Faculty Bibliography

» Treatment of glenoid bone loss continues to be a challenge in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Although correcting glenoid wear to patient's native anatomy is desirable in TSA, there is lack of consensus regarding how much glenoid wear correction is acceptable and necessary in both anatomic and reverse TSA.» Use of augmented glenoid components is a relatively new treatment strategy for addressing moderate-to-severe glenoid wear in TSA. Augmented glenoid components allow for predictable and easy correction of glenoid wear in the coronal and/or axial planes while at the same time maximizing implant seating, improving rotator cuff biomechanics, and preserving glenoid bone stock because of off-axis glenoid reaming.» Augmented glenoid components have distinct advantages over glenoid bone grafting. Glenoid bone grafting is technically demanding, adds to the surgical time, and carries a risk of nonunion and graft resorption with subsequent failure of the glenoid component.» The use of augmented glenoid components in TSA is steadily increasing with easy availability of computed tomography-based preoperative planning software and guidance technology (patient-specific instrumentation and computer navigation).» Although different augment designs (full wedge, half wedge, and step cut) are available and a particular design may provide advantages in specific glenoid wear patterns to minimize bone removal (i.e. a half wedge in B2 glenoids), there is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of 1 design over others.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The purpose of our study was to compare the outcomes and complications after a two- vs. six-week duration of sling immobilization following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a retrospective review from our institutional database on 960 patients treated by primary rTSA between 2011 and 2021. Patients were separated into two cohorts of postoperative sling immobilization (a two-week and six-week group). Multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate what factors were associated with patients experiencing either a postoperative complication or requiring reoperation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = .73). DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Shorter duration of sling immobilization (two weeks) does not incur additional risk of complications compared to standard duration (six weeks) of sling immobilization following rTSA.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:This study examined trends in inpatient charges for primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and revision total shoulder arthroplasty (revTSA) over the past decade. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System was queried for patients undergoing primary aTSA, rTSA, HA, and revTSA from 2010 to 2020 using International Classification of Diseases procedure codes. The primary outcome measured was total charges per encounter. Secondary outcomes included accommodation and ancillary charges, charges covered by insurance, and facility volume. Ancillary charges were defined as fees for diagnostic and therapeutic services and accommodation charges were defined as fees associated with room and board. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess differences between high- and low-volume centers. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:During the study period, 46,044 shoulder arthroplasty cases were performed: 18,653 aTSA, 4002 HA, 19,253 rTSA, and 4136 revTSA. An exponential increase in rTSA (2428%) and considerable decrease in HA (83.9%) volumes were observed during this period. Total charges were the highest for rTSA and revTSA and the lowest for aTSA. Subgroup analysis of revTSA by indication revealed that total charges were the highest for periprosthetic fractures. For aTSA, rTSA, and HA, high-volume centers achieved significantly lower total charges compared to low-volume centers. Over the study period, total inpatient charges increased by 57.2%, 38.4%, 102.4%, and 68.4% for aTSA, rTSA, HA, and revTSA, outpacing the inflation rate of 18.7%. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Total inpatient charges for all arthroplasty types increased dramatically from 2010 to 2020, outpacing inflation rates, but high-volume centers demonstrated greater success at mitigating charge increases compared to low-volume centers.

Background: The purpose of this investigation was to compare minimum two-year outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) performed with humeral head resurfacing (HHR) vs. stemless implants. Methods: A retrospective review of a large multicenter database was conducted. All patients who underwent aTSA with either HHR or stemless implants with minimum two-year follow-up were evaluated. Range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Constant Score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score were collected for all patients presurgery and postsurgery. Radiographic data was collected to determine the presence of radiolucent lines as well as evaluate implant sizing and anatomic shoulder restoration. Results: Overall, 127 patients were included with 49 patients receiving HHR and 78 stemless aTSA. Preoperatively, patients in the HHR group had worse ROM and PRO scores (P < .05). Although the stemless group had significantly greater active abduction (148 ± 28 vs. 116 ± 22, P < .001), forward flexion (154 ± 21 vs. 141 ± 15, P < .001) and external rotation (50 ± 16 vs. 34 ± 17, P < .001) and exhibited better scores on the SST (10.4 ± 2.0 vs. 9.5 ± 1.9, P = .014) at final postoperative evaluation, the HHR group had a greater improvement from preoperative to final postoperative evaluation in active forward flexion (50 ± 22 vs. 32 ± 20, P < .001) and internal rotation (3 ± 2 vs. 1 ± 2, P = .004) as well as all PROs measured (P < .01). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all PROs and ROM from presurgery to postsurgery (P < .05). Rates of overstuffing (8.7% in HHR vs. 20.8% stemless, P = .098), oversizing (39.1% in HHR vs. 31.3% in stemless, P = .436), and radiolucent lines around the glenoid components (13.0% in HHR vs. 18.8% in stemless, P = .450) were not significantly different between the groups. One patient in the stemless group required a revision surgery for aseptic glenoid loosening, otherwise no other major complications were reported. Conclusion: aTSA performed both with stemless implants and HHR resulted in significant improvements in ROM and multiple PROs at minimum two-year follow-up with a low complication rate. The HHR group had worse preoperative shoulder function, which contributed to a greater magnitude of improvement in ROM and across all PROs from presurgery to postsurgery, despite the stemless group having better ROM and SST scores at final follow-up.

Background: Glenoid component positioning is an important and challenging aspect of total shoulder arthroplasty. The use of freehand technique with standard instrumentation or preoperative planning based on 2-dimensional computed tomography (CT) scans provides an opportunity for improvement in terms of component accuracy, precision, and deformity correction. These techniques have produced varying outcomes. Methods: Preoperative planning software (PPS), patient specific instrumentation (PSI), and intraoperative navigation (NAV) have been developed to improve the accuracy of implant placement and deformity correction with the ultimate goals of improved patient outcomes and implant longevity. Literature search was conducted on published and available studies comparing the accuracy of glenoid component placement and improvements in surgical and patient outcomes amongst the aforementioned techniques. Results: PPS, PSI, and NAV have demonstrated improved accuracy over freehand techniques with standard instrumentation. However, data demonstrating the clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of these new technologies are lacking. Discussion: In this paper, we reviewed the evidence available to answer the question of whether or not advanced shoulder arthroplasty technologies have been beneficial and reviewed future technologies in development such as virtual/mixed-reality and robotic assisted shoulder surgery. Level of Evidence: 4.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:We compare the two-year clinical outcomes of both anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA and RTSA) utilizing intraoperative navigation compared to traditional positioning techniques. We also examine the effect of glenoid implant retroversion on clinical outcomes. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:In both ATSA and RTSA, computer navigation will be associated with equal or better outcomes with fewer complications. Final glenoid version and degree of correction will not show outcome differences. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:A total of 216 ATSAs and 533 RTSAs were performed using preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Matched cohorts (2:1) for age, gender and follow-up for cases without intraoperative navigation were compared using all standard shoulder arthroplasty clinical outcome metrics. Two sub-analyses were performed on navigated cases comparing glenoids positioned greater or less than 10° of retroversion and glenoids corrected more or less than 15°. RESULTS:for dislocations. No difference was found in the revision rate, glenoid implant loosening, acromial stress fracture rates, or scapular notching. Navigated RTSA patients demonstrated significant improvements over non-navigated patients in internal rotation, external rotation, maximum lifting weight, the simple shoulder test (SST), Constant, and shoulder arthroplasty smart (SAS) scores. For the navigated sub-cohorts, ATSA cases with a higher degree of final retroversion showed significant improvement in pain, Constant, ASES, SST, UCLA and SPADI. No significant differences were found in the RTSA sub-cohort. Higher degrees of version correction showed improvement in external rotation, SST and Constant scores for ATSA and forward elevation, internal rotation, pain, SST, Constant, ASES, UCLA, SPADI, and SAS scores for RTSA. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The use of intraoperative navigation shoulder arthroplasty is safe, produces at least equally as good outcomes at two years compared to standard instrumentation without any increased risk of complications. The effect of final implant position above or below 10° of glenoid retroversion and correction more or less than 15° do not negatively impact outcomes.

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:Parkinson's Disease (PD) is an established risk factor for higher rates of complications and revision surgery following shoulder arthroplasty, yet the economic burden of PD remains to be elucidated. The purpose of this study is to compare rates of complication and revisions as well as inpatient charges for shoulder arthroplasty procedures between PD and non-PD patients using an all-payer statewide database. METHODS:Patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty from 2010-2020 were identified from the New York (NY) Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database. Study groups were assigned based on concomitant diagnosis of PD at time of index procedure. Baseline demographics, inpatient data, and medical comorbidities were collected. Primary outcomes measured were accommodation, ancillary, and total inpatient charges. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complication and reoperation rates. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate effect of PD on shoulder arthroplasty revision and complication rates. All statistical analysis was performed using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria). RESULTS:39,011 patients (429 PD versus 38,582 non-PD) underwent 43,432 primary shoulder arthroplasties (477 PD versus 42,955 non-PD) with mean follow-up duration of 2.9 +/- 2.8 years. The PD cohort was older (72.3 +/- 8.0 versus 68.6 +/- 10.4 years, p<0.001), with greater male composition (50.8% versus 43.0%, p=0.001), and higher mean Elixhauser scores (1.0 +/- 4.6 versus 7.2 +/- 4.3, p<0.001). The PD cohort had significantly greater accommodation charges ($10,967 vs $7,661, p<0.001) and total inpatient charges ($62,000 and $56,000, p<0.001). PD patients had significantly higher rates of revision surgery (7.7% versus 4.2%, p=0.002) and complications (14.1% versus 10.5%, p=0.040), as well as significantly higher incidences of readmission at 3- and 12-months postoperatively. After controlling for age and baseline comorbidities, PD patients had 1.64 times greater odds of reoperation compared to non-PD patients (OR = 1.64, 95% CI [1.10, 2.37], p = 0.012) and a hazard ratio of 1.54 for reoperation when evaluating revision-free survival following primary shoulder arthroplasty (HR = 1.54, 95% CI [1.07, 2.20], p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS:PD confers a longer length of stay, higher rates of postoperative complications and revisions, and greater inpatient charges in patients undergoing TSA. Knowledge of the associated risks and resource requirements of this population will aid surgeons in their decision making as they continue to provide care to a growing number of patients affected by PD.

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.