Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: While lateralization of the glenohumeral center of rotation during reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has benefits of maintaining tension on the remaining rotator cuff and decreasing implant impingement on the glenoid, few clinical studies have evaluated the isolated effect of glenoid lateralization in RSA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if clinical outcomes are affected by isolated glenosphere lateralization using a single implant design. Methods: A retrospective review from a multicenter shoulder arthroplasty research database was performed between 2011 and 2018 using a single implant system to perform this case-controlled study. Inclusion criteria included primary RSAs with adequate preoperative and postoperative active and passive range of motion (ROM) measurements, outcome scores, and a minimum two-year follow-up. Revision shoulder arthroplasties and RSA for fractures were excluded from analysis. 102 RSAs (61 females, 41 males) using a + 4 mm lateralized glenosphere were compared to 102 sex, age, and glenosphere diameter matched control shoulders with standard glenospheres (whose center of rotation (CoR) is 2 mm lateral to the glenoid fossa). The mean age at surgery was 70.4 years. Mean follow up was 43.6 + 18.9 months. All RSAs were performed with the same implant system (Equinoxe, Exactech, Gainesville, FL). Clinical outcome measures included ROM, ASES, Constant, UCLA, SST, SPADI scores, and VAS pain scores. We used the chi-squared test and Fisher exact test for bivariate analysis and the student t-test for continuous variables. Results: Both groups were of similar average age and follow-up. They also had comparable rates of prior surgery and comorbidities. The lateralized glenosphere group had a slightly higher BMI (31.2 vs. 29.2, p = 0.04). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all outcome scores that exceeded the MCID and the SCB. The groups demonstrated similar preoperative, postoperative and improvements in ROM as well as outcome scores. The overall complication rate was similar between groups (4 % in lateralized and 5 % in controls, p = 0.73). Scapular or acromial fractures differences were not statistically significant between groups (1 % in lateralized group vs. 3 % in standard group, p = 0.31). Scapular notching was more frequent in the standard group compared to the lateralized group (9 % vs. 2 %, p = 0.03). Conclusion: In a medialized glenosphere/lateralized humerus design, a + 4 mm lateralized glenosphere provided no significant advantage in postoperative pain, ROM, or outcome scores. However, lateralized glenospheres did demonstrate significantly lower scapular notching rates. Level of Evidence: III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.

AIMS/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) up to long-term follow-up, when using cemented keel, cemented peg, and hybrid cage peg glenoid components and the same humeral system. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We retrospectively analyzed a multicentre, international clinical database of a single platform shoulder system to compare the short-, mid-, and long-term clinical outcomes associated with three designs of aTSA glenoid components: 294 cemented keel, 527 cemented peg, and 981 hybrid cage glenoids. Outcomes were evaluated at 4,746 postoperative timepoints for 1,802 primary aTSA, with a mean follow-up of 65 months (24 to 217). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Relative to their preoperative condition, each glenoid cohort had significant improvements in clinical outcomes from two years to ten years after surgery. Patients with cage glenoids had significantly better clinical outcomes, with higher patient-reported outcome scores and significantly increased active range of motion, compared with those with keel and peg glenoids. Those with cage glenoids also had significantly fewer complications (keel: 13.3%, peg: 13.1%, cage: 7.4%), revisions (keel: 7.1%, peg 9.7%, cage 3.5%), and aseptic glenoid loosening and failure (keel: 4.7%, peg: 5.8%, cage: 2.5%). Regarding radiological outcomes, 70 patients (11.2%) with cage glenoids had glenoid radiolucent lines (RLLs). The cage glenoid RLL rate was 3.3-times (p < 0.001) less than those with keel glenoids (37.3%) and 4.6-times (p < 0.001) less than those with peg glenoids (51.2%). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:These findings show that good long-term clinical and radiological outcomes can be achieved with each of the three aTSA designs of glenoid component analyzed in this study. However, there were some differences in clinical and radiological outcomes: generally, cage glenoids performed best, followed by cemented keel glenoids, and finally cemented peg glenoids.

BACKGROUND:Preoperative planning software and intraoperative guidance technology is being increasingly used for managing complex glenoid deformity in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA; rTSA). The aim of this study is to review the intraoperative efficacy and complications of computer assisted navigation (CAN) surgery for treating glenoid deformity in TSA. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed of all the TSAs implanted using a single computer navigation shoulder system. All patients underwent preoperative planning using a CT based preoperative planning software. The starting point on the glenoid, and the final version and inclination of the central post (cage) of the glenoid component were reviewed on the intraoperative navigation guidance report and compared to these parameters on the preoperative plan for each patient. The intraoperative accuracy of CAN for the glenoid was determined by the deviation of the starting point and final position of the central cage drill in the glenoid compared to preoperative plan. Intraoperative complications and the number of times the navigation system was abandoned intraoperatively were collected. RESULTS:A total of 16,723 aTSAs and rTSAs performed worldwide with this navigation system were included in this review. 16,368 cases (98%) completed every step in the navigation procedure without abandoning use of the system intraoperatively. There was minimal deviation in the intraoperative execution of the preoperative plan with respect to version (0.6° ± 1.96°), inclination (0.2° ± 2.04°) and starting point on the glenoid face (1.90mm ± 1.2 mm). There were 9 coracoid fractures (0.05%) reported in this cohort. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:And Discussion: This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of computer assisted navigation for glenoid implantation in TSA. Future studies should continue to focus on the impact of CAN on longevity and survival of the glenoid component and improve cost-effectiveness of this technology.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary rTSA utilizing glenoid bone grafting (BG rTSA) to primary rTSA utilizing augmented glenoid baseplates (Aug rTSA) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS:520 primary rTSA patients treated with 8° posterior glenoid augments (n=246), 10° superior glenoid augments (n=97), or combined 10° superior/8° posterior glenoid augments (n=177) were compared to 47 patients undergoing glenoid bone grafting for glenoid bone insufficiency. Mean follow-up of 37.0(±16) and 53.0(±27) months. Outcomes were analyzed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using conventional statistics and stratification by minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) thresholds where applicable. Radiographs were analyzed for baseplate failure and the incidence of postoperative complications and revisions were recorded. RESULTS:The glenoid Aug rTSA cohort had greater improvements in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and ROM when compared to the BG rTSA group at a minimum of 2-year follow-up including: simple shoulder test (SST), Constant Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES)score, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI)score, Shoulder Function, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS)score, abduction, and external rotation(p<0.05). Patient satisfaction was higher in Aug rTSA group compared to BG rTSA group(p=0.006). The utilization of an augmented glenoid component instead of glenoid bone grafting resulted in approximately 50% less total intraoperative time (p<0.001), nearly 33% less intraoperative blood loss volume (p<0.001), approximately threefold less scapular notching (p<0.01) and approximately fifteenfold less adverse events requiring revision (p<0.01) when compared to BG rTSA cohort. Aside from SCB for abduction, the Aug rTSA cohort achieved higher rates of exceeding MCID and SCB for every PROM compared to BG rTSA. More specifically, 77.6% and 70.2% of the Aug rTSA achieved SCB for ASES and SPADI versus 55% and 48.6% in the BG rTSA, respectively(p=0.003 and p=0.013). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The present midterm clinical and radiographic study demonstrates that the utilization of an augmented base plate for insufficient glenoid bone stock is superior as judged by multiple PROMs and ROM metrics when compared to bone graft augmentation at minimum 2-year follow-up. Additionally, when analyzed according to MCID and SCB thresholds, the use of augmented baseplates outperforms the use of glenoid bone grafting. Complication and revision rates also favor the use of augmented glenoid baseplates over glenoid bone grafting. Long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up is necessary to confirm that these promising mid-term results are durable.

BACKGROUND:Anxiety and depression are the two most commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders in the US. The effect of these disorders on total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) outcomes must be appreciated. The purpose of this study was to examine the correlation between preoperative diagnosis of anxiety and depression and its association with postoperative outcomes after TSA. The secondary goals were to determine whether patients contemporaneously being treated with medicine for their mental health diagnosis fared better than a non-medicated cohort and to examine the degree to which PROMIS Mental Health (PROMIS-MH) scores correlate with patient outcomes. Our hypothesis is that a history of anxiety and/or depression will negatively impact patient outcomes after TSA. METHODS:A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively collected cohort at a single institution. Anatomic and reverse TSA patients (aTSA, rTSA) with either anxiety and/or depression (aTSApsych+, rTSApsych+) were identified and compared to a cohort of patients without a mental health diagnosis enrolled in an institutional registry from 2011 to 2020. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, implant type, range of motion (ROM), adverse events (AE) and clinical outcome metric scores:PROMIS-MH, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart Score (SAS) were recorded. Outcomes between cohorts were analyzed using conventional statistics as well as stratification by MCID and SCB thresholds where applicable. RESULTS:218 patients (114 rTSA and 95 aTSA) had a diagnosis of either anxiety and/or depression and 378 (153 rTSA and 217 aTSA) had no history. Although both cohorts achieved MCID and SCB for postoperative ASES, the psych+ cohort resulted in lower postoperative outcomes scores (p<0.05), higher AE, and significantly lower Δ differences in all variables when compared to the psych negative cohort. There were no differences in outcome scores after rTSApsych+ or aTSApsych+ between patients being treated for anxiety/depression compared to not receiving treatment. PROMIS-MH score was positively correlated with postoperative outcomes and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The current study demonstrates that patients with anxiety and/or depression who undergo TSA have inferior postoperative outcomes and higher rates of AE compared to a cohort without a mental health diagnosis. Additionally, patients on medications for treatment of depression and/or anxiety did not gain any significant benefit in terms of their postoperative shoulder outcomes or satisfaction rate compared to those with a diagnosis but not on medication. Additionally, we found that, independent of a patient's underlying shoulder pathology or psychiatric diagnosis, lower PROMIS-MH scores was correlated with worse postoperative outcomes.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:The purposes of this study were to determine why athletes did not return to play (RTP) following operative management of superior-labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears, compare these athletes to those who did RTP, and evaluate the SLAP-Return to Sport after Injury (SLAP-RSI) score to assess the psychological readiness of athletes to RTP after operative management of SLAP tears. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review of athletes who underwent operative management of SLAP tears with a minimum of 24-month follow-up was performed. Outcome data, including visual analog scale (VAS) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, patient satisfaction, and whether they would undergo the same surgery again was collected. Additionally, the rate and timing of return to work (RTW), the rate and timing of RTP, SLAP-RSI score, and VAS during sport were evaluated, with subgroup analysis among overhead and contact athletes. The SLAP-RSI is a modification of the Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SI-RSI) score, with a score >56 considered to be a passing score for being psychologically ready to RTP. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = .001) were all associated with greater likelihood of return to sports at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Following the operative management of SLAP tears, patients who are unable to RTP exhibit poor psychological readiness to return, which may be due to residual pain in overhead athletes or fear of reinjury in contact athletes. Lastly, the SLAP-RSI tool in combination with ASES proved to be useful in identifying patients' psychological and physical readiness to RTP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/UNASSIGNED:Level IV, prognostic case series.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To assess the preoperative and postoperative performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE, version 2.0) outcome score in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) instruments in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:) between these tools was calculated at each time point. Correlations were graded as excellent (>0.7), excellent-good (0.61-0.7), good (0.4-0.6), or poor (<0.4). Responsiveness to change was assessed using the effect size and the standardized response mean. Floor and ceiling effects for each instrument were also assessed. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The PROMIS-UE instrument showed good to excellent correlation with the legacy instruments at all time points. There were variations in the measured effect sizes of the various instruments, with the PROMIS-UE instrument showing responsiveness to change at 3 and 12 months but the ASES and WORC instruments showing responsiveness at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. Both PROMIS-UE and ASES scores displayed ceiling effects at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The PROMIS-UE instrument shows excellent correlation with the ASES instrument and a rotator cuff-specific outcome instrument-the WORC instrument-preoperatively and at 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Variations in the measured effect sizes at different postoperative time points and high ceiling effects of the PROMIS-UE instrument at the 1-year time point may limit its utility in the early postoperative phase and at long-term follow-up after rotator cuff repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/UNASSIGNED:The performance of the PROMIS-UE outcome measure after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was investigated.

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify prognostic factors that are associated with improvements in patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) related to upper extremity function and pain in those suffering from idiopathic adhesive capsulitis. Methods: All patients treated conservatively for primary idiopathic adhesive capsulitis were identified from our institutional database between 2019 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included any patients treated surgically, follow-up less than one year, or incomplete survey results. PROMs including Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0 (P-UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), Pain Intensity (P-Intensity), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores. They were obtained at initial consultation and at one year to assess patient-perceived impact of their condition. Multiple linear and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with improvement in patient-perceived pain and shoulder function using final PROM scores and difference in PROM scores from initial consultation. An independent t-test was used to compare baseline and one-year minimum follow-up PROMs. Odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each factor; a P value of < .05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 56 patients (40 females and 16 males) were enrolled in the study with an average age of 54.7 ± 7.7 years. A significant improvement (P < .001) was demonstrated at one-year minimum outcomes for P-UE, P-Interference, P-Intensity, and VAS scores. With respect to comorbid conditions, hypothyroidism [P-UE (β: 9.57, P = .006)] was associated with greater improvements in PROMs, while hyperlipidemia [P-UE (β: −4.13, P = .01) and P-Intensity (β: 2.40, P = .02)] and anxiety [P-UE (β: −4.13, P = .03)] were associated with poorer reported changes in PROMs. Female sex [P-UE (β: 4.03, P = .007) and P-Interference (β: −2.65, P = .04)] and employment in manual labor professions [P-Interference (β: −3.07, P = .01), P-Intensity (β: −2.92, P = .006), and VAS (β: −0.66, P = .03)] were associated with significantly better patient-perceived outcomes. Hispanic heritage was associated with higher reported changes of P-Intensity (β: 8.45, P = .004) and VAS (β: 2.65, P = .002). Conclusion: Patient-perceived improvements in PROMIS score during the natural history of adhesive capsulitis are likely multifactorial, with anxiety, hyperlipidemia, increased body mass index, and Hispanic heritage associated with reduced improvement in PROMIS scores.

BACKGROUND:Cervical spine pathology can affect the supporting muscles and function of the shoulder and contribute to shoulder and arm pain and hence may impact postoperative outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a history of cervical spine arthrodesis and its timing, before or after TSA, on the outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Our hypothesis is that a history of cervical arthrodesis will negatively impact patient outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively collected cohort at a single institution. Anatomic and reverse TSA patients (aTSA, rTSA) with cervical arthrodesis (CA) were identified and compared to a cohort of patients without cervical arthrodesis (NCA) enrolled in an institutional registry from 2011 to 2020. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, implant type, range of motion (ROM), adverse events and clinical outcome metric scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, Shoulder Function Score, patient satisfaction) were recorded. Outcomes between cohorts were analyzed using conventional statistics as well as stratification by MCID and SCB thresholds where applicable. RESULTS:Of the 573 TSA evaluated, 48 (20a CA-aTSA and 28 CA-rTSA) had a history of and 425 (280 NCA-aTSA and 245 NCA-rTSA) had no history of cervical arthrodesis. The CA-TSA (aTSA and rTSA) had lower Constant, ASES and Shoulder Function, PROMs postoperatively as well as less improvement in active ER and an overall lower satisfaction rating (p<0.05 for all) compared to NCA-TSA. The adverse event rate in the CA-TSA cohort was higher compared to NCA-TSA cohort (25% vs. 6.5 [rTSA; p=0.004] and 24.5% vs 11% [aTSA; p=0.068]). Optimal cutoff analysis showed that a time from CA to TSA of greater than 1.33 years had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 75.0% in predicting achievement of SCB for ASES. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The current study demonstrates that patients with a history of cervical arthrodesis undergoing shoulder arthroplasty results in lower postoperative functional outcomes, lower patient satisfaction, and higher rates of postoperative adverse events requiring surgical revision when compared to a cohort without a history of cervical arthrodesis. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a time interval of at least 16 months between cervical arthrodesis and shoulder arthroplasty optimizes chances of achieving SCB for ASES.