Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To calculate and determine what factors are associated with achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR). METHODS:The change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve analysis was used to calculate the anchor-based MCID and SCB. To assess the responsiveness of each PROM, effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated. To identify factors associated with attaining the MCID and SCB, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS:A total of 323 patients with an average age of 59.9 ± 9.5 were enrolled in this study, of which, 187/323 [57.9%] were male and 136/323 [42.1%] were female. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was: 9.0, 7.5, and 11.2, respectively. The respective SCB was 10.9, 9.3, and 12.7. Effect size and SRM were: PROMIS UE (1.4, 1.3), P-Interference (1.8, 1.5), and P-Intensity (2.3, 2.0). Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores (p = 0.02), dominant arm involvement (p = 0.03), and concomitant biceps tenodesis (p = 0.03) were associated with patients achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A large responsiveness for each of the PROMIS instruments due to the majority of patients reporting great improvement after aRCR and a small standard deviation across all outcome measures was shown in our study. Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores and concomitant biceps tenodesis were associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. The knowledge of MCID and SCB values for PROMIS instruments will allow the surgeon to determine whether the improvements in the PROMIS scores after aRCR are clinically meaningful. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to implement a modified Delphi technique among a group of experts affiliated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow (SECEC) to determine areas of consensus regarding what factors influence their decision to manage a patient surgically and what specific treatment modalities they utilize for patients ≤ 50 years of age with glenohumeral arthritis (GHA). METHODS:The panel of experts comprised 168 shoulder and elbow specialists, 138 ASES and 30 SECEC members. In the first round, an open-ended questionnaire was utilized to solicit features that are important in making decisions regarding treatment. The second round involved ranking the features identified in the first round as to their importance in helping decision making for surgery. The results of round two were then utilized and 18 complex surgical cases previously treated by one of the lead authors were provided for the study. One additional case was included to address the management of Cutibacterium acne (C.Acne) infection. RESULTS:159 (95.0%) participants completed the round one survey, 142 (89%) responded to the second and third round survey. In total 50 individual factors were positively associated with the decision to proceed with surgery. Ten of these were strongly supportive of surgery. Eight out of 18 clinical cases demonstrated >80% agreement on the surgical treatment modality chosen. Over 90% of respondents chose rTSA to manage pathology when an incompetent rotator cuff was present. Over 90% of respondents managed AVN with hemiarthroplasty (HA). Over 70% of respondents chose aTSA for inflammatory arthritis with low demand on their shoulder. 79% of respondents chose a stemless humeral component when a HA or aTSA was chosen in response to the proposed surgical cases. If arthroscopy was chosen there was good agreement on five core procedures. There was only fair consensus on the approach to C.acnes in patients with GH OA≤ 50 years of age. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The optimal treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in patients ≤ 50 years of age remains controversial, and there are many treatment options to consider when responding to the variety of clinical presentations and anatomic pathologies. While physicians and patients engage in the shared decision-making process regarding the final choice for management, this consensus statement serves as a basis for discussion amongst colleagues and between patients and surgeons though it clearly demonstrates that the topic must be further investigated prospectively and with large cohorts.

BACKGROUND:Identifying risk factors for acromial and scapular fractures improves our understanding about which variables are relevant to this fracture complication; however, this data is difficult to integrate into clinical practice because the majority of rTSA patients have 1 or more risk factors. The goal of this study is to better facilitate preoperative identification of patients at-risk for acromial and scapular fracture and quantify the impact of accumulating risk factors on the incidence of fracture. METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed 9,079 rTSA patients from a multi-center database of a single medialized glenoid/lateralized humerus onlay rTSA prosthesis to quantify the rate of acromial and scapular fractures. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for fracture. Next, we quantified the number of patients with one or multiple significant risk factors for fracture. Finally, to facilitate preoperative identification of patients most at-risk for fracture, we stratified our dataset by multiple combinations of age, gender, and diagnosis risk factors and calculated the odds ratio for each cohort to quantify the impact of accumulating risk factors on the incidence of fracture. RESULTS:138 of 9,079 patients were radiographically identified to have a fracture of the acromion or scapula for a rate of 1.52%. Patients with fractures were more likely older, female, more likely to have a RA diagnosis, CTA diagnosis, and less likely to have diabetes diagnosis. 85% of rTSA patients had at least 1 fracture risk factor. Individually, age, gender, or diagnosis failed to identify any patient cohort with an odds ratio >2.5. Use of multiple combinations of patient risk factors refined identification of at-risk patients better than any individual or 2-risk factor combination and demonstrated that the patients with the greatest fracture risk were females with RA diagnosis >70 years, >75 years, and >80 years. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This 9,079 rTSA multi-center study demonstrated that 1.52% of patients experienced acromial and/or scapular fractures with single medialized glenoid/lateralized humerus onlay rTSA prosthesis. Our analysis identified numerous risk factors and quantified the impact of accumulating risk factors on fracture incidence. Patients considering rTSA with these age, gender, and diagnosis risk factors should be made aware of their elevated complication risk.

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.

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.

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.