Faculty Bibliography

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: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.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED:value of < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = .002). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED: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/UNASSIGNED:Instability is one of the leading causes of revision for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Closed reduction (CR) of a dislocated RTSA is recommended by many as initial treatment with varying degrees of success. In this study, we describe polyethylene liner dissociation from the humeral tray (PDH) as a cause of failure of CR of dislocated RTSA. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:In this retrospective study, patients who underwent revision RTSA for instability were identified through our institutional database review using specific International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Pertinent clinical information including demographics, details of instability event (early vs. late), traumatic vs. atraumatic, outcomes of CR (if performed), and intraoperative findings during revision surgery were collected and analyzed. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Twenty-two patients met the inclusion criteria with average follow-up of 2 years. CR was attempted in 12 (55%) patients, prior to revision surgery, and was successful in 5 (23%) patients. During the revision surgery polyethylene liner dissociation from the humeral tray (PDH) was identified in 10 patients (45%). Five of these 10 patients had failed CR and the other 5 patients did not undergo CR due to primary surgeon's preference. All patients with PDH event had onlay humeral tray RTSA system. Although not a consistent radiographic finding in our series, the presence of the metallic glenosphere in direct contact with the humeral tray on anteroposterior or axillary radiographs was diagnostic for PDH. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Dissociation of polyethylene liner from the humeral tray can be associated with an RTSA dislocation and is a contraindication for CR. A radiographic finding of the metallic humeral tray articulating directly with the glenosphere is an indication that the polyethylene liner is dissociated from the humeral tray.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study is to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) 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 treated nonoperatively for idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC). METHODS:The anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as the change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. The distribution-based MCID was calculated as a range between the average standard error of measurement multiplied by two different constants: 1 and 2.77. Effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated to assess the responsiveness of each PROMIS instrument while regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with achieving these thresholds. RESULTS:This study enrolled 115 patients. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was 5.11, 4.16, and 8.16, respectively. The respective SCB was 8.44, 6.65, and 10.05. The respective PASS was 8.47, 7.01, and 10.41. The odds of achieving MCID values in adhesive capsulitis were negatively affected by gender (male), higher forward elevation at the time of presentation, higher pain scores (P-Interference), need for ≥ 2 corticosteroid injections, and a concomitant diagnosis of diabetes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The MCID, SCB, and PASS parameters for PROMIS scores can be utilized to determine the clinical meaningfulness of patient-reported improvements in these instruments during the nonoperative treatment and as a research tool to compare the efficacy of new treatments for adhesive capsulitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, basic science study, validation of outcome instruments. Key points • This is the first study to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity and Pain instruments in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC) of the shoulder.• This study determined the impact of symptom severity, demographics, and comorbidities on achieving the MCID, SCB, and PASS for PROMIS instruments in IAC patients treated nonoperatively.

BACKGROUND:The Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score is a new, validated machine learning-derived outcome measure that requires six input parameters. The SAS score has the potential to replace legacy shoulder outcome scores. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review of a multinational shoulder arthroplasty database of one platform shoulder prosthesis (used interchangeably for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty). All primary shoulder arthroplasties with a minimum of two-year follow-up and an available SAS score were evaluated. Associations between scoring systems were assessed using Pearson correlations, with 95% confidence intervals stratified by time point (preoperatively and postoperatively at 2- and 5-year follow-ups, respectively) and procedure (anatomic verses reverse total shoulder arthroplasty). Conversion equations were developed using the best-fit line from linear regression analysis. Ceiling effects were assessed based on two definitions: (1) >15% of participants scoring the maximal possible score and (2) a standardized distance less than 1.0, whereby the standardized distance is calculated by subtracting the mean from the maximal score and dividing by the standard deviation. RESULTS:Two thousand four hundred six shoulders were evaluated at 4,553 clinical encounters. For preoperatively collected data, the SAS score correlated strongly with the Constant (R = 0.83), University of California at Los Angeles (R = 0.85), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (R = -0.70) scores and moderately with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (R = 0.69) and Simple Shoulder Test (R = 0.65) scores. The SAS score strongly correlated (R > 0.7) with all legacy outcome scores collected at 2- and 5-year postoperative visits. Score predictions made using the conversion equations between the SAS score and legacy outcome scores strongly correlated with their actual values. Neither the SAS nor the Constant score were influenced by ceiling effects. All other outcome scores evaluated demonstrated ceiling effects. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The SAS score correlates well with legacy shoulder scores after primary shoulder arthroplasty while mitigating ceiling effects. Surgeons may decrease patient questionnaire burden by using the brief six-question SAS score.

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.

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.