-up visits. The purpose of this study is to assess the frequency and cost of in-person follow-up visits after patients report substantial improvement defined as 2 consecutive improvements above preoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) scores.

METHODS

Retrospective PROMIS PI data were obtained between 2015 and 2020 for common elective foot (n = 759) and ankle (n = 578) surgical procedures. Patients were divided into quartiles according to their preoperative PI score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate time to substantial improvement. Substantial improvement was defined as having 2 consecutive postoperative minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) above preoperative PROMIS PI scores. MCID was measured using the distribution-based method. Multivariable negative binomial models were used to determine the number of visits and direct associated costs after substantial improvement. The cost to payors was estimated using reimbursement rates.

RESULTS

Within 3 months, 12% to 46% of foot and 16% to 61% of ankle patients achieved substantial improvement. Results vary by preoperative pain quartile, with patients who report higher preoperative pain scores achieving earlier improvement. After achieving substantial improvement, foot and ankle patients averaged 3.60 and 4.01 follow-up visits during the remaining 9 months of the year. Visit costs averaged $266 and $322 per foot and ankle patient respectively.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative follow-up visits are time-consuming and costly. Physicians might consider objective measures, such as PROMIS PI, to determine the need, timing, and alternatives for in-person follow-up visits for elective foot and ankle surgeries after patients demonstrate reliable clinical improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study at a single institution.

Lateralising reverse shoulder arthroplasty using bony increased offset (BIO-RSA) or increasing glenoid component diameter: comparison of clinical, radiographic and patient reported outcomes in a matched cohort

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the range of motion (ROM) of reverse shoulder arthroplasty lateralised by bony increased offset (BIO-RSA) using a standard 38-mm (mm) component to regular reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) lateralised by using a 42-mm glenoid component. The secondary aims are to compare patient-reported and radiographic outcomes between the two groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with a BIO-RSA and size 38 glenosphere were retrospectively identified and matched to patients with a regular RSA and size 42 glenosphere. Matched patients were invited for a follow-up visit. ROM was assessed as well as radiographic outcomes (lateralisation, distalisation, inferior overhang, scapular notching, heterotopic bone formation, radiolucency, stress shielding, bone graft healing and viability and complications) and patient-reported outcomes (subjective shoulder value, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, activities of daily living which require internal rotation, activities of daily living which require external rotation and a visual analogue scale for pain). Outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In total, 38 BIO-RSAs with a size 38 glenosphere were matched to 38 regular RSAs with a size 42 glenosphere. Of the 76 matched patients, 74 could be contacted and 70 (95%) were included. At the final follow-up, there were no differences between the two groups in ROM, patient-reported outcomes or radiographic outcomes (p > 0.485).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a larger glenosphere is a feasible alternative to BIO-RSA for lateralising RSA, providing comparable ROM, patient-reported and radiographic results, while potentially decreasing costs, operative time and complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Editorial Commentary: One- and 2-Year Outcomes Are Clinically Similar After Rotator Cuff Repair: What Are We Waiting For?

Research standards require reliable data from which we can draw accurate conclusions. For short-term outcome studies, one measure recommended by journals is preferring at least 2 years' minimum follow-up. In some cases, this is important to avoid false conclusions because of follow-up too short to detect either failure or complete improvement. However, although intended to prevent an incomplete picture, this mandate may not always add clinical utility. Recent data suggest that for rotator cuff repair outcomes, 1-year follow-up is clinically sufficient, making the 2-year recommendation an inconvenient and unnecessary standard. The widely accepted 2-year benchmark may be arbitrary and promotes a one-size-fits all approach; the approach can be evidence-based refined.

Scoping review: Evidence for long-term follow-up and monitoring in shoulder and elbow arthroplasty

Aims

Long-term follow-up and monitoring of asymptomatic shoulder and elbow arthroplasty remains contentious, with a wide spectrum of non-evidence-based mechanisms used. This scoping review aims to outline related evidence, thereby informing research requirements.

Methods

Studies relevant to shoulder and elbow arthroplasty follow-up, surveillance and time-related failure were included. The review included randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and economic studies indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CDSR and Cochrane CENTRAL since 1 January 2012. In addition, all registry studies, follow-up studies, cohort studies and case reports indexed in MEDLINE since 1 January 2020 were included. The screening was undertaken by two reviewers. Key characteristics of each study were described, alongside a narrative review.

Results

Twenty-one articles were included. We were unable to identify evidence that long-term follow-up and monitoring of asymptomatic shoulder and elbow arthroplasty identifies failure or leads to a revision that is of reduced patient morbidity and cost. In addition, no evidence was apparent to inform whether patients will self-present with a failing implant. Several surveillance mechanisms were identified.

Conclusion

This scoping review highlights the paucity of evidence related to long-term follow-up and monitoring of shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, and the need for high-quality data to inform the development of evidence-based care pathways.

Stemless total shoulder arthroplasty using a novel multiplanar osteotomy and elliptical humeral head results in both improved early range of motion and radiographic center of rotation compared with standard total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Restoration of the native glenohumeral anatomy is an important consideration in obtaining optimal range of motion (ROM) after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Recently, a new stemless TSA system has been developed that uses both a multiplanar osteotomy (MPO), to improve the surgeon's ability to restore humeral center of rotation (COR), and an elliptical humeral head to improve ROM. The purpose of our study was to compare the difference in early postoperative ROM and restoration of radiographic COR, between this stemless TSA and standard stemmed TSAs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 50 consecutive primary TSAs performed by a single surgeon for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The initial cohort underwent TSA with a standard stemmed humeral component with a circular humeral head (n = 25), whereas the subsequent cohort underwent stemless TSA using an MPO and an elliptical humeral head (n = 25). Postoperative data collection included active shoulder ROM as measured by goniometer, complications or revision surgery, and measurements of radiographic COR. Patients were assessed at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. Change in COR was determined on postoperative radiographs by 2 fellowship-trained surgeons on 2 separate occasions. Intra- and interrater reliability were computed using intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

For both mean forward flexion (FF) and external rotation (ER), there was greater ROM in the MPO-elliptical group at all time points, which was statistically significant. Mean change in FF favored the MPO group at 6 and 12 weeks and was statistically significant and above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 6 weeks, standard -15.8° vs. MPO 8.4° (P = .004); 12 weeks, standard 6.4° vs. MPO 29.2° (P = .001). Mean change in ER favored the MPO group at 6 weeks and was statistically significant: standard 5.4° vs. MPO 14.0° (P = .02). There were no revision surgeries in either group. Average change in COR was 2.7 mm in the standard group and 1.8 mm in the MPO-elliptical group, which was statistically significant (P < .001). Number of patients with >3 mm of difference in COR was 10 (40%) in the standard group and 1 (5%) in the MPO-elliptical group, which was statistically significant (P = .002). Average intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.75, indicating good reliability within and between surgeon measurements.

CONCLUSION

The use of a multiplanar osteotomy and elliptical humeral head was associated with improved early range of motion and better reproduction of the radiographic COR compared with standard stemmed TSA.

Innovative technologies for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in Australia: Market access challenges and implications for patients, decision-makers, and manufacturers

PURPOSE

The success of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has expanded its use for a broader range of shoulder indications worldwide. Evidence regarding the relative efficacy and long-term safety of medical technologies used in RTSA is subjected to rigorous assessment. Nonetheless, substantial challenges impede market access for innovative shoulder implant technologies for RTSA in Australia, resulting in delayed patient access.

APPROACH

This paper addresses the key challenges associated with generating evidence for the health technology assessments of innovative medical technologies for RTSA that are required for access to the Australian market. The transition to value-based care requires establishing a benchmarking reference that incorporates patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and combines revision outcomes with additional clinical outcomes to increase patient cohort sizes. Establishing the benchmark would require agreement on the outcome measures to be collected for each indication, and investment in reporting patient-reported outcomes for RTSA to the national orthopaedic registry.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The need for increased flexibility in developing evidence for health technology assessment of RTSA medical technologies is required. Optimised approaches for benchmarking RTSA require extensive stakeholder discussions, including the agreement on evidence requirements and follow-up periods, selection of clinical outcomes, as well as pre-operative and post-operative PROMs as a value assessment.