Aims. Body exhaust suits or surgical helmet systems (colloquially, ‘space suits’) are frequently used in many forms of arthroplasty, with the aim of providing personal protection to surgeons and, perhaps, reducing periprosthetic joint infections, although this has not consistently been borne out in systematic reviews and registry studies. To date, no large-scale study has investigated whether this is applicable to shoulder arthroplasty. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry to assess whether the use of surgical helmet systems was associated with lower all-cause revision or revision for deep infection in primary shoulder arthroplasties. Methods. We analyzed 16,000 shoulder arthroplasties (hemiarthroplasties, anatomical, and reverse geometry prostheses) recorded on the New Zealand Joint Registry from its inception in 2000 to the present day. We assessed patient factors including age, BMI, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, as well as whether or not the operation took place in a laminar flow operating theatre. Results. A total of 2,728 operations (17%) took place using surgical helmet systems. Patient cohorts were broadly similar in terms of indication for surgery (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fractures) and medical comorbidities (age and sex). There were 842 revisions (5% of cases) with just 98 for deep infection (0.6% of all cases or 11.6% of the revisions). There were no differences in all-cause revisions or revision for deep infection between the surgical helmet systems and conventional gowns (p = 0.893 and p = 0.911, respectively). Conclusion. We found no evidence that wearing a surgical helmet system reduces the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection in any kind of primary shoulder arthroplasty. We acknowledge the limitations of this registry study and accept that there may be other benefits in terms of personal protection, comfort, or visibility. However, given their financial and ecological footprint, they should be used judiciously in shoulder surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):894–897

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the estimated change in primary and revision arthroplasty rate in the Netherlands and Denmark for hips, knees, and shoulders during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (COVID-period). Additional points of focus included the comparison of patient characteristics and hospital type (2019 vs COVID-period), and the estimated loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and impact on waiting lists. Methods. All hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties (2014 to 2020) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, and hip and knee arthroplasties from the Danish Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries, were included. The expected number of arthroplasties per month in 2020 was estimated using Poisson regression, taking into account changes in age and sex distribution of the general Dutch/Danish population over time, calculating observed/expected (O/E) ratios. Country-specific proportions of patient characteristics and hospital type were calculated per indication category (osteoarthritis/other elective/acute). Waiting list outcomes including QALYs were estimated by modelling virtual waiting lists including 0%, 5% and 10% extra capacity. Results. During COVID-period, fewer arthroplasties were performed than expected (Netherlands: 20%; Denmark: 5%), with the lowest O/E in April. In the Netherlands, more acute indications were prioritized, resulting in more American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III to IV patients receiving surgery. In both countries, no other patient prioritization was present. Relatively more arthroplasties were performed in private hospitals. There were no clinically relevant differences in revision arthroplasties between pre-COVID and COVID-period. Estimated total health loss depending on extra capacity ranged from: 19,800 to 29,400 QALYs (Netherlands): 1,700 to 2,400 QALYs (Denmark). With no extra capacity it will take > 30 years to deplete the waiting lists. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic had an enormous negative effect on arthroplasty rates, but more in the Netherlands than Denmark. In the Netherlands, hip and shoulder patients with acute indications were prioritized. Private hospitals filled in part of the capacity gap. QALY loss due to postponed arthroplasty surgeries is considerable. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):977–990

Aims. Shoulder arthroplasty is effective in the management of end-stage glenohumeral joint arthritis. However, it is major surgery and patients must balance multiple factors when considering the procedure. An understanding of patients’ decision-making processes may facilitate greater support of those considering shoulder arthroplasty and inform the outcomes of future research. Methods. Participants were recruited from waiting lists of three consultant upper limb surgeons across two NHS hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 participants who were awaiting elective shoulder arthroplasty. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Systematic coding was performed; initial codes were categorized and further developed into summary narratives through a process of discussion and refinement. Data collection and analyses continued until thematic saturation was reached. Results. Two overall categories emerged: the motivations to consider surgery, and the information participants used to inform their decision-making. Motivations were, broadly, the relief of pain and the opportunity to get on with life and regain independence. When participants’ symptoms and restrictions prevented them enjoying life to a sufficient extent, this provided the motivation to proceed with surgery. Younger participants tended to focus on maintaining employment and recreational activities, and older patients were eager to make the most of their remaining lifetime. Participants gathered information from a range of sources and were keen to optimize their recovery where possible. An important factor for participants was whether they trusted their surgeon and were prepared to delegate responsibility for elements of their care. Conclusion. Relief of pain and the opportunity to get on with life were the primary reasons to undergo shoulder arthroplasty. Participants highlighted the importance of the patient-surgeon relationship and the need for accurate information in an accessible format which is relevant to people of different ages and functional demands. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):543–549

Aims. The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in incidence rate of shoulder arthroplasty, indications, and surgeon volume trends associated with these procedures between January 2003 and April 2021 in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods. A total of 1,545 patients between 2005 and 2021 were analyzed. Patients operated on between 2003 and 2004 were excluded due to a lack of electronic records. Overall, 84.1% of the surgeries (n = 1,299) were performed by two fellowship-trained upper limb surgeons, with the remainder performed by one of the 14 orthopaedic surgeons working in the province. Results. Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) was the most frequent procedure (32.17%; n = 497), followed by stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) (27.7%; n = 428). The most frequent indication for primary shoulder arthroplasty was degenerative osteoarthritis (58.1%; n = 882), followed by acute proximal humerus fracture in 15.11% (n = 245), and rotator cuff arthropathy in 14.18% (n = 220). The overall rate of revision was 7.7% (2.8% to 11.2%). The number of TSAs and reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) has been increasing since 2016. The amount of revision cases is proportional to the number of operations performed in the same year throughout the study period. Conclusion. The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the Maritime Provinces has increased over the last 16 years. Revision rates are similar the those found in other large database registries. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty prevalence has increased since 2016. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):567–572

Aims. It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery. Methods. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis. Results. A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. Conclusion. Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618–630

Aims. Optimal glenoid positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is crucial to provide impingement-free range of motion (ROM). Lateralization and inclination correction are not yet systematically used. Using planning software, we simulated the most used glenoid implant positions. The primary goal was to determine the configuration that delivers the best theoretical impingement-free ROM. Methods. With the use of a 3D planning software (Blueprint) for RSA, 41 shoulders in 41 consecutive patients (17 males and 24 females; means age 73 years (SD 7)) undergoing RSA were planned. For the same anteroposterior positioning and retroversion of the glenoid implant, four different glenoid baseplate configurations were used on each shoulder to compare ROM: 1) no correction of the RSA angle and no lateralization (C-L-); 2) correction of the RSA angle with medialization by inferior reaming (C+M+); 3) correction of the RSA angle without lateralization by superior compensation (C+L-); and 4) correction of the RSA angle and additional lateralization (C+L+). The same humeral inlay implant and positioning were used on the humeral side for the four different glenoid configurations with a 3 mm symmetric 135° inclined polyethylene liner. Results. The configuration with lateralization and correction of the RSA angle (C+L+) led to better ROM in flexion, extension, adduction, and external rotation (p ≤ 0.001). Only internal rotation was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.388). The configuration where correction of the inclination was done by medialization (C+M+) led to the worst ROM in adduction, extension, abduction, flexion, and external rotation of the shoulder. Conclusion. Our software study shows that, when using a 135° inlay reversed humeral implant, correcting glenoid inclination (RSA angle 0°) and lateralizing the glenoid component by using an angled bony or metallic augment of 8 to 10 mm provides optimal impingement-free ROM. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):851–857

In Australia nearly two-thirds of arthroplasty procedures are performed in the private setting, which is disproportionate to the dimensioning 43.5% of the population with private health cover. The rapid growth of shoulder arthroplasty surgery will be absorbed by both private and public sectors. This study aimed to assess the influence of healthcare setting on elective shoulder arthroplasty outcomes, defined by revision rate, and functional measures. Data was collected on all primary procedures performed from 2004 – 2019 within a regional area of Victoria, Australia. Patients were categorised into private or public settings. Trauma cases for acute proximal humerus fractures were excluded. The primary outcome of revision surgery was recorded as a cumulative percentage, and survival analysis conducted to calculate a hazard ratio (HR). Functional outcomes were measured through range-of-motion (ROM) and multiple validated patient-reported-outcome-measures (PROMs). 458 patients were identified in the study: 290 private and 168 public. There was no difference in the revision rate (3.8% private, 4.8% public), with an adjusted HR of 1.25 (p=0.66) for public compared to private. Baseline and post-operative functional measures were significantly greater in the private setting for ROMs and PROMs analysis, in particular post-operative QuickDASH (15.9±14.7 to 32.7±23.5; p<0.001) and Oxford Shoulder Score (42.6±6.3 to 35.7±11.2; p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference for any of the functional measures in the amount of change from baseline to 12-months between settings. Although healthcare setting does not appear to influence revision rate for shoulder arthroplasty, clear differences were demonstrated for functional measures both pre and post operatively. This may be attributed to factors such as access to perioperative rehabilitation and should be an area to target future investigations

Abstract. There are numerous advantages of discharging patients early after any surgery. Day case arthroplasty in hip and knee is already brought into practice at many centres. We present our journey towards discharging elective shoulder arthroplasty patient on same after their surgery. An initial retrospective study of patients who underwent elective shoulder replacement between 2017 and 2020 were studied. It was identified that a selected group of patients could be discharged on the same of their surgery. The criteria to select a patient for this service was laid down that include ASA 1 or 2, good family support on discharge, personal wishes of patients and early identification of potential patients in the clinic and planning for day case shoulder arthroplasty56 consecutive patients underwent elective arthroplasty of shoulder. Among them 22 patients were discharges on the next day of surgery. The potential patients those could discharged on same were identified to be 11 out of 22 were under ASA 2 and had good family support at home on discharge. Average length of stay after surgery was 2.17 days. We have prospectively discharged 2 patients following the new criteria. This study demonstrates how outpatient elective shoulder could be implemented at other centres. Patient participation and selection with proper planning is key for success here. Declaration of Interest. (a) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest

Abstract. Shoulder replacements have evolved and current 4th generation implants allow intraoperative flexibility to perform anatomic, reverse, trauma, and revision shoulder arthroplasty. Despite high success rates with shoulder arthroplasty, complication rates high as 10–15% have been reported and progressive glenoid loosening remains a concern. Objectives. To report medium term outcomes following 4th generation VAIOS® shoulder replacement. Methods. We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data following VAIOS® shoulder arthroplasty performed by the senior author between 2014–2020. This included anatomical (TSR), reverse(rTSR), revision and trauma shoulder replacements. The primary outcome was implant survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Secondary outcomes were Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS), radiological outcomes and complications. Results. 172 patients met our inclusion criteria with 114 rTSR, 38 anatomical TSR, and 20 hemiarthroplasty. Reverse TSR- 55 primary, 31 revision, 28 for trauma. Primary rTSR- 0 revisions, average 3.35-year follow-up. Revision rTSR-1 revision (4.17%), average 3.52-year follow-up. Trauma rTSR- 1 revision (3.57%), average 4.56-year follow-up OSS: Average OSS improved from 15.39 to 33.8 (Primary rTSR) and from 15.11 to 29.1 (Revision rTSR). Trauma rTSR-Average post-operative OSS was 31.4 Anatomical TSR38 patients underwent primary anatomical TSR, 8 were revisions following hemiarthroplasty. In 16/38 patients, glenoid bone loss was addressed by bone grafting before implantation of the metal back glenoid component. Mean age at time of surgery was 68.3 years (53 – 81 years). Mean follow-up was 34 months (12 – 62 months). The average Oxford shoulder score improved from 14 (7–30) to 30 (9–48). There were 3 revisions (7.8%); two following subscapularis failure requiring revision conversion to reverse shoulder replacement and one for glenoid graft failure. Conclusions. The medium-term results of the VAIOS® system suggest much lower revision rates across multiple configurations of the system than previously reported, as well as a low incidence of scapular notching. This system allows conversion to rTSR during primary and revision surgery

Shoulder replacement surgery is a well-established orthopaedic procedure designed to significantly enhance patients’ quality of life. However, the prevailing preoperative admission practices within our tertiary shoulder surgery unit involve a two-stage group and save testing process, necessitating an admission on the evening before surgery. This protocol may unnecessarily prolong hospital stays without yielding substantial clinical benefits. The principal aim of our study is to assess the necessity of conducting two preoperative group and save blood tests and to evaluate the requirement for blood transfusions in shoulder arthroplasty surgeries. A secondary objective is to reduce hospital stay durations and the associated admission costs for patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty. We conducted a retrospective observational study covering the period from 1st January 2023 to 31st August 2023, collecting data from shoulder arthroplasty procedures across three hospitals within the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board. Our analysis included 21 total shoulder replacement cases and 13 reverse shoulder replacement cases. Notably, none of the patients required postoperative blood transfusions. The mean haemoglobin drop observed was 14 g/L for total shoulder replacements and 15 g/L for reverse shoulder replacements. The mean elective admission duration was 2.4 nights for total shoulder replacements and 2 nights for reverse shoulder replacements. Our data indicated that hospital stays were extended by one night primarily due to the preoperative group and save blood tests. In light of these findings, we propose a more streamlined admission process for elective shoulder replacement surgery, eliminating the need for the evening-before-surgery group and save testing. Hospital admissions in these units incur a cost of approximately £500 per night, while the group and save blood tests cost around £30 each. This revised admission procedure is expected to optimise the use of healthcare resources and improve patient satisfaction without compromising clinical care

Objective. To describe demographic data, clinical outcome and short-term survival after shoulder arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Register was established in 2004. All 40 Danish hospitals and private clinics where shoulder arthroplasty are performed are participating. Since 2006 where the reporting to the register became mandatory the compliance of reporting has been 88.9%. Data are collected by an internet based clinical measuring system where the orthopaedic surgeon report data such as diagnosis, type of arthroplasty, and demographic data. The follow-up results are collected by sending a questionnaire to the patient 10–14 month after the operation. The questionnaire contains a Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS). Each question is answered on a visual analogue scale with a possible score ranging from 0–100. There are 19 questions and the total score is ranging from 0–1900. For simplicity of presentation the raw scores is converted to a percentage of a normal shoulder. Results. 2320 Shoulder arthroplasties were reported to the register between 2006 and 2008. There were 69.4% women. Median age was 70.6, range 16.3–96.3. 699 arthroplasties (30.0%) were due to osteoarthritis, 98 (4.2%) due to arthritis, 1182 (50.9%) due to a proximal humeral fracture, 179 (7.4%) due to rotator cuff arthropaty, 62 (2.7%) due to caput necrosis and 79 (3.4%) due to other pathology condition such as cancer and revision surgery. 1352 (58.3%) were stemmed hemi arthroplasty, 77 (3.3%) total shoulder arthroplasty, 596 (25.7%) resurfacing arthroplasty and 243 (10.5%) reverse shoulder arthroplasty. 1288 patients (55.5%) returned a complete questionnaire. Median WOOS for all arthroplasties was 58.2, range 0.0–100.0. Median WOOS for arthritis was 59.3, range 13.3–99.8, osteoarthritis 67.9, range 0.0–100.0, a proximal humeral fracture 54.2, range 0.0–100.0, rotator cuff arthropaty 65.6, range 0.0–98.3 and caput necrosis 48.9, range 3.9–95.2. 171 (7.4%) operations were revisions. The most common indications of revision were luxation (2.2%), infection (1.3%), loosening (0.7%) and glenoid attrition (0.6%). Conclusion. To our knowledge there is no previous study with such a large population presenting demographic data and clinical outcome after shoulder arthroplasty. We found good results for the groups of patients diagnosed with osteoarthritis, arthritis and cuff arthropaty. There were poorer results in the groups of patient diagnosed with a proximal humeral fracture and especially caput necrosis

Complications such as implant loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture or instability may lead to revision arthroplasty procedures. There is limited literature comparing single-stage and two-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and cost benefit between single-stage and two-stage revision procedures. Thirty-one revision procedures (mean age 72+/-7, 15 males and 16 females) performed between 2016 and 2021 were included (27 revision RSA, 2 revision TSA, 2 failed ORIFs). Two-stage procedures were carried out 4-6 weeks apart. Single-stage procedures included debridement, implant removal and washout, followed by re-prep, re-drape and reconstruction with new instrumentations. Clinical parameters including length of stay, VAS, patient satisfaction was recorded preoperatively and at mean 12-months follow up. Cost benefit analysis were performed. Seven revisions were two-stage procedures and 24 were single-stage procedures. There were 5 infections in the two-stage group vs 14 in the single-stage group. We noted two cases of unstable RSA and 8 other causes for single-stage revision. Majority of the revisions were complex procedures requiring significant glenoid and/or humeral allografts and tendon transfers to compensate for soft tissue loss. No custom implants were used in our series. Hospital stay was reduced from 41+/-29 days for 2-stage procedures to 16+/-13 days for single-stage (p<0.05). VAS improved from 9+/-1 to 2+/-4 for two-stage procedures and from 5+/-3 to 1+/-2 for single-stages. The average total cost of hospital and patient was reduced by two-thirds. Patient satisfaction in the single-stage group was 43% which was comparable to the two-stage group. All infections were successfully treated with no recurrence of infection in our cohort of 31 patients. There was no instability postoperatively. 3 patients had postoperative neural symptoms which resolved within 6 months. Single-stage procedures for revision shoulder arthroplasty significantly decrease hospital stay, improve patients’ satisfaction, and reduced surgical costs

Aims. To report the rate of early revision (within two years) after shoulder arthroplasty and identify any patient, disease or prosthesis factors that may be associated with these early failures. Methods. The AOA National Joint Replacement Registry has recorded 7113 shoulder arthroplasty procedures up to December 2009. Data recorded includes diagnosis, patient demographics and prosthesis details. The main outcome of this analysis was the time to first revision of all primary shoulder arthroplasty recorded by the Registry. The cumulative per cent revision (CPR) of shoulder arthroplasty procedures was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard models were used to test significance between groups. Results. The CPR (95% CI) at two years for all diagnosis was 5.2 (3.1, 8.7) for hemi-resurfacing arthroplasty, 4.0 (2.9, 5.6) for hemiarthroplasty, 4.1 (3.1, 5.3) for conventional total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and 4.0 (3.0, 5.2) for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (reverse TSA). Neither patient age nor sex were shown to affect the rate of revision for conventional and reverse TSA performed for osteoarthritis. The use of an uncemented conventional TSR performed for osteoarthritis is associated with a higher rate of revision when compared with cemented TSR (HR 4.71 (1.43, 15.45)) and hybrid TSR using a cemented glenoid component (HR 2.48 (1.45, 4.24)). Both the Univers 3D conventional total shoulder replacement prosthesis (adjusted HR 3.8 (1.52, 9.50) p< 0.01) and the SMR/SMR reverse total shoulder replacement (adjusted HR 2.0 (1.15, 3.28) p=0.01) were prosthesis identified by the Registry as having a significantly higher rate of revision compared to all other prosthesis in the same class. Conclusions. The Registry has identified an increased early rate of revision with the use of uncemented convention TSR. Two types of prosthesis were identified as having a higher than anticipated rate of revision compared to all other prosthesis in the same class

There remains to be substantial debate on the best treatment of the infected shoulder arthroplasty. Infection after shoulder arthroplasty is an uncommon but devastating complication with a reported incidence from 0 to 4%. The most common organism responsible for infection following rotator cuff surgery, instability surgery, ORIF proximal humerus fractures, and shoulder arthroplasty is Prop. Acnes. A thorough history is important because many patients have a history of difficulty with wound healing or drainage. Prop. Acnes typically does not start to grow until day 5, therefore it is critical to keep cultures a minimum of 10 to 14 days. Diagnosis can be difficult, particularly among patients undergoing revision surgery. The majority of patients with a low grade infection do not have overt signs of infection such as erythema or sinus tracts. Preoperative lab values as well as intraoperative pathology have been shown to be unreliable in predicting who will have positive cultures at the time of revision surgery. There are a number of options for treating a patient with a post-operative infection. Critical variables include the timing of infection, status of the host, the specific organism, status of implant fixation, and the status of the rotator cuff and deltoid. One of the most frequently employed options for treating the infected shoulder arthroplasty is two-stage re-implantation. However, the rate of complications with this technique as well as residual infection remains high

Introduction and Objective. Only few studies have investigated the outcome of exercises in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), and furthermore often excluded patients with a severe degree of OA. Several studies including a Cochrane review have suggested the need for trials comparing shoulder arthroplasty to non-surgical treatments. Before initiation of such a trial, the feasibility of progressive shoulder exercises (PSE) in patients, who are eligible for shoulder arthroplasty should be investigated. The aim was to investigate whether 12 weeks of PSE is feasible in patients with OA or CTA eligible for shoulder arthroplasty. Moreover, to report changes in shoulder function and range of motion (ROM) following the exercise program. Materials and Methods. Eighteen patients (11 women, 14 OA), mean age 70 years (range 57–80), performed 12 weeks of PSE with 1 weekly physiotherapist-supervised and 2 weekly home-based sessions. Feasibility was measured by drop-out rate, adverse events, pain and adherence to PSE. Patients completed Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) score and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH). Results. Two patients dropped out and no adverse events were observed. Sixteen patients (89%) had high adherence to the physiotherapist-supervised sessions. Acceptable pain levels were reported. WOOS improved mean 23 points (95%CI:13;33), and DASH improved mean 13 points (95%CI:6;19). Conclusions. PSE is feasible, safe and may improve shoulder pain, function and ROM in patients with OA or CTA eligible for shoulder arthroplasty. PSE is a feasible treatment that may be compared with arthroplasty in a RCT setting

Patient perceptions regarding the functional outcomes and return to sports after shoulder replacement are often pessimistic, with many patients presenting for shoulder replacement surgery after months or years of avoiding the procedure so they could continue to live the current life they have, despite the increasing pain and dysfunction. Less common, but becoming more frequent, patients present with expectations that they will be able to return to all activities including heavy resistance training, cross-fit, rock climbing, and other strenuous overhead sports. In the past, little information has been available regarding the activities of shoulder arthroplasty patients after surgery. Typically, the boundaries have been set by the surgeon, with many patients cautioned or even prohibited from overhead sports, weight training, or heavy work responsibilities. A typical set of guidelines may include no repetitive overhead sports, except for recreational swimming, and no lifting over 20 pounds. Golf, jogging, hiking and other activities are allowed. The origin of these restricted guidelines and expectations is unknown, but many believe that since the results of shoulder replacements are less favorable in younger patients, it may be due to the overuse or abuse of the shoulder joint that is more typical at a younger age. Others have suggested that common sense prevails and that an artificial joint made of metal and plastic has a finite number of total movements and tolerance to resistance activities, and therefore keeping these activities at a minimum would extend the longevity of the artificial joint. None of these concepts are backed up by evidence-based literature, essentially reflecting the personal bias of the surgeons who care for patients with these problems. Despite all of the sophisticated research, scoring scales, outcome measures, and value-based metrics, the only outcome that really matters is whether the patient can return back to their normal way of life, at home, at work, during sport, or any activity that is important to them. Recent studies of patients who have had joint replacement surgery have revealed that our patients who participated in sports and work activities before surgery have a strong predilection to returning to those activities after successful shoulder replacement. The most common sports that shoulder arthroplasty patients enjoy including golf, swimming, tennis, but may also include many other choices including fitness activities, rowing, skiing, basketball, and softball. As expected, the return to these sports is less for reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients vs. anatomic shoulder arthroplasty patients. In a systematic review, more than 90% of anatomic shoulder replacement patients returned to sport, while 75% of reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients returned to some sporting activity. This may reflect the constraints of the reverse prosthesis, or, quite possibly reflect the typically older age and more sedentary lifestyle of patients who are indicated for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. In addition, if the patient had a preoperative expectation of return to recreational and sports activities as part of their normal way of life, their final results demonstrated better overall outcomes. Shoulder arthroplasty surgeons should be concerned about the outcomes desired by our patients, and the results that provide true value to their lives. We are now more aware of the activities that they are going to return to, whether we recommend restrictions or not

In reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), a high complication rate is noted in the international literature (24.7%), and limited local literature is available. The complications in our developing health system, with high HIV, tuberculosis and metabolic syndrome prevalence may be different from that in developed health systems where the literature largely emanates from. The aim of this study is to describe the complications and complication rate following RSA in a South African cohort. An analytical, cross-sectional study was done where all patients’ who received RSA over an 11 year period at a tertiary hospital were evaluated. One-hundred-and-twenty-six primary RSA patients met the inclusion criteria and a detailed retrospective evaluation of their demographics, clinical variables and complication associated with their shoulder arthroplasty were assessed. All fracture, revision and tumour resection arthroplasties were excluded, and a minimum of 6 months follow up was required. A primary RSA complication rate of 19.0% (24/126) was noted, with the most complications occurring after 90 days at 54.2% (13/24). Instability was the predominant delayed complication at 61.5% (8/13) and sepsis being the most common in the early days at 45.5% (5/11). Haematoma formation, hardware failure and axillary nerve injury were also noted at 4.2% each (1/24). Keeping in mind the immense difference in socioeconomical status and patient demographics in a third world country the RSA complication rate in this study correlates with the known international consensus. This also proves that RSA is still a suitable option for rotator cuff arthropathy and glenohumeral osteoarthritis even in an economically constrained environment like South Africa

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is becoming a frequent treatment of choice for patients with shoulder disorders. Complication rates after reverse shoulder arthroplasty may be three-fold that of conventional total shoulder arthroplasty especially in high risk patient populations and diagnoses like revision arthroplasty, fracture sequelae, and severe glenoid bone loss. Complications include component malposition, stiffness, neurological injury, infection, dislocation or instability, acromial or scapular spine fractures, scapular notching, and loosening of implants. Recognition of preoperative risk factors and appropriate 3D planning are essential in optimizing patient outcome and intraoperative success. Failure of reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a significant challenge requiring appropriate diagnosis of the failure mode. The most common neurological injuries involve the brachial plexus and the axillary nerve due to traction, manipulation of the arm, aberrant retractor placement, or relative lengthening of the arm. Intraoperative fractures are relatively uncommon but include the greater tuberosity, acromion, and glenoid. Tuberosity fracture can be repaired intraoperatively with suture techniques, glenoid fractures may be insignificant rim fractures or jeopardise baseplate fixation and require abandoning RSA until glenoid fracture ORIF heals and then a second stage RSA. Periprosthetic infection after RSA ranges from 1 to 10% and may be higher in revision cases and frequently is Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Dislocation was one of the most common complications after RSA approximately 5% but with increased surgeon experience and prosthetic design, dislocation rates are approaching 1–2%. An anterosuperior deltoid splitting approach has been associated with increased stability as well as subscapularis repair after RSA. Scapular notching is the most common complication after RSA. Notching may be caused by direct mechanical impingement of the humerosocket polyethylene on the scapular neck and from osteolysis from polyethylene wear. Sirveaux classified scapular notching based on the defect size as it erodes behind the baseplate towards the central post. Acromial fractures are infrequent but more common is severely eroded acromions from CTA, with osteoporosis, with excessive lengthening, and with superior baseplate screws that penetrate the scapular spine and create a stress riser. Nonoperative care is the mainstay of acromial and scapular spine fractures. Recognizing preoperative risk factors and understanding component positioning and design is essential to maximizing successful outcomes

Aims: The modes of failure of bipolar arthroplasty and outcomes following revision surgery have not been described. Methods: 7 patients (2f, 5m) who previously underwent bipolar arthroplasty were treated with revision surgery. Patient self-assessment was obtained pre- and postoperatively with a satisfaction survey, SF-36, SST, ASES scores, and preoperative/postoperative x-rays. Results: Modes of failure included rotator cuff failure 6/7, superior arch deficiency (4/7) and glenoid erosion (3/7). Revision surgery was performed to reconstruct instability, resurface eroded bone and repair available rotator cuff tissue. Anterior superior arch deficiencies were all revised to a semiconstrained reverse prosthesis. Other patients (3/7) were revised to unconstrained TSA. In this group, additionally soft tissue reconstructions were performed. ASES scores improved from 33 preoperatively to 55.5 postoperatively (P < 0.05). The mean SF 36 domains for PHC improved from 33.9 to 38.4 (P < 0.05). The mean VAS score for pain improved from 5.9 to 2.9 (p< 0.05). Mean active elevation increased from 60° to 78°. External rotation improved from 45° to 60°. 80% reported excellent/good, 20% reported satisfactory and none reported unsatisfactory outcome. Complications included 2 patients with recurrent instability. Conclusion: Revision shoulder arthroplasty following failure of a bipolar prosthesis requires reconstructive options of a semiconstrained prosthesis and conventional TSA with complex soft tissue reconstructions. Soft tissue problems such as superior arch deficiency and rotator cuff tears are the most common mode of failure. Patients may be improved from pain but limited improvement of shoulder function is to be expected

Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for patients with a proximal humerus fracture, using time-driven activity based costing (TDABC), and to compare treatment costs with reimbursement under the Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs). Methods. TDABC analysis based on the principles outlined by Kaplan and a clinical pathway that has previously been validated for this institution was used. Staffing cost, consumables, implants, and overheads were updated to reflect 2019/2020 costs. This was compared with the HRG reimbursements. Results. The mean cost of a RSA is £7,007.46 (£6,130.67 to £8,824.67). Implants and staffing costs were the primary cost drivers, with implants (£2,824.80) making up 40% of the costs. Staffing costs made up £1,367.78 (19%) of overall costs. The total tariff, accounting for market force factors and high comorbidities, reimburses £4,629. If maximum cost and minimum reimbursement is applied the losses to the trust are £4,828.67. Conclusion. RSA may be an effective and appropriate surgical option in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures; however, a cost analysis at our centre has demonstrated the financial burden of this surgery. Given its increasing use in trauma, there is a need to work towards generating an HRG that adequately reimburses providers. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2020;1-12:731–736