Outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty by year of index procedure: are we getting better?

Anatomic or reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff intact glenohumeral osteoarthritis

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis in the presence of an intact rotator cuff is a debilitating condition that often leads to surgical intervention in the form of joint arthroplasty. Historically, anatomic total shoulder replacement (ATSR) had been considered the treatment of choice. Over the past decade, however, there has been a shift in treatment patterns to the use of reverse shoulder replacement to treat this condition due to concerns of subsequent rotator cuff failure and glenoid component loosening with ATSR. With continued innovation of implants and surgical techniques, it is unclear which procedure provides the best outcomes for patients. The Reverse or Anatomical replacement for Painful Shoulder Osteoarthritis, Differences between Interventions trial aims to definitively answer this question and evaluate the cost effectiveness of both procedures.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of massive proximal humeral bone loss: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Massive proximal humeral bone loss (PHBL) poses a technical challenge during reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Surgical treatment strategies include allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstructions, endoprostheses, and other reverse shoulder arthroplasty constructs; however, there is a paucity of literature summarizing the outcomes and complications unique to this complex patient population. This study aimed to systematically review the literature to evaluate (1) patient-reported outcome measures, (2) functional outcomes, and (3) complications according to surgical treatment strategy for patients with massive PHBL who undergo primary or revision shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with significant PHBL. Methodological quality was assessed for included studies. Patient-reported outcome measures, radiographic outcomes, and postoperative functional outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Eleven studies evaluating clinical outcomes and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of PHBL comprising 277 patients were included for review. The mean age was 66 years (range, 60-79 years). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Visual Analog Scale, and range of motion were the most common outcomes collected, and patients exhibited significant improvements in mean scores postoperatively. Of the types of prostheses reported, there were 155 reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstructions, 48 proximal humeral replacement (PHR) endoprostheses, 41 RSA, 15 custom RSA, and 2 RSA with fibular strut allografts. The overall pooled complication rate was 30.1% (82/272) with revision/reoperation as the most common complication at 21% (57/272). The overall complication rate for RSA-APC reconstructions was 51% (79/155). The overall complication rate for PHR endoprostheses was 64.6% (31/48). Revision/reoperation rates were the most complication for both RSA-APC and PHR endoprostheses with rates of 20% and 31.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment by APC reconstruction is the most common surgical technique described in the setting of massive PHBL. While shoulder arthroplasty can yield acceptable results for patients with substantial PHBL, such patients are at increased risk for complications and revision surgery.

Midterm outcomes of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of studies with minimum 5-year follow-up

Background

Excellent short-term outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been reported, but longer term outcomes in the existing literature are sparse and vary widely. The purpose of this study is to systematically assess the existing literature to quantify functional outcomes and complication rates after RSA at a minimum of five years of follow-up.

Methods

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-compliant systematic literature search of the PubMed and Embase databases was undertaken. Studies reporting outcomes after primary RSA for nontrauma-related indications with a minimum of 5-year follow-up were included.

Results

Overall, 20 studies satisfied all inclusion criteria. This represented 1591 shoulders in 1556 patients (32.1% males), with a mean age of 70.2 ± 5.0 years and mean follow-up of 8.8 years, or 106.2 ± 30.1 months (60-243). At final follow-up, the mean reported Constant Murley score was 62.1 ± 5.0 (49.0-83.0). The mean adjusted Constant Murley score was 83.5 ± 12.5 (58-111.9). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81.8 ± 4.6, while the mean subjective shoulder value was 74.6 ± 6.4. Overall, 88% of patients rated their satisfaction as either good or very good. The range of active forward flexion, abduction, external, and internal rotation were respectively, 126° ± 13°, 106° ± 11°, 22° ± 11°, and 6° ± 2°. The overall rate of revision surgery was 4.9% (0%-45.5%). Regarding complications, the rate of prosthetic joint infection was 4.3% (0%-26.7%), shoulder dislocation was 3.7% (0%-20.4%), and acromial fracture was 2.0% (0%-8.8%). At final follow-up, 30.9% of shoulders had some degree of scapular notching.

Conclusion

This systematic review shows that RSA results in high satisfaction rates, good clinical outcomes, as well as modest complication and revision rates at minimum 5-year follow-up.

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Safety and short-term outcomes of anatomic vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in an ambulatory surgery center

BACKGROUND

A scarcity of literature exists comparing outcomes of outpatient anatomic (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). This study was performed to compare early outcomes between the 2 procedures in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center (ASC) and to determine if the addition of preoperative interscalene nerve block (ISNB) with periarticular liposomal bupivacaine injection (PAI) in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) would improve outcomes over PAI alone.

METHODS

Medical charts of all patients undergoing outpatient primary aTSA or rTSA at 2 ASCs from 2012 to 2020 were reviewed. A total of 198 patients were ultimately identified (117 aTSA and 81 rTSA) to make up this retrospective cohort study. Patient demographics, PACU outcomes, complications, readmissions, reoperations, calls to the office, and unplanned clinic visit rates were compared between procedures. PACU outcomes were compared between those receiving ISNB with PAI and those receiving PAI alone.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing rTSA were older (61.1 vs. 55.7 years, P < .001) and more likely to have American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 3 (51.9% vs. 41.0%, P = .050) compared to patients having aTSA. No patient required an overnight stay. Time in the PACU before discharge (89.1 vs. 95.6 minutes, P = .231) and pain scores at discharge (3.0 vs. 3.0, P = .815) were similar for aTSA and rTSA, respectively. One intraoperative complication occurred in the aTSA group (posterior humeral circumflex artery injury) and 1 in the rTSA group (calcar fracture) (P = .793). Ninety-day postoperative total complication (7.7% vs. 7.4%), shoulder-related complication (6.0% vs. 6.2%), medical-related complication (1.7% vs. 1.2%), admission (0.8% vs. 2.5%), reoperation (2.6% vs. 1.2%), and unplanned clinic visit (6.0% vs. 6.1%) rates were similar between aTSA and rTSA, respectively (P ≥ .361 for all comparisons). At 1 year, there were 8 reoperations and 15 complications in the aTSA group compared with 1 reoperation and 8 complications in the rTSA group (P = .091 and P = .818, respectively). Patients who had ISNB spent less time in PACU (75 vs. 97 minutes, P < .001), had less pain at discharge (0.2 vs. 3.9, P < .001), and consumed less oral morphine equivalents in the PACU (1.2 vs. 16.6 mg, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative outcomes and complication rates were similar between the 2 groups, and all patients were successfully discharged home the day of surgery. The addition of preoperative ISNB led to more efficient discharge from the ASC with less pain in the PACU.

Can the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) be used as a stand-alone outcome instrument in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

There is no consensus as to which patient-determined shoulder outcome scores should be considered when analyzing patient outcomes for either clinical or research purposes. Use of multiple patient-determined outcomes may be redundant and cause increased responder burden. To date, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) has not been widely accepted as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure. The hypothesis of this study was that the SANE would correlate with and be equal or superior in responsiveness to other outcome measures that have been used in a stand-alone fashion in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder [WOOS], and Simple Shoulder Test [SST] scores). In addition, it was hypothesized that the SANE would be more relevant to each patient than the ASES assessment, further supporting the use of the SANE as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a database of patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty was performed, in which the SANE score was recorded simultaneously with the ASES, WOOS, and/or SST score. Correlations were determined using the Pearson coefficient. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether correlations differed in (1) preoperative outcome and (2) postoperative outcome determinations. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the standardized response mean and the effect size of all scores. The relevance of the SANE and ASES assessments was examined using the scores of 150 consecutive patients to determine the number of questions on each assessment that were not answered.

RESULTS

Correlation was excellent for the SANE score and the ASES score (n = 1447, r = 0.82, P < .0001), WOOS score (n = 1514, r = 0.83, P < .0001), and SST score (n = 1095, r = 0.81, P < .0001). The correlation of preoperative scores was moderate and that of postoperative scores was strong-moderate when the SANE score was compared with all 3 other scores. All scores were highly responsive, with standardized response mean values of 2.2 for the SANE score, 2.3 for the ASES score, 1.4 for the WOOS score, and 1.6 for the SST score. The effect size of the SANE score was 2.9; ASES score, 2.9; WOOS score, 2.9; and SST score, 2.3. One hundred percent of the SANE questions were answered completely compared with 61% of the ASES questions (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty, the SANE score highly correlated with the WOOS, ASES, and SST scores, which have been used as stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measures. The SANE score may provide the same information as the WOOS, ASES, and SST score regarding outcomes with a significant reduction in responder burden. It is logical that the SANE can be used as a stand-alone instrument for patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty.