Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: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 +4mm lateralized glenosphere were compared to 102 sex, age, and glenosphere diameter matched control shoulders with standard glenospheres (whose center of rotation (CoR) is 2mm 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/CONCLUSIONS:In a medialized glenosphere/lateralized humerus design, a +4mm 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/METHODS:III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between admission source and postoperative length of stay (LOS), index admission hospital charges, and discharge disposition, in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS:The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) was used to identify all patients that underwent elective shoulder arthroplasty from 1994 through 2015. Patients were grouped into institutionalized (INS) versus non-institutionalized (n-INS) groups based on admission source. The two groups were compared regarding demographics, Charleston comorbidity index (CCI), postoperative blood transfusion requirement, LOS, and total charges. RESULTS:A total of 33,248 patients were identified (32,875 n-INS, 373 INS). Patientsin the INS cohort were significantly older (71.9 versus 68.1 years) and had a higher CCI (1.3 vs. 0.7). The mean LOS in the INS group was nearly 1 week longer(9.5 days vs. 2.8 days) and had a significantly higher postoperative blood transfusion rate (37.5% vs. 9.2%, odds ratio: 5.9). The mean total hospital charges in the INS group were also significantly higher ($63,988 vs. $36,826). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Institutionalized patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty have a protracted postoperative hospital course and this ultimately resulted in poorer outcomes and increased resource utilization.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess longer-term (> 5 years) function and outcome in patients treated with anatomic locking plates for proximal humerus fractures. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study was conducted at an urban, academic level 1 trauma center and an orthopedic specialty hospital. Patients treated operatively for proximal humerus fractures with an anatomic locking plate by three orthopedic trauma surgeons and two shoulder surgeons from 2003 to 2015 were reviewed. Patient demographics and injury characteristics, disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) scores, complications, secondary surgeries, and shoulder range of motion were compared at 1 year and at latest follow-up. RESULTS:Seventy-five of 173 fractures were eligible for analysis. At a minimum 5 years and a mean of 10.0 ± 3.2 years following surgery, DASH scores did not differ from one-year compared to long-term follow-up (16.3 ± 17.4 vs. 15.1 ± 18.2, p = 0.555). Shoulder motion including: active forward flexion (145.5 vs. 151.5 degrees, p = 0.186), internal rotation (T10 vs. T9, p = 0.204), and external rotation measurements (48.4 vs. 57.9, p = 0.074) also did not differ from one year compared to long-term follow-up. By one year, all fractures had healed. After 1-year post-operatively, four patients underwent reoperation, but none for AVN or screw penetration. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-reported functional outcome scores and shoulder range of motion are stable after one year following proximal humerus fracture fixation, and outcomes do not deteriorate thereafter. After one-year, long-term follow-up of fixed proximal humerus fractures may be unnecessary for those without symptoms.

BACKGROUND:Legacy shoulder outcome scores have postoperative ceiling scores effects when quantifying clinical outcomes for anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty patients. This study utilizes data from an international database of a single shoulder prosthesis utilizing data from 30 different clinical sites to quantify and compare the percent of aTSA and rTSA patients achieving postoperative ceiling scores with multiple outcome measures and defines the patient demographics, comorbidities, implant, and operative parameters associated with ceiling scores for each outcome measure. METHODS:Clinical outcomes for 1817 aTSA and 2635 rTSA patients between 2007 and 2019 were quantified with the ASES, SST, UCLA, Constant, and SAS scores. The number of aTSA and rTSA patients with ceiling scores were calculated and sorted into those that achieved ceiling scores with the SST, ASES, and UCLA measures and compared to patients without ceiling scores. A univariate and multivariate analysis then identified the patient demographics, comorbidities and implant and operative parameters associated with ceiling scores for each outcome measure. RESULTS:aTSA patients achieved ceiling scores at a significantly greater rate than rTSA patients for all outcome measures, except SAS. The SST score was the most susceptible to ceiling scores (aTSA=43.4%, rTSA=34.1%, p<0.0001), followed by the ASES (aTSA=23.7%, rTSA=13.3%, p<0.0001), and UCLA (aTSA=22.2%, rTSA=10.6%, p<0.0001) scores. Ceiling scores were least likely with the Constant (aTSA=0.4%, rTSA=0%, p=0.0060) and SAS (aTSA=0.1%, rTSA=0%, p=0.0750) scores. Male patients had a significantly higher ceiling score rate than female patients using the SST and ASES scores and no differences in ceiling score rates were observed with the UCLA, Constant, or SAS scores. Finally, we identified numerous patient demographic, comorbidity, implant, and operative parameters associated with SST, ASES, and UCLA ceiling scores for aTSA and rTSA patients. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Postoperative ceiling scores occur at a high rate for aTSA and rTSA patients with the SST, ASES, and UCLA scores. Patients most susceptible to ceiling scores are aTSA patients treated with cage glenoids, aTSA patients of lower BMI, rTSA patients of male gender, rTSA patients with OA diagnosis, and rTSA patients with subscapularis repair. Clinical researchers should consider utilizing alternative scores, such as the SAS score, to ensure a more normalized distribution of data and more accurately quantify aTSA and rTSA outcomes.

»/UNASSIGNED:The majority of proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) in patients who are ≥65 years of age are treated nonoperatively, but certain complex fracture patterns benefit from surgical intervention. However, there continues to be debate regarding the indications for surgery and the optimal surgical treatment (repair versus replacement) in this population. »/UNASSIGNED:Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has grown in popularity for surgical treatment of fracture-dislocations and displaced complex PHFs in patients who are ≥65 years of age; it has definite advantages over surgical repair and hemiarthroplasty, but this finding requires additional higher-quality evidence. »/UNASSIGNED:RTSA provides early pain relief and return of shoulder function as well as predictable elevation above shoulder level in the forward plane, but the indications for and understanding of the effect of timing on RTSA after a PHF continue to evolve. »/UNASSIGNED:RTSA for an acute PHF is indicated in patients who are ≥65 years of age with 3- and 4-part fracture-dislocations, head-split fractures, and severely displaced fractures, and is an option in patients who are not able to tolerate nonoperative treatment of severely displaced 3- and 4-part fractures. »/UNASSIGNED:RTSA is also indicated as a salvage operation for PHFs that have failed initial surgical repair (i.e., fixation failure, implant failure, rotator cuff failure, or osteonecrosis) and is an option for symptomatic nonunion or malunion after nonoperative treatment.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Patient's willingness and barriers for discharge after shoulder arthroplasty (SA) has not been studied. The aim of this study was to prospectively analyze patient's willingness for discharge and barriers to discharge beyond postoperative day #1 (POD#1) after SA. Methods/UNASSIGNED:In this prospective study, patients undergoing primary or revision SA (anatomic, reverse, or hemiarthroplasty) at our institution were enrolled to determine their willingness and concerns for discharge after SA. Patient's willingness for discharge was inquired daily until discharge. Demographic information, patient's medical history, intraoperative details (duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, intraoperative complication), discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and reasons for extension of LOS beyond POD#1 were analyzed. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 184 patients who underwent SA were included. Eight patients were discharged on POD#0, 114 patients on POD#1, 37 patients on POD#2, and 25 patients after POD#2. One hundred nineteen (119) patients were discharged to home, 40 were discharged to home with services, 15 were discharged to nursing facilities, and 10 were discharged to rehabilitation centers. Reasons for extension of LOS past POD#1 included patients failing to clear home safety evaluation (n = 4), inadequate pain control (n = 6), worsening of preexisting medical conditions (n = 8), delay in patient disposition (awaiting placement in a rehabilitation facility [n = 6] and awaiting culture results [n = 9]). Social reasons (n = 29) were the most common reasons for extension of LOS. These included patients requesting an extra day of stay (n = 20), patients requesting rehabilitation facility placement (n = 5), lack of a timely ride home (n = 2), and family-related reasons (death in the family [n = 1], lack of home help [n = 1]). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:This prospective study demonstrates modifiable factors associated with LOS beyond POD#1 (inadequate pain control, logistic delays in disposition, and patient-related social concerns) after SA. With increasing interest in same-day discharge and rising concerns to control cost and use bundled payment initiatives with SA, improving patient's willingness to discharge by addressing their concerns can improve early discharge after SA.