Instability failure in total shoulder arthroplasty

Glenohumeral instability is the second most common complication of shoulder arthroplasty, occurring in 4.9% of cases. Instability following arthroplasty is best classified based on its direction. The unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty can be unstable superiorly, anteriorly, inferiorly, and posteriorly. The causes and incidences of each direction are unique and individualized. The goal of this paper is to identify the cause of different types of total shoulder arthroplasty instability and discuss techniques to avoid such complications.     

Convertible implants: Simplifying the revision from anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Modern shoulder arthroplasty techniques include hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Out of all arthroplasty procedures, total shoulder arthroplasty produces more satisfactory outcomes for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthropathy (Sanchez-Sotelo, 2011 [1]). As shoulder arthroplasty procedures continue to increase in popularity, so do revision surgeries (revision TSAs and revision RSAs). Implants used in shoulder arthroplasty procedures have been transformed substantially from generation to generation, going from 1st to 4th generation implants. We propose 5th generation convertible implants that enable a more patient-specific, anatomic reconstruction with the potential to solve major issues that exist with implants from previous years.     

Outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with long-term disability claims

BackgroundStudies have shown that patients with workers' compensation claims have worse clinical outcomes after various orthopedic procedures. This study aimed to determine the influence of disability status on 2-year clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA).MethodsReview of an institutional database identified patients on disability with a minimum of 2-year follow-up and compared them to a comorbidity-matched cohort of patients without disability claims. Assessments between patients included preoperative and postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, strength, range of motion (ROM), and postoperative complications.ResultsForty-eight shoulders (45 patients) were in the ATSA cohort (24 with disability, 24 without disability) and 46 shoulders (45 patients) in the RTSA cohort (23 with disability, 23 without disability). Patients in the ATSA cohort with disability claims had higher 3-month and 2-year VAS scores (4 vs. 1, P = .003; 4 vs. 1, P = .02, respectively), lower 2-year ASES scores (58 vs. 87, P = .015), and decreased forward elevation ROM and internal rotation ROM (150 vs. 170, P = .017; 60 vs. 62.5, P = .024, respectively) compared to the cohort without disability. Significant differences in baseline values also were noted between cohorts (lower preoperative ASES: 31.7 vs. 40.5, P = .033; higher VAS: 7 vs. 6, P = .03; decreased forward elevation ROM: 90 vs. 110, P = .02). Patients in the RTSA cohort with disability claims had higher 3-month and 2-year VAS (5 vs. 1, P = .02; 3 vs. 0.5, P = .04, respectively) scores than those without claims. The baseline values for the disability cohort with RTSA demonstrated lower ASES (22.1 vs. 43.6, P = .005) and higher VAS (8 vs. 4, P = .004) scores. No significant differences were noted in improvement for the ATSA or RTSA cohorts in any parameter. The ATSA with disability cohort had a higher complication rate (45% vs. 16.6%, P = .0299). No differences were noted in complication rates in the RTSA group.ConclusionPatients who have reported disability status demonstrated worse outcomes after ATSA and RTSA compared to patients without disability claims. However, there was no significant difference in the amount of change in outcomes between groups, indicating that patients on disability can still realize significant improvements after shoulder arthroplasty.     

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for dislocation arthropathy yield comparable functional outcomes with the matched cohort

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) after prior shoulder stabilization versus matched cohorts without previous stabilization surgery. Hypotheses were as follows: (1) patients undergoing aTSA or rTSA after stabilization procedures would have worse outcomes than matched cohorts and (2) patients undergoing TSA would have better outcomes after soft-tissue stabilization procedures (aTSA_ST or rTSA_ST) than after bony stabilization procedures (aTSA_B or rTSA_B).MethodsRetrospective cohort study was performed comparing (1) 36 patients who underwent aTSA and (2) 32 patients who underwent rTSA with prior shoulder stabilization with 3-to-1 matched cohorts (based on age, gender, and follow-up length) with no prior shoulder instability or surgery. Baseline demographics, perioperative data, adverse events (AEs), radiographic outcomes, functional outcome scores, range of motion (ROM), and patient satisfaction were analyzed. Subgroup analyses compared patients who underwent aTSA_ST or rTSA_ST with patients who underwent aTSA_B or rTSA_B.ResultsThe postoperative AE rate was 8.3% and 4.6% in the aTSA group and matched cohort, respectively (P = .404), with a trend toward a significantly higher incidence of aseptic glenoid loosening in the aTSA group (8.3% vs. 1.9%, P = .067). Functional outcomes, ROM, and patient satisfaction did not differ at follow-up >4 years. In the subgroup analysis, two AEs required reoperation among 25 patients who underwent aTSA_ST versus one among 11 patients who underwent aTSA_B, all related to aseptic loosening. There was a trend toward greater functional outcomes and satisfaction among patients who underwent aTSA_ST. There was a trend toward a clinically significant difference in active abduction at final follow-up favoring aTSA_ST (128 vs. 108 degrees, P = .096).The postoperative AE rate was 6.3% and 4.2% among the rTSA group and matched cohort, respectively (P = .632). Functional outcomes, ROM, and patient satisfaction did not differ at 4-year follow-up. In the subgroup analysis, no AEs were reported among 18 patients who underwent rTSA_ST and 14 patients who underwent rTSA_B. A trend toward greater functional outcomes and patient satisfaction favored patients who underwent rTSA_B, who achieved greater improvements in ROM from baseline and greater ROM in all planes at the final follow-up.ConclusionBoth aTSA and rTSA are reliable options for the treatment of dislocation arthropathy in appropriately selected patients. aTSA and rTSA after prior shoulder stabilization procedures have nearly equal rates of AEs and yield similar clinical and functional outcomes as matched cohorts. There may be an increased risk of glenoid aseptic loosening in aTSA after prior shoulder stabilization. Functional outcomes tend to be greater for patients who underwent aTSA_ST than those for patients who underwent aTSA_B. On the contrary, rTSA may optimize postoperative function when performed for dislocation arthropathy after bony rather than soft-tissue stabilization procedures.Level of evidenceLevel III; Retrospective Cohort Design; Treatment Study     

Difference in clinical outcome between total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty used in hemiarthroplasty revision surgery

Introduction:The increase of shoulder replacements will lead to a higher revision rate of shoulder arthroplasties. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical results of revision surgery performed in our hospital, distinguish the differences in clinical outcome according to revision indication and differences between total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in hemiarthroplasty (HA) revision surgery.Results:From July 1994 to July 2008, 39 patients (40 shoulders) underwent revision arthroplasty. Of 19 patients (19 shoulders) we obtained a complete follow-up. The mean age at revision surgery 69 ± 10 years (range: 46-83) and the mean follow-up 41 ± 31 months (range: 10-113). In 7 cases TSA was used for revision when the cuff was intact, 12 times RSA was performed. The indications for the revision were glenoid erosion (n = 4), humeral component malposition (n = 2), cuff-pathology (n = 12) and infection (n = 1). Postoperative constant score 51.7 ± 11.4 for TSA and 31.1 ± 18.7 for RSA (P = 0.008). The DASH was 48.3 ± 25.1 and 68.7 ± 17.5, respectively (P = 0.09). DSST showed 6 ± 4 and 4 ± 4 (P = 0.414). OSS 41.3 ± 10.1 and 28.1 ± 10.3 (P = 0.017). SF-36 43.3 ± 22.1 and 24.5 ± 12.8 (P = 0.072). Four shoulders (21%) presented four complications.Conclusions:In this study, revision surgery showed poor to reasonable postoperative results and better clinical outcome for TSA. When a revision after HA was needed, and the soft-tissue component of the shoulder was intact, a TSA proved to be a preferable solution.     

Arthroplasty costs excluding implants: anatomic total shoulder versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe incidence of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has been rising exponentially in recent years. Compared to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), rTSA incurs higher total hospital costs, largely due to implant prices. However, rTSA typically requires less operating room (OR) time and is a cementless procedure, potentially representing important cost savings. Our aim is (1) to evaluate the difference in total hospital costs for rTSA and aTSA excluding implant costs and (2) to identify cost factors between the two procedures. Our hypothesis is that rTSAs and aTSAs will have similar costs excluding implants due to offsetting personnel and supply costs.MethodsTime-driven activity-based costing was utilized to determine the costs of rTSAs and aTSAs at our single-specialty hospital from January 2018 to 2020. Implant costs were subtracted from total hospital costs to determine costs excluding implants. Other demographic and cost parameters were also compared.ResultsNine hundred twenty-one primary shoulder procedures were analyzed (577 rTSAs and 344 aTSAs). Patients undergoing rTSA were significantly older, had a larger American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, had a longer length of stay, and were more likely to have Medicare as the primary insurance. Additionally, patients undergoing rTSA had significantly less OR time and fewer home discharges (P < .05). However, excluding implants, supply costs and overall hospital costs were 0.86× and 1.01× the cost of aTSA, respectively (P < .001 and P = .560), indicating that there was no significant difference between rTSA and aTSA overall hospital costs when omitting implant costs. Implants accounted for 97% of the difference in overall hospital costs between rTSA and aTSA.ConclusionExcluding implants, rTSA and aTSA have similar hospital costs. The savings with rTSA attributed to decreased OR time and supplies (excluding implants) are offset by personnel costs and length of stay from the postanesthesia care unit through discharge. Decreasing rTSA implant prices to the level of aTSA would equate the costs for these two procedures. As the incidence of rTSA rises, strategies to decrease implant costs are important for decreasing overall health expenditures.