Prior surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures is associated with increased complications following subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare complication rates between patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after a prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) to those undergoing RSA as a primary treatment for PHFs, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).MethodsPatients who underwent RSA between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Mariner database. Patients were separated into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) RSA for osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear, or CTA (Control-RSA); (2) RSA as a primary treatment for PHF (PHF-RSA); and (3) RSA for patients with prior ORIF of PHFs (ORIF-RSA). Ninety-day medical and 2-year postoperative surgical complications were identified. In addition, patients in the PHF-RSA group were subdivided into those undergoing RSA for PHF within 3 months of the fracture (acute) vs. those treated greater than 3 months from diagnosis (delayed). Multivariate regression was performed to control for differences in comorbidities and demographics.ResultsA total of 30,824 patients underwent primary RSA for arthritis or CTA, 5389 patients underwent RSA as a primary treatment for a PHF, and 361 patients underwent RSA after ORIF of a PHF. ORIF before RSA was associated with an increased risk of overall revision (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, P = .002), infection (OR 2.40, P < .001), instability (OR 2.43, P < .001), fracture (OR 3.24, P = .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.59, P = .008), and readmission (OR 2.55, P = .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. RSA as a primary treatment for PHF was associated with an increased risk of 2-year revision (OR 1.60, P < .001), infection (OR 1.51, P < .001), instability (OR 2.84, P < .001), and fracture (OR 2.54, P < .001) in addition to major medical complications (OR 2.02, P < .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.92, P < .001), 90-day emergency department visits (OR 1.26, P < .001) and 90-day readmission (OR 2.03, P < .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. The ORIF-RSA group had an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (OR 1.94, P = .002) when compared with the PHF-RSA cohort. There were no differences in medical or surgical complications in the RSA-PHF cohort between patients treated in an acute or delayed fashion.ConclusionRSA following ORIF of a PHF is associated with increased complications compared with patients undergoing RSA for nonfracture indications. Prior ORIF of a PHF is also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection after RSA compared with patients who undergo RSA as a primary operation for fracture. The timing of RSA as a primary operation for PHF does not appear to impact the rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications.     

Comparing bone resorption after anatomical shoulder arthroplasty between various surgical procedures using a single-stem model

BackgroundIn shoulder arthroplasty, bone resorption around the stem can lead to stem loosening and makes surgery difficult at the time of revision. Proximal bone resorption after reverse shoulder arthroplasty can cause instability because of a decrease of deltoid wrapping effect. As factors of the stem itself, such as stem coating, shape, length, and use of bone cement, may also affect bone resorption, a single-stem model should be used to compare bone resorptions between different pathologies and surgical procedures. However, to date, a few reports have compared these differences in detail using a single-stem model. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence and location of humeral bone resorption in a single-stem model.MethodsThe study included 100 shoulders that underwent anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or humeral head replacement (HHR) with a single uncemented humeral stem from 2008 to 2018. The patients were 31 men and 69 women. The mean age at surgery was 72.9 years (range, 41-86 years). The patients were divided into three groups: especially, 25, 61, and 14 shoulders received TSA for primary osteoarthritis without rotator cuff tears (TSA group), HHR using an anatomical head with rotator cuff repair for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (HHR group), and HHR using a CTA head without rotator cuff repair (CTA group), respectively. Patients were monitored for a mean of 56 months (range, 12-98 months). The location of bone resorption was divided into seven zones as follows: zone 1, greater tuberosity; zone 2, lateral diaphysis; zone 3, lateral diaphysis beyond the deltoid tuberosity; zone 4, tip of the stem; zone 5, medial diaphysis beyond the deltoid tuberosity; zone 6, medial diaphysis; and zone 7, calcar region. The degree of bone resorption was classified from grade 0 to 4.ResultsBone resorption of grade 3 or higher was significantly more frequent at the greater tuberosity in the HHR and CTA groups (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) than that in the TSA group. Grade 4 bone resorption was significantly more frequent in the CTA than that in the TSA and HHR groups in zone 1 (P = .016 and P = .041, respectively).ConclusionThe state of attachment of the rotator cuff to the greater tuberosity might affect bone resorption at the greater tuberosity, such as the greater tuberosity after shoulder arthroplasty. In cases of shoulder arthroplasty for arthropathy with rotator cuff tear, performing rotator cuff repair might prevent bone resorption.Level of evidenceLevel IV; Prognosis Study     

Anatomic or reverse shoulder arthroplasty: indications and decision-making

Shoulder replacement surgery has become the gold standard treatment for end-stage glenohumeral arthropathies in patients who are fit for surgical treatment. The options include anatomic total shoulder replacement, reverse total shoulder replacement and humeral hemiarthroplasty procedures. Whilst for some patients and some indications there is little debate, decision-making for older patients with osteoarthritis remains one of the hot topics in shoulder surgery. In this article we will explore the treatment options, outcomes, and controversies.     

肩袖关节侧部分撕裂的手术方式及疗效分析

目的探讨和分析关节镜下修补肩袖关节侧部分撕裂(PASTA)的手术方法，包括穿肌腱修补法和转全层修补法治疗Ellman 3级肩袖关节侧部分撕裂的疗效及优缺点。 方法本次回顾性研究，分析了2015年3月至2017年6月期间因肩袖关节侧部分撕裂于南京医科大学第一附属医院骨科行手术治疗的全部患者，肩袖撕裂程度Ellman 3级(排除Ellman 1级和2级)的病例纳入本次研究，共42例。术中关节镜下根据滑囊侧残留肩袖组织的完整性、质地和张力等情况进行评估后，按手术修补方式分为穿肌腱修补组(肌腱组)20例，和转全层修补组(全层组)22例。肌腱组患者术中保留滑囊侧残留的肩袖组织，采用穿肌腱法修补肩袖；全层组患者术中清除滑囊侧残留的肩袖组织，直接转为全层撕裂，然后进行单排固定修补肩袖。术前、术后24 h及末次随访时对所有入组患者采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)进行疼痛评估。术前及术后末次随访时采用Constant-Murley肩关节评分(CSS)及洛杉矶加利福尼亚大学评分(UCLA)对所有入组患者进行肩关节功能评估。对比分析两组患者术后疗效及并发症发生情况，计数资料(性别、优势手和肩部外伤史等)采用χ²检验，同一组内术前术后计量资料对比采用配对t检验。 结果42例患者均获得随访，随访时间6～30个月，平均(16±7)个月。两组患者术后24 h及末次随访时VAS评分均较术前明显降低，差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。平均CSS评分从术前的(49.6±5.5)、(51.3±5.2)分别增加至(84.2±7.2)、(82.6±6.5)，平均UCLA评分从术前的(18.4±3.2)、(17.7±2.3)分别增加至(32.1±2.2)、(31.2±2.2)，差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者术后24 h时疼痛评分对比存在差异，具有统计学意义(t＝2.8, P<0.05)。比较两组患者末次随访时的疼痛评分及肩关节功能评分，差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访期间所有患者均未发生严重的术后并发症。 结论对于Ellman 3级的肩袖关节侧部分撕裂，关节镜下穿肌腱修补法和转全层修补法均可获得较满意的疗效，而穿肌腱修补法可以保留滑囊侧的肩袖组织，足印区的修补更加符合解剖基础，从而达到更好的腱骨愈合。在两种手术方法均可以熟练掌握的前提下，穿肌腱修补是更为理想的手术方式。