Faculty Bibliography

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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:This study's purpose is to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and an intact rotator cuff with no previous history of shoulder surgery using a single platform TSA system at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. METHODS:A total of 370 aTSA patients and 370 rTSA patients matched for age, sex, and length of follow-up from an international multi-institutional Western Institutional Review Board approved registry with a minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed for this study. All patients had a diagnosis of OA, an intact rotator cuff, and no previous shoulder surgery. All patients were evaluated and scored preoperatively and at latest follow-up using six outcome scoring metrics and four active range of motion measurements. RESULTS:Mean follow-up was 41 months, and the mean age was 73 years. Preoperatively, the rTSA patients had lower outcome metrics and less motion. Postoperatively, aTSA and rTSA patients had similar clinical outcomes, motion, and function, with the only exception being greater external rotation in aTSA exceeding the minimal clinically important difference. Pain relief was excellent, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. Humeral radiolucent lines were similar in both groups (8%). Complications were significantly higher with aTSA (aTSA = 4.9%; rTSA = 2.2%; P = 0.045), but revisions were similar (aTSA = 3.2%; rTSA = 1.4%; P = 0.086). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:At a mean of 41 month follow-up, primary aTSA and rTSA patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff with no previous history of shoulder surgery had similar clinical and radiographic outcomes. Greater external rotation was noted in aTSA patients at follow-up. However, aTSA patients had a significantly greater rate of complications compared with rTSA patients. rTSA is a viable treatment option in patients with an intact rotator cuff and no previous shoulder surgery, offering similar clinical outcomes with a lower complication rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

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.

OBJECTIVE:To compare MRI with 3D reconstructions and 3D-CT with respect to assessment of glenoid wear in osteoarthritic shoulders. METHODS:3D reconstructions were generated for CT and MR (utilizing the Dixon technique) imaging performed on 29 osteoarthritic shoulders. Two reviewers independently performed glenoid morphometric measurements and evaluated glenoid erosion. Mean differences between the two modalities were calculated. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using kappa coefficient. RESULTS:The combined mean absolute difference (bias) in glenoid version between 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was 2.7° ± 1.6° (range 0.15-7.85, P value = 0.7). The combined mean absolute difference in glenoid inclination between 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was 6.8° ± 4.1° (range 0.8°-15.75°, P value = 0.17). No significant inter-reader variation in glenoid version and inclination measurements on 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was found (P > 0.05). The inter-reader reliability for both CT and MRI was high for Walch grading of glenoid bone loss (κ = 1, κ = 0.81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:3D-MRI is comparable to 3D-CT with respect to axial glenoid bone loss, as measured by glenoid version. However, for coronal bone loss estimation, measured by glenoid inclination, 3D-CT remains the gold standard. Thus, 3D-MR can be used as an alternative for preoperative assessment of glenoid version in arthritic shoulders.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Glenoid baseplate augments have recently been introduced as a way of managing glenoid monoplanar or biplanar abnormalities in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the difference in clinical outcomes, complications, and revision rates between augmented and standard baseplates in RSA for rotator cuff arthropathy patients with glenoid deformity. METHODS:A multicenter retrospective analysis of 171 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent RSA with and without augmented baseplates was performed. Preoperative inclusion criteria included: minimum follow-up of 2 years and preoperative retroversion of 15 to 30 degrees and/or a beta angle 70 to 80 degrees. Version and beta angle measured on CT, when available, and plain X-rays. Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes were obtained from preoperative and multiple postoperative timepoints. RESULTS:The study consisted of 84 standard baseplate patients and 87 augmented baseplate patients. The augment cohort had greater mean preoperative glenoid retroversion (17 vs. 9 degrees, p<0.001). At 5+ year follow-up, the increase in postoperative active abduction (52 vs. 31 degrees, p=0.023), forward flexion (58 vs. 35 degrees, p=0.020) and internal rotation score (2.8 vs. 1.1 degrees, p=0.001) was significantly greater in the augment cohort. Additionally, 5+ year follow-up ASES score (87.0 ± 16.6 vs. 75.9 ± 22.4, p=0.022), Constant score (78.0 ± 9.7 vs. 64.6 ± 15.1, p<0.001) and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score (81.2 ± 6.5 vs. 71.2 ± 13.6, p=0.003) were significantly higher in the augment cohort. Revision rate was low overall with no difference between the augment and no augment groups (0.7% vs. 3.0%, p=0.151). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In comparing augments to standard non-augment baseplates in the setting of RSA with glenoid deformity, our results demonstrate greater postoperative improvements in multiple planes of active range of motion in the augment cohort. Additionally, the augment cohort demonstrated greater postoperative level and improvement in scores for multiple clinical outcome metrics up to 5+ years of follow-up with no difference in complication or revision rates, supporting the use of augmented glenoid baseplates in RSA with glenoid deformity.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Since the introduction of the Grammont style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), the humeral stem design has been modified with improved clinical outcomes. Two distinct humeral designs have been utilized extensively: the inlay where the humeral tray is seated within the metaphysis and the onlay design where the humerus tray sits on the metaphysis at the level of the humeral neck cut. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates between these designs. METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to perform this systematic review. A search was performed on Medline, PubMed, and Embase to identify all studies comparing clinical results of both humeral designs. Primary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), shoulder range of motion, and incidence of complications. RESULTS:From the 156 identified publications, 12 studies were included in the final review. A total of 1447 patients were included with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. At final follow-up, both implants demonstrated significant improvements in comparison to preoperative baseline. When comparing inlay versus onlay groups, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was higher in the inlay group (mean difference of 2.53 [95% CI: 0.27-4.78] p=0.03). Postoperative motion, even if statically greater in the onlay group (difference in forward flexion 5°(p<0.001), abduction 3° (p=0.003) and external rotation 4°(p<0.001)) are not clinically different. When comparing complications, the inlay group reported more instances of scapular notching (93/322 versus 70/415, OR 0.35 p<0.001) but fewer scapular spine fractures (26/727 versus 21/559, p=0.09). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Inlay and onlay humeral tray designs in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty demonstrate similar clinical improvements postoperatively. The onlay implants have low rate of scapular notching but higher rate of scapular spine fracture. Understanding the strength and weaknesses of the two humeral tray designs is important to provide surgeons with options to tailor surgical plan for high risk patients.

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.