Aims

The liner design is a key determinant of the constraint of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The aim of this study was to compare the degree of constraint of rTSA liners between different implant systems.

Aims

Proximal humeral fractures are the third most common fracture among the elderly. Complications associated with fixation include screw perforation, varus collapse, and avascular necrosis of the humeral head. To address these challenges, various augmentation techniques to increase medial column support have been developed. There are currently no recent studies that definitively establish the superiority of augmented fixation over non-augmented implants in the surgical treatment of proximal humeral fractures. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent locking-plate fixation with cement augmentation or bone-graft augmentation versus those who underwent locking-plate fixation without augmentation for proximal humeral fractures.

The February 2024 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Does indomethacin prevent heterotopic ossification following elbow fracture fixation?; Arthroscopic capsular shift in atraumatic shoulder joint instability; Ultrasound-guided lavage with corticosteroid injection versus sham; Combined surgical and exercise-based interventions following primary traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Are vascularized fibula autografts a long-lasting reconstruction after intercalary resection of the humerus for primary bone tumours?; Anatomical versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with limited forward elevation; Tension band or plate fixation for simple displaced olecranon fractures?; Is long-term follow-up and monitoring in shoulder and elbow arthroplasty needed?

The April 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Arthroscopic Bankart repair in athletes: in it for the long run?; Functional outcomes and the Wrightington classification of elbow fracture-dislocations; Hemiarthroplasty or ORIF intra-articular distal humerus fractures in older patients; Return to sport after total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty; Readmissions after shoulder arthroplasty; Arthroscopic Bankart repair in the longer term; Bankart repair with(out) remplissage or the Latarjet procedure? A systematic review and meta-analysis; Regaining motion among patients with shoulder pathology: are all exercises equal?

The 2021 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry report indicated that total shoulder replacement using both mid head (TMH) length humeral components and reverse arthroplasty (RTSA) had a lower revision rate than stemmed humeral components in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) - for all prosthesis types and diagnoses. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of component variables in the various primary total arthroplasty alternatives for osteoarthritis in the shoulder. Data from a large national arthroplasty registry were analysed for the period April 2004 to December 2020. The study population included all primary aTSA, RTSA, and TMH shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis (OA) using either cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or non-cross-linked polyethylene (non XLPE). Due to the previously documented and reported higher revision rate compared to other anatomical total shoulder replacement options, those using a cementless metal backed glenoid components were excluded. The rate of revision was determined by Kaplan-Meir estimates, with comparisons by Cox proportional hazard models. Reasons for revision were also assessed. For a primary diagnosis of OA, aTSA with a cemented XLPE glenoid component had the lowest revision rate with a 12-year cumulative revision rate of 4.7%, compared to aTSA with cemented non-XLPE glenoid component of 8.7%, and RTSA of 6.8%. The revision rate for TMH was lower than aTSA with cemented non-XLPE, but was similar to the other implants at the same length of follow-up. The reason for revision for cemented aTSR was most commonly component loosening, not rotator cuff deficiency. Long stem humeral components matched with XLPE in aTSA achieve a lower revision rate compared to shorter stems, long stems with conventional polyethylene, and RTSA when used to treat shoulder OA. In all these cohorts, loosening, not rotator cuff failure was the most common diagnosis for revision

Aims

The purpose of this study was to report bone adaptive changes after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) using a standard-length hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated humeral component, and to report on a computer-based analysis of radiographs to determine changes in peri-implant bone density objectively.

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).

Introduction. Acromial and scapular fractures are a rare but difficult complication with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), with an incidence rate reported from 1–10%. The risk factors associated with these fractures types is largely unknown. The goal of this study is to analyze the clinical outcomes, demographic and comorbidity data, and implant sizing and surgical technique information from 4125 patients who received a primary rTSA with one specific prosthesis (Equinoxe, Exactech, Inc) and were sorted based on the radiographic documentation of an acromial and/or scapula fracture (ASF) to identify factors associated with this complication. Methods. 4125 patients (2652F/1441M/32 unspecified; mean age: 72.5yrs) were treated with primary rTSA by 23 orthopaedic surgeons. Revision and fracture reverse arthroplasty cases were excluded. The radiographic presence of each fracture was documented and classified using the Levy classification method. 61 patients were identified as having ASF, 10 patients had fractures of the Type 1, 32 patients had Type 2, and 18 patients had Type 3 fractures according to Levy's classification. One fracture was not classifiable. Pre-op and post-op outcome scoring, ROM as well as demographic, comorbidity, implant, and surgical technique information were evaluated for these 61 patients and compared to the larger cohort of patients to identify any associations. A two-tailed, unpaired t-test identified differences (p<0.05). Results. The overall rate of ASF was 1.48% with the average time after surgery occurring at 12.9 ± 17.9 months (range 1 day to 78 months). Men had an ASF rate of 0.69% (10 of 1441); whereas women had a rate of 1.92% (51 of 2652). Patients with ASF were observed to be significantly shorter than patients without ASF (65.1 in vs 63.3 in, p=0.0004). ASF were more common in females (p=0.0019), have Rheumatoid Arthritis (p=0.0051), Cuff Tear Arthropathy (p=0.0093), or previous shoulder surgery (p=0.0189). Patient's weight did not correlate, nor did BMI. No difference was observed in humeral stem size, glenosphere diameter, or the humeral tray offset, humeral liner offset, or combined humeral tray+liner offset. The average number of screws used in the fracture group was significantly more than in the non-fracture group (p=0.0327), and 93% of patients in the fracture group had a screw in the superior hole of the baseplate. Pre-operatively, patients who developed ASF had significantly worse ASES (p=0.0104) and SPADI (p=0.0136) scores and also had significantly worse forward elevation (p=0.0237) and internal rotation (p=0.0054) than those who did not develop ASF. At latest follow-up, patients with ASF had significantly worse SST, UCLA, ASES, Constant, and SPADI scores (all p<0.0001); significantly worse abduction, forward elevation, internal rotation, strength (all p<0.0001); and significantly less preop-to-postop improvement in all measured outcomes, except for external rotation (all p<0.0001). Finally, 24% of fractures were identified as being caused by a traumatic event, 28% of patients with fractures had a previous acromioplasty, and 53% of fractures were Levy type 2. Discussion. Acromial and scapular fractures after rTSA are a rare complication, with an incidence of 1.48% in this analysis of 4125 patients with a single rTSA prosthesis. These fractures were observed to occur at an average of 12.9 months after surgery, but were observed as early as 1 day and as late as 6.5 years. Female patients, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Cuff Tear Arthropathy, previous shoulder surgery, relatively worse pre-operative ASES or SPADI scores, relatively decreased pre-operative forward elevation and internal rotation as well as a larger number of screws placed in the baseplate all were significantly associated with the occurrence of ASF. Although 93% of patients with ASF had a screw placed in the superior hole of the baseplate, we cannot conclude that this is a driving factor at this time, as the superior screw number for the non-fracture group was not recorded. Future work should evaluate if usage of a superior glenoid baseplate screw and previous acromioplasty are also risk factors for these fracture types after rTSA. This study is the largest ever performed analysis of this rare complication and provides news insight into the predisposing risk factors to consider when evaluating patients for rTSA

Aims

The EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaire is a widely used multiattribute general health questionnaire where an EQ-5D < 0 defines a state ‘worse than death’ (WTD). The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in a health state WTD and to identify associations with this state. Secondary aims were to examine the effect of WTD status on one-year outcomes.

Aims

The aim of this study was to use national registry database information to estimate cumulative rates and relative risk of revision due to infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Severe glenoid bone loss in patients with osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff is associated with posterior glenoid bone loss and posterior humeral subluxation. Management of severe glenoid bone loss during shoulder arthroplasty is controversial and technically challenging and options range from humeral hemiarthroplasty, anatomic shoulder replacement with glenoid bone grafting or augmented glenoid component implantation, to reverse replacement with reaming to correct version or structural bone grafting or metallic augmentation of the bone deficiency. Shoulder replacement with severe glenoid bone loss is technically challenging and characterised by higher rates of complications and revisions. Hemiarthroplasty has limited benefit for pain relief and function especially if eccentric glenoid wear exists. Bone loss with >15 degrees of retroversion likely requires version correction include bone-grafting, augmented glenoid components, or reverse total shoulder replacement. Asymmetric reaming may improve version but is limited to 15 degrees of version correction in order to preserve subchondral bone and glenoid bone vault depth. Bone-grafting of glenoid wear and defects has had mixed results with graft-related complications, periprosthetic radiolucent lines, and glenoid component failure of fixation. Implantation of an augmented wedge or step polyethylene glenoid component improves joint version while preserving subchondral bone, but is technically demanding and with minimal short term clinical follow-up. A Mayo study demonstrated roughly 50% of patients with posteriorly augmented polyethylene had radiolucent lines and 1/3 had posterior subluxation. Another wedge polyethylene design had 66% with bone ingrowth around polyethylene fins at 3 years. Long term outcomes are unknown for these new wedge augmented glenoid components. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty avoids many risks of anatomic replacement glenoid component fixation and stability but is associated with a high complication rate (15%) including neurologic and baseplate loosening and often requires structural bone grafting behind the baseplate with suboptimal outcomes or metallic augmented baseplates with limited evidence and short term outcomes. Reverse replacement with baseplate bone grafting or metal augmentation is technically challenging due to limited native glenoid bone stock available for baseplate component ingrowth and long term fixation. Failure to correct glenoid superior inclination and restore neutral version within 10 degrees increases the risks of reverse baseplate failure of fixation, pull out, and failure of reverse replacement. Reverse baseplate failure rates in patients with severe glenoid bone loss and concomitant glenoid bone grafting range from 5–11%. The minimum native glenoid bony contact with the baseplate is unknown but likely is approximately 1cm of native bone contacting a central ingrowth post and a minority (∼15–25%) of native glenoid contacting the backside of the baseplate. Failure to correct posterior bone loss can lead to retroversion of the baseplate, reduced external rotation, posterior scapular notching, and posteromedial polyethylene wear. In summary, shoulder replacement with severe glenoid bone loss is technically challenging and characterised by higher rates of complication and revision

Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is necessary to prevent painful aseptic loosening and resultant humeral bone loss. Causes of humeral component loosening include stem design and material, stem length and geometry, ingrowth vs. ongrowth surfaces, quality of bone available for fixation, glenoid polyethylene debris osteolysis, exclusion of articular particulate debris, joint stability, rotator cuff function, and patient activity levels. Fixation of the humeral component may be achieved by cement fixation either partial or complete and press-fit fixation. During the past two decades, uncemented humeral fixation has become more popular, especially with short stems and stemless press fit designs. Cemented humeral component fixation risks difficult and complicated revision surgery, stress shielding of the tuberosities and humeral shaft periprosthetic fractures at the junction of the stiff cemented stem and the remaining humeral shaft. Press fit fixation may minimise these cemented risks but has potential for stem loosening. A randomised clinical trial of 161 patients with cemented vs. press fit anatomic total shoulder replacements found that cemented fixation of the humeral component provided better quality of life, strength, and range of motion than uncemented fixation but longer operative times. Another study found increased humeral osteolysis (43%) associated with glenoid component loosening and polyethylene wear, while stress shielding was seen with well-fixed press fit humeral components. During reverse replacement the biomechanical forces are different on the humeral stem. Stem loosening during reverse replacement may have different factors than anatomic replacement. A systemic review of 41 reverse arthroplasty clinical studies compared the functional outcomes and complications of cemented and uncemented stems in approximately 1800 patients. There was no difference in the risk of stem loosening or revision between cemented and uncemented stems. Uncemented stems have at least equivalent clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with cemented stems during reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is associated with fully cemented stems or well ingrown components that exclude potential synovial debris that may cause osteolysis