How common is nerve injury after reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A systematic review

Outcomes of lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus latissimus dorsi transfer for external rotation deficit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications.

RESULTS

We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was -14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was -11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss. Level of evidence: IV.

Can ChatGPT answer patient questions regarding reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has seen substantial progress in its utilization, with Chat Generated Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is emerging as a popular language model. The purpose of this study was to test the accuracy and reliability of ChatGPT's responses to frequently asked questions (FAQ) pertaining to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

METHODS

The ten most common FAQs were queried from institution patient education websites. These ten questions were then input into the chatbot during a single session without additional contextual information. The responses were then critically analyzed by two orthopedic surgeons for clarity, accuracy, and the quality of evidence-based information using The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark criteria and the DISCERN score. The readability of the responses was analyzed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level.

RESULTS

In response to the ten questions, the average DISCERN score was 44 (range 38-51). Seven responses were classified as fair and three were poor. The JAMA Benchmark criteria score was 0 for all responses. Furthermore, the average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 14.35, which correlates to a college graduate reading level.

CONCLUSION

Overall, ChatGPT was able to provide fair responses to common patient questions. However, the responses were all written at a college graduate reading level and lacked reliable citations. The readability greatly limits its utility. Thus, adequate patient education should be done by orthopedic surgeons. This study underscores the need for patient education resources that are reliable, accessible, and comprehensible.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Neuropathy of the suprascapular and axillary nerves in rotator cuff arthropathy: a prospective electrodiagnostic study

PURPOSE

Prevalence of axillary (AN) and/or suprascapular (SSN) neuropathy in rotator cuff tear arthropathy (RCTA) is unknown. We aimed to prospectively evaluate for preoperative neurodiagnostic abnormalities in order to determine their prevalence, location, and influence on reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RSA for RCTA were prospectively included. An electromyography and nerve conduction study were performed pre and post-surgery. Clinical situation: VAS, Relative Constant-Murley Score (rCMS) and ROM over a minimum of two years follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty patients met the inclusion criteria; mean follow-up was 28.4 months (SD 4.4). Injuries in RCTA were present in 83.9% (77.4% in AN and 45.2% in SSN). There were no differences on preoperative VAS, ROM, and rCMS between patients with and without preoperative nerve injuries. Four acute postoperative neurological injuries were registered under chronic preoperative injuries. Six months after RSA, 69% of preoperative neuropathies had improved (82.14% chronic injuries and 77.7% disuse injuries). No differences in improvement between disuse and chronic injuries were found, but patients with preoperative neuropathy that had not improved at the postoperative electromyographic study at six months, scored worse on the VAS (1.44 vs 2.66; p .14) and rCMS (91.6 vs 89.04; p .27).

CONCLUSIONS

The frequency of axillary and suprascapular neuropathies in RCTA is much higher than expected. Most of these injuries improve after surgery, with almost complete neurophysiological recovery and little functional impact on RSA. However, those patients with preoperative neuropathies and absence of neurophysiological improvement six months after surgery have lower functional results.

Outcomes of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with Latissimus Dorsi Tendon Transfer for External Rotation Deficit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) has been purported to restore motion in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) who have preoperative combined loss of forward elevation (FE) and external rotation (ER). This systematic review summarizes the available evidence for the functional outcomes and complications after RSA with LDT. Furthermore, the effect of implant design and whether a concomitant teres major transfer (TMT) was performed were studied.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting on LDT with RSA to restore ER. Our primary outcomes were ER, FE, Constant score, and complication incidence. Secondarily, we reported postoperative internal rotation (IR) and compared ER, FE, and Constant score based on lateralized versus medialized global implant design and whether concomitant TMT was performed.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were evaluated; functional outcomes were assessed in 16 articles reporting on 258 RSAs (123 LDT, 135 LDT-TMT). Surgical indication was most commonly cuff tear arthropathy and massive irreparable cuff tear. Mean ER was -12° preoperatively and 25° postoperatively, FE was 72° preoperatively and 141° postoperatively. Mean postoperative Constant score was 65. Of 138 patients (8 studies) describing IR, only 25% reported a mean postoperative IR ≥L3. Subanalysis comparing lateralized versus medialized implants and whether TMT was concomitantly performed demonstrated no significant difference in postoperative ER, FE, and Constant score, nor preoperative to postoperative improvement in ER and FE. The complication rate was 14.1% (of 291 shoulders from 16 studies), including tear in the tendon transfer (n = 3), revision tendon repair (n = 1), nerve-related complication (n = 9), and dislocation (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

RSA with LDT is a reliable option to restore motion, with a comparable complication rate with standard RSA. The use of medialized versus lateralized implants and whether the TM was concomitantly transferred may not influence clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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