Can the ream and run procedure improve glenohumeral relationships and function for shoulders with the arthritic triad?

Ream-and-run technique offers equivalent clinical outcomes as anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty but with a high rate of complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

This review aims to explore if the Ream and Run (RnR) technique is associated with better outcomes and lower complications than the traditional Anatomical Total Shoulder Replacement (aTSA) for osteoarthritis.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature was conducted using Medline, Embase and Cochrane in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines on March 2, 2024. Only comparative studies of adult patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) comparing RnR and aTSA were included. Basic demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications were extracted and analysed. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Score (NOS) tool and meta-analysis of outcomes reported by two or more studies was performed using Cochrane RevMan Web.

Results

A total of 1548 patients were pooled from eight studies [RnR 738 vs aTSA 810]. Mean age in the RnR group ranged from 52.8 to 60.3 years with 93.6 % being male, compared with age range of 53-67.5 years in the aTSA group with 56 % being male. Five patients in the RnR group were Walch grade C or D, compared with three patients in the aTSA. No difference was observed between the two groups in post-operative SST score [P < 0.04], post-operative ASES score [P = 0.57] or degree of post-operative forward flexion [P < 0.41]. There was a statistically significant improvement in post-operative degree of external rotation, favouring RnR [MD -8.35, 95 % CI -14.69 to -2.01, P < 0.01] but without a significant clinical importance. The overall rate of complications in the RnR group was 15.4 % and 5.3 % in the aTSA group. The commonest reported complication in RnR group was chronic pain and stiffness (3.9 %) and soft tissue failure in the aTSA group (2.7 %). Overall rate of return-to-theatre was 7 % in RnR and 2.7 % in aTSA group.

Conclusion

Both aTSA and RnR offer improvement in shoulder PROMS. However, the overall re-operation rate and complications appeared high in RnR group. The choice of technique should be tailored to the patient's pre-operative baseline, activity level and desired goals.

Surgical management of biconcave glenoids: a scoping review

Biconcave (B2) glenoids, characterized by significant posterior glenoid bone loss and a biconcave wear pattern, are a challenging pathology in shoulder surgery. Significant bone defects present in B2 glenoids increases the risk of complications and rates of failure for operative patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Diagnosing this entity is of pivotal importance, and can be accomplished with imaging and a comprehensive clinical investigation. There are no clear-cut guidelines for management, but options include hemiarthroplasty, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. In recent years, modern techniques such as corrective reaming, bone grafts, and the use of augmented components have improved patient outcomes. Educating prospective patients is essential for reaching a shared management decision, setting appropriate expectations, and optimizing prognostic outcomes.

Minimum 10-year follow-up of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and ream-and-run arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Reports on long term outcomes and failures of shoulder arthroplasty are uncommon. The purpose of this study is to present minimum 10-year outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing ream-and-run and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for primary glenohumeral arthritis.

METHODS

This study analyzed consecutive patients who had undergone a ream-and-run or TSA with minimum 10-year follow-up. Pain scores and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) values were obtained preoperatively and at a minimum of 10 years postoperatively via e-mail or mail-in response. Percentage of maximum possible improvement (%MPI) was also calculated.

RESULTS

Of 127 eligible patients, 63 (50%) responded to a 10-year survey. This included 34 patients undergoing ream-and-run arthroplasty and 29 patients undergoing TSA. The ream-and-run patients were significantly younger than the TSA patients (60 ± 7 vs. 68 ± 8, P < .001), predominantly male (97% vs. 41%, P < .001), and had a lower American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (P = .018). In the ream-and-run group, the mean pain score improved from a preoperative value of 6.5 ± 1.9 to 0.9 ± 1.3 (P < .001), and the mean SST score improved from 5.4 ± 2.4 to 10.3 ± 2.1 at 10-year follow-up (P < .001). Twenty-eight (82%) achieved an SST improvement above the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of 2.6. Four patients (12%) underwent single-stage exchange to another hemiarthroplasty, whereas 1 (3%) required manipulation under anesthesia. In the TSA group, the pain score improved from a preoperative value of 6.6 ± 2.2 to 1.2 ± 2.3 (P < .001), and the SST score improved from 3.8 ± 2.6 to 8.9 ± 2.6 at 10-year follow-up (P < .001). Of the 29 patients who underwent a TSA, 27 (93%) achieved an SST improvement above the MCID of 1.6. No patient in the TSA group required reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Although the characteristics of the patients differ between the 2 groups, excellent functional results can be obtained with the ream-and-run arthroplasty and TSA for glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Early clinical and radiographic outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with a biconvex posterior augmented glenoid for patients with posterior glenoid erosion: minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Glenoid bone loss in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) remains a controversial and challenging clinical problem. Previous studies have shown high rates of glenoid loosening for aTSA in shoulders with retroversion, posterior bone loss, and posterior humeral head subluxation. This study is the first to present minimum 2-year follow-up data of an all-polyethylene, biconvex augmented anatomic glenoid component for correction of glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head subluxation.

METHODS

This study is a multicenter, retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients from 7 global clinical sites. All patients underwent aTSA using the biconvex posterior augmented glenoid (PAG). Inclusion criteria were preoperative computed tomographic (CT) scan, minimum 2 years since surgery, preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative range of motion examination, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Glenoid classification, glenoid retroversion, and posterior humeral head subluxation were measured from preoperative CT and radiography and postoperative radiography. Statistical comparisons between pre- and postoperative values were performed with a paired t test.

RESULTS

Eighty-six of 110 consecutive patients during the study period (78% follow-up) met the inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Mean follow-up was 35 ± 10 months, with a mean age of 68 ± 8 years (range 48-85). Range of motion statistically improved in all planes from pre- to postoperation. Mean visual analog scale score improved from 5.2 preoperation to 0.7 postoperation, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score from 43.2 to 89.5, Constant score from 41.8 to 76.9, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score from 49.8 to 86.7 (all P < .0001). Mean glenoid retroversion improved from 19.3° to 7.4° (P < .0001). Posterior subluxation improved from 69.1% to 53.5% and posterior decentering improved from 5.8% to -3.0% (P < .0001). There was 1 patient with both a prosthetic joint infection and radiographic glenoid loosening that required revision. Seventy-nine of 86 patients had a Lazarus score of 0 (no radiolucency seen about peg or keel) at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that at minimum 2-year follow-up, a posterior-augmented all-polyethylene glenoid can correct glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head subluxation. Clinically, there was significant improvement in both range of motion and PROMs.

Treatment options for complex shoulder osteoarthritis with posterior humeral head subluxation and glenoid bone loss (Walch B): A systematic review

Background

Shoulder osteoarthritis (OA) with eccentric (B) glenoids has generally been associated with poor patient-reported outcomes and increased complications. The purpose of this study was to outline all the described treatment options and their outcomes and complications in order to better guide treatment.

Methods

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis guidelines. Searches were performed up to December 19, 2019, using Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Inclusion criteria included studies for glenohumeral OA reporting posterior humeral head subluxation and/or posterior glenoid erosion. Studies were excluded if they were review papers, abstracts, or conference papers; had heterogeneity of included Walch types; or were not written in English.

Results

Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up duration was 47.5 months (range, 14-300), and the mean patient age 62 years (38-88). Six different discernible techniques were identified: asymmetric reaming with onlay glenoid (AROG) in 267 shoulders, posterior glenoid bone grafting (PGBG) with onlay glenoid in 79 shoulders, augmented glenoid (AG) in 160 shoulders, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with or without bone grafting in 118 shoulders, hemiarthroplasty with concentric reaming (HACR) in 57 shoulders, and humeral head arthroplasty with inlay glenoid (HAIG) in 36 shoulders. All techniques reported improved patient outcomes and range of motion. Short-term (<5 years) studies reported glenoid loosening leading to revisions in 3% of AROG, 2.7% PGBG, 0.8% AG, 1.4% RSA, and 0% HAIG shoulders. HACR had a high revision rate (12.3%) due to persistent pain and stiffness. Midterm (>5 years) studies demonstrated increased rates of glenoid loosening with AROG (14.5%), PGBG (21% loose, 23.8% "at risk"), and AG (18.9% "at risk"), as well as increased rates of subluxation or revision due to instability. HAIG did not demonstrate loosening, subluxation, or revision at 55.2 months.

Conclusion

Various techniques exist to manage complex primary glenohumeral OA with posterior subluxation and posterior glenoid erosion. Glenoid component survival is a concern with ASOG, PGBG, and AG. HACR has the highest early revision rate. RSA offers promising short-term and midterm results likely due to the advantage of more secure fixation as well as a constrained design to prevent posterior subluxation. HAIG has the lowest complication and revision rates although further long-term studies are needed.

Humeral Head Morphology Influences Outcomes of Arthroscopic Interposition Glenoid Patch Allograft for Glenohumeral Arthritis

Purpose

To determine short- to midterm patient-reported outcomes of arthroscopic soft-tissue interposition arthroplasty using acellular dermal allograft with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and to assess outcomes in patients with and without flattening of the humeral head.

Methods

Patients with a diagnosis of primary glenohumeral arthritis who underwent arthroscopic soft-tissue interposition arthroplasty with an acellular dermal allograft from July 2010 to November 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria were a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral arthritis and Outerbridge 4 full-thickness cartilage loss of ≥50% of the glenoid articular surface. Patients underwent arthroscopic debridement, microfracture, and biological arthroscopic soft-tissue interposition arthroplasty with an acellular dermal matrix. Postoperative outcomes included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, Penn Shoulder Score (PSS), numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, analgesic use, and conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Results were stratified according to humeral head morphology on preoperative radiographs.

Results

A total of 25 patients were included, with a mean age of 56.0 years (range 19.2 to 74.8) and a mean follow-up of 3.36 years (range 1.03 to 8.98). The mean postoperative ASES score was 64.1 (range 11.7 to 100.0), SANE score was 62% (range 5% to 100%), and PSS was 61.2 (range 10.6 to 97.9). Additionally, 56% of patients rated their shoulder function as improved or much improved, and 36% of patients converted to TSA at a mean of 2.35 years. Patients with and without humeral flattening had similar postoperative ASES scores (P = .44), SANE scores (P = .90), PSS (P = .73), and conversions to TSA (P = .83). Patients with humeral flattening were more likely to have shoulder pain at night (83.3% versus 28.6%, P = .02).

Conclusion

Arthroscopic soft-tissue interposition arthroplasty with an acellular dermal allograft resulted in satisfactory short- to mid-term postoperative outcomes for younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis but demonstrated a TSA conversion rate of 36%. Patients with humeral head flattening also had satisfactory shoulder function but were more likely to experience shoulder pain at night.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series

Subluxation in the Arthritic Shoulder

»

The term "subluxation" means partial separation of the joint surfaces. In the arthritic shoulder, "arthritic glenohumeral subluxation" refers to displacement of the humeral head on the surface of the glenoid.

»

The degree of arthritic glenohumeral subluxation can be measured using radiography with standardized axillary views or computed tomography (CT).

»

Shoulders with a type-B1 or B2 glenoid may show more posterior subluxation on an axillary radiograph that is made with the arm in an elevated position than on a CT scan that is made with the arm at the side.

»

The degree of arthritic glenohumeral subluxation is not closely related to glenoid retroversion.

»

The position of the humeral head with respect to the plane of the scapula is related to glenoid retroversion and is not a measure of glenohumeral subluxation.

»

Studies measuring glenohumeral subluxation before and after arthroplasty should clarify its importance to the clinical outcomes of shoulder reconstruction.

Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty with Nonprosthetic Glenoid Arthroplasty: The Ream-and-Run Procedure

»

Glenoid component wear and loosening are the principal failure modes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA).

»

The ream-and-run (RnR) procedure is an alternative glenohumeral arthroplasty for patients who wish to avoid the risks and limitations of a prosthetic glenoid component.

»

During the RnR procedure, the arthritic glenoid is conservatively reamed to a single concavity, while the prosthetic humeral component and soft tissues are balanced to provide both mobility and stability of the joint.

»

The success of the RnR procedure depends on careful patient selection, preoperative education and engagement, optimal surgical technique, targeted rehabilitation, and close postoperative communication between the surgeon and the patient.

»

While the RnR procedure allows high levels of shoulder function in most patients, the recovery can be longer and more arduous than with aTSA.

»

Patients who have undergone an RnR procedure occasionally require a second closed or open procedure to address refractory shoulder stiffness, infection, or persistent glenoid-sided pain. These second procedures are more common after the RnR than with aTSA.

Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with All-Polyethylene Glenoid Component for Primary Osteoarthritis with Glenoid Deficiencies

This study evaluated the ability of shoulder arthroplasty using a standard glenoid component to improve patient self-assessed comfort and function and to correct preoperative humeral-head decentering on the face of the glenoid in patients with primary glenohumeral arthritis and type-B2 or B3 glenoids.

Does the degree of osteoarthritis influence the clinical outcome after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

The degree of preoperative osteoarthritis has been shown to influence the postoperative outcome and the patients' satisfaction rate in hip and knee joint replacement surgery. However, no corresponding information is available for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). We therefore set out to evaluate the influence of preoperatively measured end-stage osteoarthritis on the postoperative clinical outcome of TSA.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 103 anatomic total shoulder replacements (96 patients) was performed. Patients were evaluated radiologically with X-rays in two planes and clinically using the Constant and Murley score (CS) and the self-reported satisfaction with the result. The degree of osteoarthritis was radiographically analyzed with the aid of the classifications according to Kellgren/Lawrence, Gerber, Guyette, and Allain and according to whether complete narrowing of the glenohumeral joint was present or not [bone-on-bone contact (BOB) or no bone-on-bone contact (No BOB)].

RESULTS

The clinical results of TSA did not differ significantly among the various stages of osteoarthritis in any of the classifications (p > 0.05). The CS was significantly higher postoperatively for both the BOB and the No BOB group (p < 0.0001). Patients with BOB had a significantly lower CS preoperatively than patients with No BOB (p = 0.0172). In addition, the preoperative pain level was significantly higher in patients with BOB (p = 0.014). Postoperatively, no significant difference in CS (p = 0.6738) was found between the BOB group and the No BOB group. The mean improvement in CS was not statistically significant (p = 0.2218).

CONCLUSION

In contrast to hip and knee joint replacement procedures, a milder grade of osteoarthritis does not adversely influence the functional result or subjective satisfaction rate after TSA. The degree of osteoarthritis on conventional X-rays has no bearing on the postoperative clinical outcome. Therefore, the decision on when to carry out anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty should depend on the patient's pain level and loss of quality of life.

Surgical Management of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis With Glenoid Erosion and Static Posterior Subluxation (Walch B2): Techniques, Outcomes, and Survivorship Rates

The purpose of this study was to systematically assess the surgical techniques and outcomes related to the management of Walch B2 glenoids. PubMed, Medline, and Embase were searched from inception to July 2018. Overall, 24 studies (787 B2 glenoids) were identified. Revision-free survivorship was highest for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (98.6%) and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with asymmetric reaming and a non-augmented glenoid implant (95.6%). Walch B2 glenoids are most commonly managed by asymmetric reaming in the context of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, and by the ream-and-run technique in hemiarthroplasty. The optimal treatment strategy remains elusive due to a lack of high-quality, comparative studies with long-term surveillance. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(4):e191-e201.].

Prearthroplasty glenohumeral pathoanatomy and its relationship to patient's sex, age, diagnosis, and self-assessed shoulder comfort and function

BACKGROUND

There is great current interest in characterizing the prearthroplasty glenohumeral pathoanatomy because of its role in guiding surgical technique and its possible effects on arthroplasty outcome.

METHODS

We examined 544 patients within 6 weeks before arthroplasty with the goals of characterizing the following: demographic and radiographic characteristics; relationships of the radiographic pathoanatomy to the patient's age, sex, and diagnosis; inter-relationships among glenoid type, glenoid version, and amount of decentering of the humeral head on the glenoid; and relationships of the pathoanatomy to the patient's self-assessed comfort and function.

RESULTS

Male patients had a higher frequency of B2 glenoids and a lower frequency of A2 glenoids. The arthritic shoulders of men were more retroverted and had greater amounts of posterior decentering. Patients with types A1 and C glenoids were younger than those with other glenoid types. Shoulders with osteoarthritis were more likely to be type B2 and to be retroverted. Types B2 and C had the greatest degree of retroversion, whereas types B1 and B2 had the greatest amounts of posterior decentering. Shoulders with glenoid types B1 and B2 and those with more decentering did not have worse self-assessed shoulder comfort and function.

CONCLUSIONS

Glenohumeral pathoanatomy was found to have previously unreported relationships to the patient's sex, age, and diagnosis. Contrary to what might have been expected, more advanced glenohumeral pathoanatomy (ie, type B glenoids, greater retroversion, greater decentering) was not associated with worse self-assessed shoulder comfort and function.

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with posterior capsular plication versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with biconcave glenoids: A matched cohort study

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with posterior capsule plication (PCP) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with primary osteoarthritis, posterior subluxation, and bone loss (Walch B2).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All shoulders undergoing anatomic TSA with PCP were retrospectively identified (group 1, G1) and compared to shoulders undergoing RSA (group 2, G2) for Walch B2 osteoarthritis. There were 15 patients in G1 (mean (SD) age and follow-up of 70.5 (7.5) years and 42.8 (18.4) months, respectively) and 16 patients in G2 (mean (SD) age and follow-up of 72.6 (5.4) years and 35.1 (14.2) months, respectively).

RESULTS

Both groups had substantial improvements in pain and function. In G1, results were excellent in 80% and satisfactory in 20%, compared to 81% and 6% in G2, respectively ( p = 0.2). The mean (SD) American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 91.2 (6.7) and 80.3 (14.3) in G1 and G2, respectively ( p = 0.08). The mean Simple Shoulder Test score was 10.6 in G1 and 8.5 in G2 ( p = 0.01). There were no reoperations in either group, but G1 had seven postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of TSA with PCP are comparable to RSA in patients with osteoarthritis and biconcave glenoids. However, TSA leads to more complications while RSA leads to lower functional outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores of Patients Undergoing Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) scores are required for cost-effectiveness and health-care value analysis. We evaluated HRQoL scores and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to establish values of HRQoL scores that can be used for cost-effectiveness and value analysis and to assess relationships between HRQoL scores and shoulder and upper-extremity PROMs.

METHODS

We analyzed 145 patients (145 shoulders) with glenohumeral osteoarthritis treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty; 93 patients had 1-year follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes were assessed with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and a visual analog scale (VAS) for shoulder pain and function. Health utility was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D), and VAS Quality of Life (VAS QoL). HRQoL score validity was determined through correlations between the PROMs and HRQoL scores. The responsiveness of HRQoL scores was measured through the effect size and the standardized response mean.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements in all PROMs and HRQoL scores (p < 0.001) at 1 year after the surgical procedure. The changes in VAS QoL and EQ-5D were significantly correlated (weak to moderate) with the changes in all PROMs except the SST, demonstrating comparably acceptable validity. The VAS QoL had a large effect size (1.833) and standardized response mean (1.603), and the EQ-5D also had a large effect size (1.163) and standardized response mean (1.228), demonstrating responsiveness. The effect sizes of all PROMs were larger than those of the HRQoL scores. The change in SF-6D had only a moderate effect size and standardized response mean and was not significantly correlated with the change in any of the PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs and HRQoL scores are not interchangeable, and studies of the cost-effectiveness and value of shoulder arthroplasty should incorporate both shoulder and upper-extremity PROMs and HRQoL scores. The findings of this study provide data on HRQoL scores that are specific to the treatment of advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis with anatomic total shoulder replacement and can be used for future cost-effectiveness and value analysis studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Return to Sport Following Hemiarthroplasty With Concentric Reaming Versus Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Matched Pair Analysis

The purpose of this study was to establish functional outcomes regarding return to sport activity for patients receiving anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) vs the ream and run procedure (hemi RR). Patients who underwent hemi RR and who underwent aTSA with a polyethylene glenoid component for end-stage glenohumeral arthritis were retrospectively identified from 2000 to 2014. Patients were matched regarding age, body mass index, sex, and hand dominance. Patients were surveyed to determine their level of sport and satisfaction after surgery. At a mean follow-up of 69.1±24.8 months, a total of 26 hemi RR and 30 aTSA patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Mean±SD age at the time of surgery was 53.0±8.5 years. There was no statistical difference between the two cohorts regarding patients who reported no postoperative problems (69.2% vs 76.7%, P=.529), reoperation (11.5% vs 6.7%, P=.522), return to overall sport (94.4% vs 86.4%, P=.395), return to high-demand upper-extremity sport (92.3% vs 81.3%, P=.390), and return to same or better level of intensity sport (83.3% vs 72.7%, P=.424). Patients returned to sport at a mean of 7.5±5.7 months and 6.2±3.6 months in the hemi RR and aTSA cohorts, respectively (P=.485). Radiographic measurements of medialization (mean, -2.4±5.0 vs -2.2±5.7; P=.913) and postoperative decentering (mean, 3.6%±2.6% vs 4.3%±3.3%; P=.795) were equivalent for the two cohorts. Hemi RR was found to have high and equivalent rates of sporting outcomes, clinical outcomes, and radiographic outcomes compared with aTSA. As appropriately indicated patients are counseled for surgery, realistic expectations regarding sports should be discussed. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(5):276-284.].

Eccentric Reaming for B2 Glenoids: History, Preoperative Planning, Surgical Technique, and Outcome

Background

The biconcave (B2) glenoid is characterized by preservation of the anterior portion of the native glenoid with asymmetric wear of the posterior glenoid. Surgical options for glenoid correction have evolved. The goal of shoulder arthroplasty is to place the implants in such a manner to return the humeral head to a centered position and restore the joint line to a neutral position. There is no current consensus on method of treatment and correction.

Methods

The current and historical literature on total shoulder arthroplasty was used to examine technique viability.

Results

Asymmetric remaining can be used to address up to 15° of version correction without compromise of cortical bone. It is important to have the proper presurgical planning, to understand the limitations of correction, and to have other options available to treat the biconcave glenoid.

Glenohumeral Dislocation Arthropathy: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management

Dislocation arthropathy describes the development of progressive degenerative changes of the glenohumeral joint in the setting of instability. Although the specific etiology remains unclear, the trauma of a single dislocation, repetitive injury associated with recurrent dislocations, changes in shoulder biomechanics, and complications associated with instability surgery have all been implicated in its development. Pain and restricted range of motion are the most common patient complaints. Conservative management, consisting of pain control, activity modification, and physical therapy, is the first-line treatment after the development of arthropathy. If conservative management fails, multiple surgical options exist. Arthroscopic débridement can be attempted in young, active patients and in those patients with mild-to-moderate arthropathy. Open subscapularis lengthening and capsular release can be done in patients with prior instability repairs that are overly tight. In young patients with minimal bone loss and glenoid wear, surface replacement arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty are surgical options. In older patients with moderate-to-severe arthropathy, total shoulder or reverse shoulder arthroplasty is the preferred treatment option. Further study is needed to better predict which patients will develop dislocation arthropathy and will thus benefit from early surgical intervention.

Comparative analysis of work-related outcomes in hemiarthroplasty with concentric glenoid reaming and total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) has demonstrated high levels of return to work, although there are fears of glenoid component loosening with higher work demand.

METHODS

A retrospective query was performed of all patients who received hemiarthroplasty with ream-and-run resurfacing (Hemi RR) between 2005 and 2014. Included patients were matched to an aTSA cohort by age, body mass index, sex, and hand dominance. Preoperative and postoperative work status, by level of duty and occupation, was collected.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients receiving Hemi RR and 28 patients receiving TSA completed this questionnaire (82.8% compliance). Mean follow-up was 69.1 ± 24.8 months. In total, 100% of Hemi RR patients returned to work, and 89.3% of TSA patients returned to work (P = .091). The Hemi RR patients had higher rates of return to work for heavy-duty workers only (7 of 7 vs. 2 of 4, P = .038), although only 1 patient in the TSA group reported failure to work was due to shoulder reasons. Mean duration of return to work was 2.5 ± 4.8 months for patients receiving Hemi RR and 1.98 ± 2.6 months for those receiving TSA (P = .653).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemi RR had a high return to heavy-duty work, likely due to fewer surgeon-imposed restrictions. The results of this study may help manage return to work expectations after Hemi RR according to the level of duty and suggest Hemi RR is a viable option for heavy-duty laborers with end-stage glenohumeral arthritis.

Short-term Clinical Outcomes of Hemiarthroplasty With Concentric Glenoid Reaming: The Ream and Run Procedure

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of humeral hemiarthroplasty and concentric glenoid reaming ("ream and run" procedure) and to compare the outcomes with those of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for glenohumeral arthritis. Patients with glenohumeral arthritis who underwent the ream and run procedure with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was revision to TSA. Secondary outcome measures included functional outcome scores, range of motion, and radiographic assessment. The outcome measures were compared with those of age- and sex-matched control patients who underwent anatomic TSA during the study period. One patient in the ream and run group required revision to TSA 14 months after the surgery because of excessive shoulder pain. There were significant improvements in the postoperative outcome scores and range of motion and external rotation in the ream and run group. Postoperative radiographs showed concentric glenoids without posterior subluxation in all except 1 shoulder. The outcome measures in the ream and run group were similar to those in the TSA control group except for active forward elevation and external rotation. The ream and run procedure provides improved pain relief and shoulder function at short-term follow-up for patients with shoulder arthritis. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(6):e854-e860.].

Does Postoperative Glenoid Retroversion Affect the 2-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

While glenoid retroversion and posterior humeral head decentering are common preoperative features of severely arthritic glenohumeral joints, the relationship of postoperative glenoid component retroversion to the clinical results of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unclear. Studies have indicated concern for inferior outcomes when glenoid components are inserted in 15° or more retroversion.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a population of patients undergoing TSA in whom no specific efforts were made to change the version of the glenoid, we asked whether at 2 years after surgery patients having glenoid components implanted in 15° or greater retroversion had (1) less improvement in the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score and lower SST scores; (2) higher percentages of central peg lucency, higher Lazarus radiolucency grades, higher mean percentages of posterior decentering, and more frequent central peg perforation; or (3) a greater percentage having revision for glenoid component failure compared with patients with glenoid components implanted in less than 15° retroversion.

METHODS

Between August 24, 2010 and October 22, 2013, information for 201 TSAs performed using a standard all-polyethylene pegged glenoid component were entered in a longitudinally maintained database. Of these, 171 (85%) patients had SST scores preoperatively and between 18 and 36 months after surgery. Ninety-three of these patients had preoperative radiographs in the database and immediate postoperative radiographs and postoperative radiographs taken in a range of 18 to 30 months after surgery. Twenty-two patients had radiographs that were inadequate for measurement at the preoperative, immediate postoperative, or latest followup time so that they could not be included. These excluded patients did not have substantially different mean age, sex distribution, time of followup, distribution of diagnoses, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, alcohol use, smoking history, BMI, or history of prior surgery from those included in the analysis. Preoperative retroversion measurements were available for 11 (11 shoulders) of the 22 excluded patients. For these 11 shoulders, the mean (± SD) retroversion was 15.8° ± 14.6°, five had less than 15°, and six had more than 15° retroversion. We analyzed the remaining 71 TSAs, comparing the 21 in which the glenoid component was implanted in 15° or greater retroversion (mean ± SD, 20.7° ± 5.3°) with the 50 in which it was implanted in less than 15° retroversion (mean ± SD, 5.7° ± 6.9°). At the 2-year followup (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 0.6 years; range, 18-36 months), we determined the latest SST scores and preoperative to postoperative improvement in SST scores, the percentage of maximal possible improvement, glenoid component radiolucencies, posterior humeral head decentering, and percentages of shoulders having revision surgery. Radiographic measurements were performed by three orthopaedic surgeons who were not involved in the care of these patients. The primary study endpoint was the preoperative to postoperative improvement in the SST score.

RESULTS

With the numbers available, the mean (± SD) improvement in the SST (6.7 ± 3.6; from 2.6 ± 2.6 to 9.3 ± 2.9) for the retroverted group was not inferior to that for the nonretroverted group (5.8 ± 3.6; from 3.7 ± 2.5 to 9.4 ± 3.0). The mean difference in improvement between the two groups was 0.9 (95% CI, - 2.5 to 0.7; p = 0.412). The percent of maximal possible improvement (%MPI) for the retroverted glenoids (70% ± 31%) was not inferior to that for the nonretroverted glenoids (67% ± 44%). The mean difference between the two groups was 3% (95% CI, - 18% to 12%; p = 0.857). The 2-year SST scores for the retroverted (9.3 ± 2.9) and the nonretroverted glenoid groups (9.4 ± 3.0) were similar (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, - 1.1 to 1.4; p = 0.697). No patient in either group reported symptoms of subluxation or dislocation. With the numbers available, the radiographic results for the retroverted glenoid group were similar to those for the nonretroverted group with respect to central peg lucency (four of 21 [19%] versus six of 50 [12%]; p = 0.436; odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 0.4-6.9), average Lazarus radiolucency scores (0.5 versus 0.7, Mann-Whitney U p value = 0.873; Wilcoxon rank sum test W = 512, p value = 0.836), and the mean percentage of posterior humeral head decentering (3.4% ± 5.5% versus 1.6% ± 6.0%; p = 0.223). With the numbers available, the percentage of patients with retroverted glenoids undergoing revision (0 of 21 [0%]) was not inferior to the percentage of those with nonretroverted glenoids (three of 50; [6%]; p = 0.251).

CONCLUSION

In this small series of TSAs, postoperative glenoid retroversion was not associated with inferior clinical results at 2 years after surgery. This suggests that it may be possible to effectively manage arthritic glenohumeral joints without specific attempts to modify glenoid version. Larger, longer-term studies will be necessary to further explore the results of this approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of the Ream-and-Run Procedure for Primary Glenohumeral Arthritis

BACKGROUND

The ream-and-run procedure can provide improvement in shoulder function and comfort for selected patients with primary glenohumeral arthritis who wish to avoid a prosthetic glenoid component. The purpose of this study was to evaluate factors associated with medialization of the humeral head after this procedure as well as the relationship of medialization to the clinical outcome.

METHODS

We collected patient, shoulder, and procedure characteristics along with Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores before surgery and at the time of follow-up. Medialization was determined by comparing the position of the humeral head prosthesis in relation to the scapula on postoperative baseline radiographs made within 6 weeks after surgery with that on comparable follow-up radiographs made ≥18 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Two-year clinical outcomes were available for 101 patients (95% were male). Comparable radiographs at postoperative baseline and follow-up evaluations were available for 50 shoulders. For all patients, the mean SST score (and standard deviation) increased from 4.9 ± 2.8 preoperatively to 10.3 ± 2.4 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Significant clinical improvement was observed for glenoid types A2 and B2. Shoulders with a type-A2 glenoid morphology, with larger preoperative scapular body-glenoid angles, and with lower preoperative SST scores, were associated with the greatest clinical improvement. Clinical outcome was not significantly associated with the amount of medialization.

CONCLUSIONS

The ream-and-run procedure can be an effective treatment for advanced primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in active patients. Further study will be necessary to determine whether medialization affects the clinical outcome with follow-up of >2 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Management of intraoperative posterior decentering in shoulder arthroplasty using anteriorly eccentric humeral head components

BACKGROUND

Posterior humeral decentering presents a challenge in glenohumeral arthroplasty. Soft tissue releases and osteophyte resection can lead to intraoperative decentering not evident preoperatively. Inferior outcomes result if decentering is not addressed as a part of the arthroplasty. When there is >50% posterior subluxation of the humeral head on passive elevation of the arm at surgery, we have used an anteriorly eccentric humeral head component to improve centering of the humeral articular surface on the glenoid.

METHODS

We reviewed the 2-year outcomes for 33 shoulder arthroplasties in which anteriorly eccentric humeral heads were used to manage posterior decentering identified at surgery. Rotator interval plication was performed in 16 cases as an adjunctive stabilizing procedure. Shoulders were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). Radiographic centering was characterized before surgery and at follow-up on standardized axillary radiographs with the arm held in a position of functional elevation.

RESULTS

With the anteriorly eccentric head component, preoperative radiographic humeral decentering was reduced from 10.4% ± 7.9% to 0.9% ± 2.3% postoperatively (P < .001). SST scores improved from 4.8 ± 2.3 to 10.0 ± 2.3 (P < .001). Preoperative posterior humeral head decentering did not correlate with preoperative glenoid version. Glenoid retroversion was 19.8° ± 8.9° preoperatively and 15.5° ± 7.5° postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior decentering identified at surgery when standard trial components are in place can be addressed by replacing the anatomic humeral head with an anteriorly eccentric humeral head component.

What Factors are Predictive of Patient-reported Outcomes? A Prospective Study of 337 Shoulder Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Although shoulder arthroplasties generally are effective in improving patients' comfort and function, the results are variable for reasons that are not well understood.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We posed two questions: (1) What factors are associated with better 2-year outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty? (2) What are the sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive values of a multivariate predictive model for better outcome?

METHODS

Three hundred thirty-nine patients having a shoulder arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy, ream and run arthroplasty, total shoulder or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty) between August 24, 2010 and December 31, 2012 consented to participate in this prospective study. Two patients were excluded because they were missing baseline variables. Forty-three patients were missing 2-year data. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the relationship of baseline patient, shoulder, and surgical characteristics to a "better" outcome, defined as an improvement of at least 30% of the maximal possible improvement in the Simple Shoulder Test. The results were used to develop a predictive model, the accuracy of which was tested using a 10-fold cross-validation.

RESULTS

After controlling for potentially relevant confounding variables, the multivariate analysis showed that the factors significantly associated with better outcomes were American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I (odds ratio [OR], 1.94; 95% CI, 1.03-3.65; p = 0.041), shoulder problem not related to work (OR, 5.36; 95% CI, 2.15-13.37; p < 0.001), lower baseline Simple Shoulder Test score (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.23-1.42; p < 0.001), no prior shoulder surgery (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.18-2.70; p = 0.006), humeral head not superiorly displaced on the AP radiograph (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.15-4.02; p = 0.017), and glenoid type other than A1 (OR, 4.47; 95% CI, 2.24-8.94; p < 0.001). Neither preoperative glenoid version nor posterior decentering of the humeral head on the glenoid were associated with the outcomes. The model predictive of a better result was driven mainly by the six factors listed above. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve generated from the cross-validated enhanced predictive model was 0.79 (generally values of 0.7 to 0.8 are considered fair and values of 0.8 to 0.9 are considered good). The false-positive fraction and the true-positive fraction depended on the cutoff probability selected (ie, the selected probability above which the prediction would be classified as a better outcome). A cutoff probability of 0.68 yielded the best performance of the model with cross-validation predictions of better outcomes for 236 patients (80%) and worse outcomes for 58 patients (20%); sensitivity of 91% (95% CI, 88%-95%); specificity of 65% (95% CI, 53%-77%); positive predictive value of 92% (95% CI, 88%-95%); and negative predictive value of 64% (95% CI, 51%-76%).

CONCLUSIONS

We found six easy-to-determine preoperative patient and shoulder factors that were significantly associated with better outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty. A model based on these characteristics had good predictive properties for identifying patients likely to have a better outcome from shoulder arthroplasty. Future research could refine this model with larger patient populations from multiple practices.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.

Surgical management of the biconcave (B2) glenoid

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis produces a wide spectrum of glenoid pathology. The B2 glenoid is defined by asymmetric posterior bone loss with the development of a biconcavity and posterior translation of the humeral head. Progressive bone loss results in increasing glenoid retroversion, which must be corrected during anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. The goals of arthroplasty should also include centering the humeral head and restoring the normal glenoid joint line. When there is minimal bone loss, this may be accomplished with a standard glenoid component and asymmetric reaming. More significant bone loss requires bone grafting or the use of an augmented glenoid component. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is also an option for older patients or patients with severe bone loss.

The arthritic glenoid: anatomy and arthroplasty designs

The number of shoulder arthroplasty procedures has increased dramatically in recent years, with the primary indication being osteoarthritis (OA). Thus, morphology and subchondral bone changes associated with OA may be important factors to consider when choosing a replacement component. For surgical treatment, many implant options exist and survivability is often dependent on patient age, activity level, and progression of OA. In the placement of these replacement components, patient-specific guides now exist to improve component positioning, with the goal to improve long-term survivability by ensuring that intra-operative placement meets component design.

The ream and run: not for every patient, every surgeon or every problem

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to provide some essential and basic information concerning the ream and run technique for shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

In a total shoulder arthroplasty, the humeral head prosthesis articulates with a polyethylene glenoid surface placed on the bone of the glenoid. Failure of the glenoid component is recognised as the principal cause of failure of total shoulder arthroplasty. By contrast, in the ream and run procedure, the humeral head prosthesis articulates directly with the glenoid, which has been conservatively reamed to provide a stabilising concavity and maximal glenohumeral contact area for load transfer. While no interpositional material is placed on the surface of the glenoid, animal studies have demonstrated that the reamed glenoid bone forms fibrocartilage, which is firmly fixed to the reamed bony surface. Glenohumeral motion is instituted on the day of surgery and continued daily after surgery to mold the regenerating glenoid fibrocartilage. When the healing process is complete - as indicated by a good and comfortable range of motion - exercises and activities are added progressively without concern for glenoid component failure. 

RESULTS

The experience to date indicates that a technically well done ream and run procedure can restore high levels of comfort and function to carefully selected patients with osteoarthritis, capsulorrhaphy arthroplathy, and posttraumatic arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients considering the ream and run procedure should understand that this technique avoids the risks and limitations associated with a polyethylene glenoid component, but that it requires strong motivation to follow through on a rehabilitation course that may require many months. The outcome of this procedure depends on the body's regeneration of a new surface for the glenoid and requires rigorous adherence to a daily exercise program. This paper explains in detail the principal factors in patient selection and the key technical elements of the procedure. Clinical examples and outcomes are demonstrated.