Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

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/OBJECTIVE:The purposes of this study were 1) to assess the outcome of nonoperative management of GT fractures with > 5 mm of displacement and 2) to assess whether there is a correlation between degree of displacement and outcome. METHODS:This study was a retrospective review of consecutive low-energy GT fractures from 2011 to 2020. Radiographs from all visits were reviewed. The direction of maximal displacement was assessed. Subjects were stratified based on the amount of maximal displacement: Group 1: 0-5 mm, Group 2: 5-10 mm, Group 3: > 10 mm. Range of motion (ROM) at the time of final follow-up was assessed. The presence of persistent shoulder pain after healing was noted, as well as whether supplemental subacromial corticosteroid injection was provided as part of long-term treatment. RESULTS:A cohort of 93 fractures comprised the study group. Mean age was 62 years. Mean follow-up was 20 months. All fractures went on to union. Mean displacement was 6.2 mm. There were 43 patients in Group 1, 43 in Group 2, and 7 in Group 3. Maximal displacement was most commonly inferolateral or lateral, accounting for a combined 77% of all patients. There was no difference in final ROM between displacement groups, with at least 155 degrees of forward elevation and 45 degrees of ER in all three groups. There was no difference between Group 1 and Groups 2/3 in frequency of persistent pain or likelihood of receiving a steroid injection. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings do not support a discrete 5 mm displacement threshold for surgical repair of isolated greater tuberosity fractures.

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: Both anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) are the standard of care for various end-stage degenerative conditions of the glenohumeral joint. The purpose of this prospective study was to compare clinical outcomes of aTSA and rTSA using the same platform total shoulder arthroplasty system at a minimum follow-up of 8 years. Methods: An international multicenter data registry was used to identify patients undergoing primary aTSA or rTSA with a minimum of 8-year follow-up. Patients were scored preoperatively and at latest follow-up using 6 outcome and 4 range of motion metrics. Patients graded global shoulder function on a 0-10 scale. Patient satisfaction was classified as much better, better, unchanged, or worse. Pain was graded using the Visual Analog Scale. A student's 2-tailed paired t-test, Chi-squared test, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used when appropriate, where P <.05 indicates significant differences. Results: A total of 364 aTSA patients and 278 rTSA patients were included. rTSA had greater mean age (aTSA 65.1, rTSA 71.2, P <.0001) and shorter mean follow-up (aTSA 115.2 months, rTSA 109.7 months; P =.0002). Postoperatively, all patients demonstrated significant improvements in pain and function. Preoperatively, aTSA patients had greater active abduction and forward elevation, global function, Constant Score, and the University of California, Los Angeles score. At latest follow-up, aTSA had greater active abduction, forward elevation, external rotation, and Simple Shoulder Test scores. There were no postoperative differences in patient satisfaction, shoulder function, pain, or any other outcome measure between the groups. aTSA patients had a greater revision rate (aTSA 5.8%, rTSA 1.8%; P =.0114), with no difference in complication rates. Humeral radiolucent lines were present in 20.9% of aTSA patients and 37.1% of rTSA patients (P =.0011). Glenoid radiolucent lines were present in 48.0% of aTSA patients (average score of 1.5). Scapular notching was present in 14.5% of rTSA patients (average grade of 0.26). Conclusion: This study is one of the largest to date that compares aTSA and rTSA with a minimum follow-up of 8 years. Significant improvements are seen in both aTSA and rTSA. For both groups, the complication rate was lower than previously reported in the literature. At the latest follow-up, pain relief and global function were significantly improved with high patient satisfaction in both groups, with no statistical differences found. This study provides physicians with information to help guide them when advising patients as to what they can expect at a minimum of 8 years after aTSA and rTSA.