The effect of subscapularis management technique on outcomes and complication rates following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundRepair of the subscapularis tendon following rTSA has been shown to decrease postoperative dislocations in some studies, but the effect of repair on other outcomes has not been defined. We proposed to assess differences in postoperative pain, function, range of motion, strength, complications, and reoperations after three types of management of the subscapularis tendon—primary repair (tendon-to-tendon), transosseous repair, and no repair—at a minimum of two years of follow-up after rTSA.MethodsReview of an institutional database identified patients with primary rTSA treated by a single surgeon using the same operative technique and implant (medial glenoid with lateral humeral implant) except for subscapularis repair (tendon-to-tendon repair, transosseous repair, no repair). Patients with revision rTSA, anatomic TSA, hemiarthroplasty, or surgery for proximal humeral fracture, nonunion, or malunion were excluded.ResultsOf 210 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 82 (39%) had primary tendon repair of the subscapularis (PTR), 88 (41.9%) had transosseous repair (TOR), and 40 (19%) did not have the subscapularis repaired (NR). Of all demographics and comorbidities measured, the only significant differences among treatments groups were in gender (54.9% female in PTR, 43.2% in TOR, and 72.5% in NR, p = 0.008) and subscapularis status before surgery (89% intact in PTR, 80.7% in TOR, and 38.5% in NR, p < 0.001). There were significantly more patients in the NR group whose operative indication was massive rotator cuff tear compared to the TO and PR groups. Similarly, there were significantly more patients whose operative indication was primary osteoarthritis in the TR group over the PR group, and the PR group over the NR group. There were no significant differences in complication rates (11% PTR, 13.6% TOR, 15% NR, p = 0.79) or reoperation rates (PTR 2.4%, TOR 2.3%, NR 5.0%, p = 0.66) or associations between subscapularis management technique and reoperation or complication rates.ConclusionSubscapularis management technique in rTSA did not affect complication or reoperation rates, and the procedure led to improvements in pain, function, range of motion, and strength in all three treatment groups. Repair of the subscapularis, regardless of technique, led to greater improvements in pain compared to no repair, although this may be partially attributable to better preoperative subscapularis status in the repair groups. Both repair techniques led to equal improvements in all measured outcomes, with the exception of primary tendon repair producing more improvement in ER strength compared to transosseous repair.Level of evidenceLevel III; Case Control Study     

Failure rates and outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty are equivalent irrespective of subscapularis repair technique

BackgroundSubscapularis management during total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains an area of debate. Although subscapularis-sparing techniques exist, most TSAs are performed through a deltopectoral interval with the subscapularis released and repaired. A paucity of literature exists comparing transosseous repair (TOR) with direct primary tendon repair (PTR) of a subscapularis tenotomy. Our study compared outcomes after TOR and PTR in patients undergoing anatomic TSA.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent primary anatomic TSA through a deltopectoral approach with subscapularis tenotomy using either PTR or TOR for repair. Outcome measures included subscapularis failure rates, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) survey scores, internal rotation range of motion and strength, complications, and reoperation rates at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years.ResultsInstitutional database query identified 306 patients who had primary anatomic TSA, 114 of whom had PTR and 192 TOR. Postoperative ASES and VAS scores were significantly improved at all time points in both groups compared with the preoperative scores (P < .001). Average active internal rotation was significantly improved at all time points in the PTR group (P < .001). In the TOR group, significant improvement was noted at 1 and 2 years but not at 3 months. Overall, subscapularis failure occurred in 13 patients, and complications that did not require surgery were noted in 28 patients. Reoperation was performed in 18 patients. However, subscapularis failures, complications not requiring surgery, and reoperations were not significantly different between the two groups. The difference in average internal rotation range of motion between the TOR and PTR groups was statistically significant at 3 months (P = .015) but not at 1 year (P = .265), although the difference trended toward significance again at the 2-year mark (P = .080). No significant differences were noted between the two groups in internal rotation strength, VAS scores, and ASES averages.ConclusionBoth transosseous and primary soft-tissue repair techniques after subscapularis tenotomy result in good outcomes after primary anatomic TSA. No differences were found between groups regarding clinical subscapularis failure rate, internal rotation range of motion or strength, VAS, or ASES scores at 2-year follow-up.Level of evidenceLevel III, Retrospective Comparative Study     

Subscapularis integrity and patient-reported outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty: does time to mobilization matter?

BackgroundMaintaining subscapularis integrity may be a significant variable in optimizing patient outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty. Multiple factors have been reported in orthopedic literature as a contributor to subscapularis failure. Most surgeons follow a protocol that calls for some period of immobilization. However, time of mobilization and rehabilitation is still a point of discussion, as no consensus currently exists. Our study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of patients who followed a traditional immobilization protocol to those who underwent rapid mobilization.MethodsA single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted between December 2015 and May 2018. Patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized using a 1:1 random allocation into 2 groups: prolonged immobilization for 4 weeks or rapid mobilization at 1 week. All cases were performed by a single, fellowship-trained shoulder and elbow surgeon with standard pre- and intra-operative protocols. Metallic markers were used to mark the musculotendinous junction of the subscapularis tendon. Postoperatively, patients were notified of their randomization assignment and provided detailed instructions on when to begin mobilization. Patient-reported outcome measures, physical examination, and radiologic assessments were evaluated preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 32 months postoperatively. Our primary outcome was clinical and radiographic subscapularis failure.ResultsForty-three patients consented with 40 procedures randomized to the 2 cohorts. Among these 40 procedures, there were up to 235 follow-up visits over 32 months. Of the 40 procedures, 2 (5.0%) were complicated with a postoperative tear, both associated with a weak belly test and radiographically confirmed with medialization of the surrogate markers on plain radiographs. No statistically significant difference was seen between the prolonged immobilization and rapid mobilization groups for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score, Constant Shoulder Score, Visual Analog Scale Score, Simple Shoulder Test Score, and Short-Form Surveys at any follow-up point (all P > .05). On evaluating active forward flexion and external rotation, no statistically significant difference was also appreciated between the 2 groups at any time point (all P > .05).DiscussionOur randomized control trial compared currently accepted protocols to immobilize for 4 weeks following total shoulder arthroplasty using a peel to early mobilization at 1 week and found no statistical and clinical difference in outcomes. However, further study is necessary before a consensus recommendation can be made.     

The impact of subscapularis integrity on functional outcome in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty utilizing a 135˚ stem

BackgroundReverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) predictably restores overhead function and provides pain relief in patients with glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. Implant design with an anatomic inclination angle of 135˚ may provide an advantage in the healing rates of subscapularis tendon (SST) repairs. The purpose of this study was to use ultrasound to evaluate the subscapularis repair healing rate, and secondarily, to compare outcomes between healed and non-healed SSTs, in patients undergoing RSA with a 135˚ inclination angle.MethodsA prospectively collected, multicenter shoulder arthroplasty registry was queried to identify patients undergoing RSA with a 135˚ inclination stem with a minimum of 1 year follow-up. Ultrasound analysis was performed at final follow-up to assess subscapularis integrity. Exclusion criteria included RSA for fracture, fracture sequelae or failed prior arthroplasty. Outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS), Single Anatomic Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Constant scores. Additionally, subscapularis functional assessments included range of motion, belly-press and shirt-tuck tests. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, Chi-square, and student t-tests with SPSS. Results were considered significant at P < .05.ResultsSeventy-eight patients meeting the inclusion criteria were identified from the registry, however, only seventy-five patients had ultrasound and healing data. The subscapularis was repaired in 60 patients and healing via ultrasound was noted in 56.7% (34/60). In most cases, a subscapularis peel was performed, with lesser tuberosity osteotomy performed in 9.38% of cases. Patients whose subscapularis was repaired were found to be older (72.2 vs. 64.9, P < .001) and the majority of patients with an unrepaired subscapularis were male (13/15, 86.7% unrepaired vs. 27/60, 45.0% repaired). Both healed and non-healed patient cohorts showed statistical improvement in all pain and functional outcome scores from their baselines. However, there were no significant differences in outcome scores between healed and non-healed SST. With regards to SST repair, only overall WOOS (Δ+15.62, P = .049) and physical component of the WOOS score (Δ+15.97, P = .040) were higher in patients with nonrepaired SST. There was no correlation between the ability to perform a belly-press or shirt-tuck test and subscapularis repair or evidence of radiographic healing. Patients who did not have their subscapularis repaired demonstrated greater passive external rotation at the side from 31° to 51° (P = .044). A significant increase in passive forward flexion was noted in patients with healed subscapularis from 117° to 135° (P = .042). There was no statistical difference in active range of motion between either the repaired/nonrepaired or healed/non-healed cohorts.ConclusionOur study demonstrates a healing rate of 57% following repair in patients undergoing RSA with a 135˚ angle. Standardized outcome measures overall demonstrated no difference between patients with a healed subscapularis compared to those with a non-healed or unrepaired subscapularis.Level of EvidenceIV, case series, treatment study.     

Rotator cuff strength following open subscapularis tendon repair

The purpose of this study was to evaluate supraspinatus and subscapularis strength following repair of either isolated or anterosuperior subscapularis tears associated with a supraspinatus tear. Open subscapularis repairs were done in 24 patients, 12 isolated and 12 anterosuperior. At an average follow-up of 40 months, UCLA, ASES, and Constant scores were recorded. Subscapularis and supraspinatus strengths were tested using a spring gauge. Ultrasound scanning was performed in 20 patients. Average scores were 27 UCLA, 77 ASES and 90 relative Constant. Subscapularis strength was 92% of the non-operated shoulder. Supraspinatus strength was 90%. Statistical analysis showed a significant decrease in supraspinatus strength in the anterosuperior group. No other significant differences were noted. Ultrasound scanning showed an intact subscapularis tendon in all. Full thickness supraspinatus tears were found in 5 and partial thickness in 1. Not the subscapularis, but the supraspinatus determines the outcome of anterosuperior repairs, with more re-tears and decreased strength.     

Can the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provide as good of an outcome as an anatomic shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is an excellent treatment option for a variety of shoulder pathologies. Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains an excellent treatment for patients with glenohumeral arthritis and a functioning rotator cuff. RTSA has become a much more common procedure than TSA in recent times. It is currently unclear if patients who have a good outcome following TSA outperform patients who have a good outcome following RTSA. The purpose of this study was to compare the 2-year outcomes of patients with good outcomes, defined as having forward flexion of >130° and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of >70, following TSA and RTSA.MethodsAll patients who underwent TSA or RTSA between 2015 and 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up were eligible for inclusion. Patients were included if their postoperative forward flexion was >130° and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was >70. Patients were excluded if they were a revision surgery, were treated with an arthroplasty for fracture, or had a latissimus transfer. Demographic variables were analyzed between groups. Range of motion (ROM), strength, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were compared between groups.ResultsOverall, 318 TSAs were included; 155 (49%) met the criteria for a “good” outcome. Among RTSAs, 428 were included; 154 (36%) met the criteria for a “good” outcome. When comparing PROs between groups, RTSA patients had worse preoperative and postoperative PRO scores (all P < .05). When comparing preoperative physical examination findings, RTSA patients had worse ROM and strength (all P < .05) and worse Constant Power scores and Constant scores (P < .001 in both cases). Postoperatively, RTSA patients had worse ROM and strength (all P < .05) and worse Constant scores (P = .028). The magnitude of change (delta) from preoperative to postoperative function was often greater following RTSA than TSA. There were no significant differences in whether expectations were met or exceeded between RTSA and TSA patients in regards to pain control (99% vs. 98%; P = .177), motion and strength (93% vs. 96%; P = .559), ability to return to activities of daily living (98% vs. 99%; P = .333), or return to sporting activities (95% vs. 91%; P = .268).ConclusionPatients do well following both TSA and RTSA. In patients who have a good outcome following either TSA or RTSA, those patients who underwent TSA have superior outcomes to patients following RTSA. However, the change in outcome scores from pre- to post-surgery is often more significant with RTSA, as they often start out with worse motion and clinical scores.     

Arthroscopic repair of anterosuperior (supraspinatus/subscapularis) rotator cuff tears

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of anterosuperior rotator cuff tears. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between preoperative scores and postoperative scores, was tested statistically. Type of Study: A cohort study. Methods: The preoperative and postoperative status of patients with anterosuperior rotator cuff tears was analyzed using the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Society Index (ASES Index), a visual analog pain scale (VAS), a single question of percent function compared with the opposite unaffected extremity, and a single question reflecting satisfaction, “would you undergo the surgery and the postoperative rehabilitation to achieve the result you have today.” There were also 2 groups compared: 1 that had a “tac” used for repair of the subscapularis tendon, and the other that used a “tie” technique for subscapularis repair. All supraspinatus tendon tears were complete and were repaired using a soft-tissue fixation device. Results: There was a statistically significant difference for all outcome measures except for the objective Constant score of the tie group, P = .58. Follow-up was 2 to 4 years. There were no differences based on sex or type of fixation device used for repair of the subscapularis tendon. There were no reruptures, clinically. Conclusions: The arthroscopic repair of anterosuperior rotator cuff tears provides reliable expectation for improvement in function, decreases in pain, decreases in clinical findings of biceps subluxation and inflammation, improvement in shoulder scores, and the improvement of clinical findings of subscapularis insufficiency.     

Failed prior rotator cuff repair is associated with worse clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to determine the comparative risk profile and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) without failed prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) compared with RTSA for CTA with prior RCR.MethodsFrom 2006 to 2014, all patients who underwent RTSA by two surgeons after failed RCR with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Patients who underwent RTSA with failed prior RCR were matched in a 1:1 ratio to patients undergoing primary RTSA, while controlling for demographic factors, prosthesis design, and surgeon. Postoperative active forward elevation and active external rotation were recorded. Outcome measures included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and Simple Shoulder Test. Perioperative complications and rates of secondary reoperation were noted, and comparative multivariate analysis was performed.ResultsOf 262 patients, 192 (73.3%) were available at minimum 2-year follow-up. The prior RCR group had a significantly higher complication rate (17.4%, n = 15) than the primary RTSA group (3.8%, n = 4) (P = .001), although no significant difference in periprosthetic infection (P = .469) or secondary revision rate (P = .136) was observed. At mean 36.3 ± 26.1-month follow-up, the prior RCR group had statistically worse American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (P < .001), VAS (P = .001), Simple Shoulder Test (P < .001), and active forward elevation (P = .006). Patients with multiple failed RCR attempts (n = 38) before RTSA demonstrated no significant differences versus isolated failed RCR (n = 48; P > .05).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that patients with RTSA after prior failed RCR have significantly worse patient-reported outcomes and greater rate of perioperative complications than patients undergoing primary RTSA for CTA.     

The time of postoperative corticosteroid injection can be individualized after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

BackgroundIntra-articular corticosteroid injection is an effective treatment for pain and to improve the range of motion (ROM) of the shoulder joint. However, consideration of when it would be effective to inject corticosteroids after rotator cuff repair is more limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of corticosteroids injection given at 4 and 8 weeks after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.MethodsBetween December 2016 and January 2018, 42 patients who underwent arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair were enrolled. Nineteen patients received 40 mg of triamcinolone injection 4 weeks after surgery (group 1), while 23 patients received the same injection 8 weeks after surgery (group 2). Clinical outcome was evaluated using ROM, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, Korean Shoulder score, and a visual analog scale (VAS) score before surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Tendon integrity was assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and sonography at 12 months after surgery.ResultsSignificant improvements in pain and functional scores were observed at the last follow-up in both groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS pain score between the two groups at any time point after surgery (p > 0.05). Functional scores and ROM in all directions also showed no statistical difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). Retears of the repaired tendon, assessed at 12 months postoperatively, were observed in two patients from group 1 (10.5%) and two patients from group 2 (8.7%), thus indicating no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionSince there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes and tendon integrity, postoperative corticosteroid injection can be individualized according to the patient for 4–8 weeks after the rotator cuff repair.     

Use of machine learning to assess the predictive value of 3 commonly used clinical measures to quantify outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundAn important psychometric parameter of validity that is rarely assessed is predictive value. In this study we utilize machine learning to analyze the predictive value of 3 commonly used clinical measures to assess 2-year outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).MethodsXGBoost was used to analyze data from 2790 TSA patients and create predictive algorithms for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) scores and also quantify the most meaningful predictive features utilized by these measures and for all questions comprising each measure to rank and compare their value to predict 2-year outcomes after TSA.ResultsOur results demonstrate that the ASES, Constant, and UCLA measures rarely considered the most-predictive features relevant to 2-year TSA outcomes and that each outcome measure was composed of questions with different distributions of predictive value. Specifically, the questions composing the UCLA score were of greater predictive value than the Constant questions, and the questions composing the Constant score were of greater predictive value than the ASES questions. We also found the preoperative Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score to be of greater predictive value than the preoperative ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores. Finally, we identified the types of preoperative input questions that were most-predictive (subjective self-assessments of pain and objective measurements of active range of motion and strength) and also those that were least-predictive of 2-year TSA outcomes (subjective task-specific activities of daily living questions).DiscussionMachine learning can quantify the predictive value of the ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores after TSA. Future work should utilize this and related techniques to construct a more efficient and effective clinical outcome measure that incorporates subjective and objective input questions to better account for the preoperative factors that influence postoperative outcomes after TSA.Level of EvidenceLevel III; Retrospective Comparative Study     

Stabilization of the long head of the biceps tendon in the context of early repair of traumatic subscapularis tendon tears

BACKGROUND: Tears of the subscapularis tendon commonly are associated with instability of the long head of the biceps tendon. Standard surgical treatment includes tenodesis or tenotomy of the biceps tendon. However, chronic discomfort from spasms and cosmetic disadvantages have been reported following both procedures, while the potential for functional impairments remains controversial. We investigated the outcome of stabilization of the long head of the biceps tendon in the context of early repair of traumatic tears of the subscapularis tendon. METHODS: We performed stabilization of an unstable, structurally intact long head of the biceps tendon in twenty-one patients in the acute phase after a traumatic tear of the subscapularis tendon. The average period from the injury to the surgery was 6.2 weeks. Open tendon stabilization and subscapularis reconstruction were performed with transosseous sutures. The follow-up consisted of clinical examination (with determination of the absolute, age and gender-related, and individual relative Constant scores; clinical evaluation of the long head of the biceps; and subjective determination of shoulder function) and dynamic ultrasound examination. RESULTS: The average follow-up period was 28.4 months. The mean absolute Constant score increased from 26.3 points preoperatively to 79.3 points postoperatively (p < 0.01). The mean age and gender-related Constant score improved from 28.0% to 87.0% (p < 0.01). Seven patients showed clinical symptoms consistent with mild biceps tendinopathy. Using dynamic ultrasound examination, we found two cases of recurrent instability (medial subluxation) of the long head of the biceps tendon. Secondary rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon occurred in one patient, twenty-six months after the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The functional outcomes of stabilization of the long head of the biceps tendon in the context of early repair of a traumatic tear of the subscapularis tendon were comparable with the results of tenodesis or tenotomy reported in previous studies. The cosmetic results were superior, and chronic discomfort from spasms was not observed. Stabilization of the tendon of the long head of the biceps can be recommended as a treatment option for selected patients and should be discussed as an alternative to tenodesis or tenotomy, particularly in a young patient.     

Rupture of the subscapularis tendon after shoulder arthroplasty: diagnosis, treatment, and outcome

The purpose of this study was to document the diagnosis, surgical treatment, and functional outcome in patients with subscapularis ruptures after shoulder arthroplasty. Prospective objective and subjective data were collected on 7 patients with symptomatic rupture of the subscapularis tendon after shoulder arthroplasty. Presenting signs and symptoms included pain, weakness in internal rotation, increased external rotation, and anterior instability. All patients were treated with surgical repair of the ruptured tendon. Four required repair augmentation with a transfer of the pectoralis major tendon. After subscapularis repair and pectoralis transfer, 2 patients continued to have anterior instability and required an additional operation to address the instability. At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (range, 18-55 months), the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score in this study group was 63.2. The mean patient satisfaction rating, on a 10-point scale, was 6.2. Factors associated with post-arthroplasty subscapularis ruptures included subscapularis lengthening techniques used to address internal rotation contracture and previous surgery that violated the subscapularis tendon. Symptomatic subscapularis rupture after shoulder arthroplasty introduces the need for additional surgery and a period of protected or delayed rehabilitation after arthroplasty. Although symptoms were adequately addressed with appropriate surgical treatment, decreased functional outcomes were observed.     

Can capsular plication compensate the lack of one suture anchor in an arthroscopic three suture anchor Bankart repair? A comparative study

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the complication rates and clinical results of labral repair with two suture anchors and capsular plication, and labral repair with three suture anchor fixation in artroscopic Bankart surgery.MethodsSixty-nine patients (60 males, 9 females; mean age: 28.2 ± 7.8 years (range: 16–50)) who had undergone arthroscopic repair of a labral Bankart lesion were evaluated. Group A underwent an arthroscopic Bankart repair with three knotless suture anchors, while group B underwent a modified arthroscopic Bankart repair with two knotless suture anchors and an additional capsular plication procedure. The mean follow-up was 52.5 months. Constant Shoulder Score (CSS), Rowe Score (RS), modified UCLA Shoulder Score (mUSS) and range of motion (ROM) were used as outcome measures.ResultsIn both groups, a significant improvement was detected in functional outcomes at postoperative last follow-up compared to the preoperative period. No statistically significant difference was found (p > 0.05) in clinical scores (CSS; Group A: 89.7, Group B: 80.2) (RS; Group A: 88.2, Group B: 80.2) (mUSS; Group A: 26.3, Group B: 25.7) external rotation loss (At neutral; Group A: 4.5°, Group B: 5.2°. At abduction; Group A: 4.3°, Group B: 5.7°) and recurrence rates (Group A: 13.3%, Group B: 20.8%). Although the difference was not statistically significant, the recurrence rate was higher in group B (20.8%), compared to group A (13.3%), despite the shorter average follow-up time of group B (p = 0.417).ConclusionsArthroscopic repair of labral Bankart lesions with both techniques showed good functional outcomes and stability at the latest follow-up. Higher recurrence rate despite the shorter average follow-up of group B suggests that two anchor usage might not be sufficient for Bankart repair in terms of better stability and less recurrence risk.Level of evidenceLevel III, Therapeutic Study.     

Impact of humeral component retroversion on clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with humeral lateralization

BackgroundThe effect of humeral component retroversion on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is unclear. Intended retroversion intraoperatively may not produce the same retroversion of the humeral component postoperatively.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted on consecutive patients who received RTSA using a single product with humeral lateralization at a targeted 25° of humeral retroversion from 2014 to 2019 with minimum 1-year clinical follow-up and postoperative computed tomography (CT). Forty-five patients were enrolled, and humeral component retroversion was measured three-dimensionally. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted between humeral retroversion and postoperative isometric strength and range of motion in forward flexion (FF), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR). Group comparison between a ≤25° group and a >25° group was conducted as sub-analysis to verify possible confounders.ResultsThe actual humeral retroversion was 21.7 ± 11.9°, and it was significantly correlated with postoperative FF [Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) = 0.464, P= .003], ER (PCC = 0.481, P = .002), and IR (PCC = 0.471, P = .002) strengths. Multivariable regression analysis showed that humeral retroversion was significantly associated with postoperative FF (Exp(B) = 0.492, P = .003), ER (Exp(B) = 0.336, P = .002), and IR (Exp(B) = 0.578, P = .002) strengths. Two groups in sub-analysis showed no significant difference in pre- or intraoperative variables other than humeral component retroversion. Some functional outcome scores including the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and activity scales were significantly higher in the >25° group.ConclusionDiscrepancies between intraoperatively targeted humeral retroversion angle and actual postoperative angle after RTSA should be considered by operators and researchers. Increased humeral component retroversion than recommendation can yield acceptable outcomes and might be associated with higher postoperative strength, and possibly with better functional outcome after RTSA with humeral lateralization.Level of evidenceLevel III; Retrospective Comparative Study     

Effect of subscapularis repair in patients with an intact rotator cuff undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is increasing in popularity worldwide. There remains considerable debate as to whether to repair subscapularis or not following the procedure. Previous research into all indications demonstrates similar outcomes regardless of subscapularis (SSC) repair when using a medial glenoid/lateral humeral implant. The purpose of this study is to assess the effects of SSC repair on postoperative shoulder function and patient reported outcomes scores only in patients with an intact rotator cuff undergoing rTSA.MethodsPatients who underwent a primary rTSA for osteoarthritis with a minimum of 2 years follow-up were identified from an international shoulder registry. Patients with rotator cuff tears, cuff arthropathy, or post-traumatic arthritis were excluded. They were then divided into age and gender matched groups based on whether they had SSC repaired or not; 436 patients were analyzed in total, with 218 in each group. Numerous outcome measures between groups were compared, including active shoulder range of motion, complication rates, and 7 different patient reported shoulder outcome scores, using MCID (Minimal Clinically Important Differences), SCB (Substantial clinical benefit), and a 2 tailed paired T-Test.ResultsIn both groups, improvement in average shoulder movement and patient reported shoulder scores exceeded the threshold of SCB with 93% reporting their symptoms were better or much better in both groups. Those who had SSC repaired demonstrated a statistically significantly better mean active forward flexion (144° vs. 138°, P= .021) and mean internal rotation score (4.8 vs. 4.0, P= <.05), however these differences did not exceed the MCID where available. With regard to patient reported scores, those who had SSC repaired demonstrated a statistically significantly better mean Constant score (71 vs. 68, P= .05) and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart Score (78 vs. 75, P= <.05), however these differences did not exceed the MCID for either score (5.3 and 6.1 respectively). There was no difference in complication rates between groups, including dislocation.ConclusionThis study demonstrates excellent results following rTSA with a medial glenoid/lateral humeral implant design regardless of whether the SSC was repaired or not. For the majority of patient reported scores and shoulder movements there was no significant difference between SSC repaired and nonrepaired groups, and where statistically significant differences were noted, the difference did not exceed the MCID in any measure.Level of EvidenceLevel III; Retrospective Comparative Study     

Arthroscopic subscapularis tendon repair: Technique and preliminary results

Purpose: Our objective was to evaluate the preliminary results of 25 consecutive arthroscopic subscapularis tendon repairs. Type of Study: Case series. Methods: All 25 shoulders had longer than 3 months follow-up, with an average of 10.7 months (range, 3 to 48 months). The average age was 60.7 years (range, 41 to 78 years). The average time from onset of symptoms to surgery was 18.9 months (range, 1 to 72 months). The shoulders were evaluated using a modified UCLA score, Napoleon test, lift-off test, radiographs, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Indications for surgery included clinical and/or MRI evidence of a rotator cuff tear. An arthroscopic suture anchor technique devised by the senior author (S.S.B.) was used for repair. Results: UCLA scores increased from a preoperative average of 10.7 to a postoperative average of 30.5 (P <.0001). By UCLA criteria, excellent and good results were obtained in 92% of patients, with 1 fair and 1 poor result. Forward flexion increased from an average 96.3° preoperatively to an average 146.1° postoperatively (P =.0016). Eight of 9 patients with a positive Napoleon test had complete tears of the subscapularis. All 7 patients with a negative Napoleon test had a tear of the upper half only. The lift-off test could not be performed reliably due to pain or restricted motion in 19 of the 25 patients. Eight patients had isolated tears of the subscapularis. The remaining 17 patients had associated rotator cuff tears with an average total tear size of 5 × 8 cm. Ten patients had proximal migration of the humerus preoperatively. Eight of these 10 patients had durable reversal of proximal humeral migration following surgery. These 8 patients improved their overhead function from a preoperative “shoulder shrug” with attempted elevation of the arm to functional overhead use of the arm postoperatively. Conclusions: (1) The senior author has been able to consistently perform arthroscopic repair of torn subscapularis tendons, with good and excellent results, in 92% of patients. (2) The Napoleon test is useful in predicting not only the presence of a subscapularis tear, but also its general size. (3) Combined tears of the subscapularis, supraspinatus, and infraspinatus tendons are frequently associated with proximal humeral migration and loss of overhead function. Arthroscopic repair of these massive tears can produce durable reversal of proximal humeral migration and restoration of overhead function.Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, Vol 18, No 5 (May-June), 2002: pp 454–463     

Open reduction internal fixation vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of acute displaced proximal humerus fractures

BackgroundProximal humerus fractures are a frequent fragility fracture in the aging population and represent a challenge to the orthopedic surgeon. Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of these fractures is viable but technically challenging and associated with a high complication rate. Recently, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) with tuberosity repair has become a popular and successful option for treating these fractures. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of ORIF and RTSA for treatment of proximal humerus fractures.MethodsAn age-matched group of 50 patients treated with ORIF (25) and RTSA (25) were assessed at an average follow-up of 4.4 years. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and Simple Shoulder Test (SST), radiographs, range of motion, and complications were evaluated between the two groups.ResultsThe reoperation rate and major complications were higher in the ORIF group compared to RTSA. No major complications were observed in the RTSA group. Forward flexion in the RTSA patients (143.2 ± 23.1) was shown to be significantly greater than ORIF patients (121.4 ± 35.1) (p= 0.0125) but no significant differences were observed for shoulder external rotation or internal rotation. There was no difference in ASES and SST scores between groups.ConclusionThe current study demonstrates good clinical outcomes for both RTSA and ORIF. However, reoperation rate was higher with ORIF with locked plating compared to RTSA for fracture with tuberosity repair in an age matched population. RTSA may be a better treatment option than ORIF for 3- and 4-part fractures in patients older than 65.Level of evidenceLevel III     

Displaced proximal humerus fractures in older patients: reverse total shoulder arthroplasty or nonoperative treatment?

BackgroundReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in older patients has been shown to be an effective treatment modality. Recent studies have questioned the superiority of RTSA over nonoperative treatment. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes after RTSA and nonoperative treatment of PHF.MethodsA retrospective case-matched review of 72 displaced PHFs who underwent either RTSA or nonoperative treatment between August 2016 and August 2019 was conducted. Nine RTSA and 6 nonoperative patients were excluded. Thirty-seven RTSAs in 36 patients (1 bilateral) were compared to twenty patients who met operative criteria for RTSA but did not elect to undergo surgery.ResultsMean VAS pain scores decreased significantly in both groups at the final follow-up. Although there was no statistically significant difference in VAS scores at the time of most-recent follow-up between the two cohorts (1.5 RTSA vs. 1.9 nonop, P = .49), patients who underwent RTSA had a more rapid improvement in pain than nonoperative patients. RTSA patients had significantly lower VAS scores at 2 weeks (2.7 ± 3.1 vs. 5.6 ± 3.2, P = .03), 6 weeks (1.7 ± 2.8 vs. 4.1 ± 3.4, P = .02), and 3 months (1.6 ± 2.8 vs. 3.7 ± 3.2, P = .04) postoperatively. RTSA patients also had better forward flexion (125.4 ± 26.4° vs. 92.1 ± 35.1°, P = 0.001) and abduction (87.1 ± 11.6° vs. 75 ± 13.4°, P = .002) than nonoperative patients at the final follow-up (minimum 6 months). There was a statistically significant difference in mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores after RTSA compared with nonoperative patients at the time of final follow-up for acute RTSA and for 3- and 4-part fracture subgroups. Eight patients (21.6%) experienced a complication after RTSA, of which 3 required revision surgery.Discussion/ConclusionOlder patients with displaced PHF have significant improvement in pain and function after both RTSA and nonoperative treatment although RTSA does come with a greater risk of complications. Patients who undergo RTSA have a greater increase in overhead motion and abduction and experience a more rapid improvement in pain, with significantly lower pain scores in the early postoperative period.     

Clinical results of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in diabetic and non-diabetic patients

BackgroundAlthough the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) have been reported, few studies have focused on diabetic patients. We investigated and compared the clinical results of ARCR in patients with and without diabetes.MethodsThis retrospective study involved 195 consecutive patients who underwent ARCR from 2015 to 2018 in our hospital. Twenty-seven and 168 shoulders were assigned to diabetes and non-diabetes groups, respectively. Diabetic patients with poor control were preoperatively hospitalized for perioperative diabetic control. We evaluated range of motion (ROM), Japanese Orthopaedic Association shoulder (JOA) score, Constant Shoulder Score, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score preoperatively and at 6 months and 1 year post-ARCR. Rates of rotator cuff retear 1 year post-ARCR and preoperative and postoperative stiff shoulder were also evaluated. We compared the results between groups and analyzed them statistically. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsPreoperative ROM, JOA score, Constant Shoulder Score and UCLA scores showed significant improvement at post-ARCR in both groups (p < 0.05). On comparing the groups, although preoperative JOA score and Constant Shoulder Score were significantly lower in diabetes group than in non-diabetes group (diabetic/non-diabetic group; 60.0/65.3 for JOA score; p = 0.003, 59.7/64.2 for Constant Shoulder Score; p = 0.003), there was no significant difference postoperatively (6 months post-ARCR; 88.0/89.7 for JOA score; p = 0.783, 88.1/88.6 for Constant Shoulder Score; p = 0.597, 1 year post-ARCR; 96.7/95.4 for JOA score; p = 0.238, 96.6/95.4 for Constant Shoulder Score; p = 0.248). Furthermore, preoperative and postoperative stiff shoulder and retear rates were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.152, p = 0.344, p = 0.347, and p = 0.563, respectively).ConclusionDiabetic patients showed comparable clinical results with non-diabetic patients post-ARCR. Perioperative diabetic control may be recommended for preoperatively uncontrolled diabetic patients.     

Arthroscopic repair of isolated subscapularis tears: A prospective cohort with 2- to 4-year follow-up

Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the arthroscopic repair of isolated subscapularis tears. Additionally, this study explores details of the clinical diagnosis, magnetic resonance arthrography findings, and surgical repair techniques. Type of Study: A prospective cohort. Methods: The preoperative and postoperative status of patients with isolated subscapularis tears were analyzed using the Constant Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Society Index (ASES Index), a visual analog pain scale (VAS), a single question of percent function compared with the opposite unaffected extremity, and a single question reflecting satisfaction: “Would you undergo the surgery and the postoperative rehabilitation to achieve the result you have today.” Results: There was a statistically significant difference for all outcome measures from preoperative to postoperative follow-up at 2 to 4 years, except for the objective Constant Score. There were no differences based on gender. Preoperative magnetic resonance arthrography aids in the confirmation of the subscapularis tear. Conclusions: The arthroscopic repair of the isolated subscapularis tear provides for reliable expectations of improvement in function, particularly the use of the arm behind the back, decreases in pain, decreases in biceps subluxation or instability, and the return of active normal internal rotation. Subjectively, magnetic resonance arthrography is better than magnetic resonance imaging for visualizing the subscapularis tear.Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, Vol 19, No 2 (February), 2003: pp 131–143