Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients with type 1 sequelae of a fracture of the proximal humerus in association with rotator cuff deficiency or severe stiffness of the shoulder.

Aims

Promising medium-term results from total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) have been reported for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis in young and middle-aged patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term functional and radiological outcome of TSA in the middle-aged patient.

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. Patients and Methods. We included 17 730 primary shoulder arthroplasties recorded between 2004 and 2013 in The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data set. With the Kaplan–Meier method, we illustrated the ten-year cumulative rates of revision due to infection and with the Cox regression model, we reported the hazard ratios as a measure of the relative risk of revision due to infection. Results. In all, 188 revisions were reported due to infection during a mean follow-up of three years and nine months. The ten-year cumulative rate of revision due to infection was 1.4% overall, but 3.1% for reverse shoulder arthroplasties and 8.0% for reverse shoulder arthroplasties in men. Reverse shoulder arthroplasties were associated with an increased risk of revision due to infection also when adjusted for sex, age, primary diagnosis, and year of surgery (relative risk 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 5.59); p = 0.001). Conclusion. The overall incidence of revision due to infection was low. The increased risk in reverse shoulder arthroplasty must be borne in mind, especially when offering it to men. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:702–707

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. 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. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the most common type of shoulder arthroplasty used in the UK, and a better understanding of the outcomes after revision of a failed RSA is needed. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence systematically to determine patient-reported outcome measures and the rates of re-revision and complications for patients undergoing revision of a RSA. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Studies involving adult patients who underwent revision of a primary RSA for any indication were included. Those who underwent a RSA for failure of a total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Pre- and postoperative shoulder scores were evaluated in a random effects meta-analysis to determine the mean difference. The rates of re-revision and complications were also calculated. Results. The initial search elicited 3,166 results and, following removal of duplicates and screening, 13 studies with a total of 1,042 RSAs were identified. An increase in shoulder scores pre- to postoperatively was reported in all the studies. Following revision of a RSA to a further RSA, there was a significant increase in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (mean difference 20.78 (95% CI 8.16 to 33.40); p = 0.001). A re-revision rate at final follow-up ranging from 9% to 32%, a one-year re-revision rate of 14%, and a five-year re-revision rate of 23% were reported. The complication rate in all the studies was between 18.5% and 36%, with a total incidence of 29%. Conclusion. This is the largest systematic review of the outcomes following revision of a RSA. We found an improvement in functional outcomes after revision surgery, but the rates of re-revision and complications are high and warrant consideration when planning a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1293–1300

Aims. Patient-specific instrumentation has been shown to increase a surgeon’s precision and accuracy in placing the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. There is, however, little available information about the use of patient-specific planning (PSP) tools for this operation. It is not known how these tools alter the decision-making patterns of shoulder surgeons. The aim of this study was to investigate whether PSP, when compared with the use of plain radiographs or select static CT images, influences the understanding of glenoid pathology and surgical planning. Methods. A case-based survey presented surgeons with a patient’s history, physical examination, and, sequentially, radiographs, select static CT images, and PSP with a 3D imaging program. For each imaging modality, the surgeons were asked to identify the Walch classification of the glenoid and to propose the surgical treatment. The participating surgeons were grouped according to the annual volume of shoulder arthroplasties that they undertook, and responses were compared with the recommendations of two experts. Results. A total of 59 surgeons completed the survey. For all surgeons, the use of the PSP significantly increased agreement with the experts in glenoid classification (x. 2. = 8.54; p = 0.014) and surgical planning (x. 2. = 37.91; p < 0.001). The additional information provided by the PSP also showed a significantly higher impact on surgical decision-making for surgeons who undertake fewer than ten shoulder arthroplasties annually (p = 0.017). Conclusions. The information provided by PSP has the greatest impact on the surgical decision-making of low volume surgeons (those who perform fewer than ten shoulder arthroplasties annually), and PSP brings all surgeons in to closer agreement with the recommendations of experts for glenoid classification and surgical planning. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):365–370

Aims. Patients with a failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have limited salvage options. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of revision RSA when used as a salvage procedure for a failed primary RSA. Patients and Methods. We reviewed all revision RSAs performed for a failed primary RSA between 2006 and 2012, excluding patients with a follow-up of less than two years. A total of 27 revision RSAs were included in the study. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (58 to 82). Of the 27 patients, 14 (52% were female). The mean follow-up was 4.4 years (2 to 10). Results. Six patients (22%) developed complications requiring further revision surgery, at a mean of 1.7 years (0.1 to 5.3) postoperatively. The indication for further revision was dislocation in two, glenoid loosening in one, fracture of the humeral component in one, disassociation of the glenosphere in one, and infection in one. The five-year survival free of further revision was 85%. Five additional RSAs developed complications that did not need surgery, including dislocation in three and periprosthetic fracture in two. Overall, patients who did not require further revision had excellent pain relief, and significant improvements in elevation and external rotation of the shoulder (p < 0.01). The mean postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and simple shoulder test (SST) scores were 66 and 7, respectively. Radiological results were available in 26 patients (96.3%) at a mean of 4.3 years (1.5 to 9.5). At the most recent follow-up, six patients (23%) had glenoid lucency, which were classified as grade III or higher in three (12%). Smokers had a significantly increased risk of glenoid lucency (p < 0.01). Conclusion. Revision RSA, when used to salvage a failed primary RSA, can be a successful procedure. At intermediate follow-up, survival rates are reasonable, but dislocation and glenoid lucency remain a concern, particularly in smokers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1493–98

Aims. To investigate the impact of the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices on patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) following shoulder arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), or hemiarthroplasty (HA) from 2016 to 2018 were identified, along with the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities listed as their secondary diagnoses in the electronic medical records. Patients were matched to our institution’s registry to obtain their PROMs, including shoulder-specific (American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) and Shoulder Activity Scale (SAS)) and general health scales (12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Pain Interference). Linear regression models adjusting for age and sex were used to evaluate the association between increasing number of comorbidities and PROM scores. A total of 1,817 shoulder arthroplasties were performed: 1,017 (56%) TSA, 726 (40%) RSA, and 74 (4%) HA. The mean age was 67 years (SD 10), and 936 (52%) of the patients were female. Results. The most common comorbidities were obesity (1,256, 69%) and hypertension (990, 55%). Patients with more comorbidities had lower ASES and SAS scores at baseline (p < 0.001). Elixhauser comorbidities continued to negatively impact ASES and SAS scores at one year (p = 0.002) and two-year follow-up (p = 0.002). Patients with more comorbidities reported greater pain interference on PROMIS at baseline (p = 0.007), but not at two years. Higher number of Charlson comorbidities were associated with lower scores on the SF-12 mental component at baseline (p < 0.001) and two years (p = 0.020). Higher number of Elixhauser comorbidities were associated with lower SF-12 physical component scores at baseline (p < 0.001) and two years (p = 0.004). Conclusion. Higher number of comorbidities was associated with lower baseline scores and worse outcomes on both shoulder-specific and general health PROMs. The presence of specific comorbidities may be used during shared decision-making to manage expectations for patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):964–970

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. 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

Aims. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results, long-term survival, and complication rates of stemless shoulder prosthesis with stemmed anatomical shoulder prostheses for treatment of osteoarthritis and to analyze radiological bone changes around the implants during follow-up. Methods. A total of 161 patients treated with either a stemmed or a stemless shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 118 months (102 to 158). The Constant score (CS), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, and active range of motion (ROM) were recorded. Radiological analysis for bone adaptations was performed by plain radiographs. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was calculated and complications were noted. Results. The ROM (p < 0.001), CS (p < 0.001), and DASH score (p < 0.001) showed significant improvements after shoulder arthroplasty for both implants. There were no differences between the groups treated with stemmed or stemless shoulder prosthesis with respect to the mean CS (79.2 (35 to 118) vs 74.4 (31 to 99); p = 0.519) and DASH scores (11.4 (8 to 29) vs 13.2 (7 to 23); p = 0.210). The ten-year unadjusted cumulative survival rate was 95.3% for the stemmed anatomical shoulder prosthesis and 91.5% for the stemless shoulder prosthesis and did not differ between the treatment groups (p = 0.251). The radiological evaluation of the humeral components in both groups did not show loosening of the humeral implant. The main reason for revision for each type of arthroplasties were complications related to the glenoid. Conclusion. The use of anatomical stemless shoulder prosthesis yielded good and reliable results and did not differ from anatomical stemmed shoulder prosthesis over a mean period of ten years. The differences in periprosthetic humeral bone adaptations between both implants have no clinical impact during the follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1292–1300

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

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. Corticosteroid injections are often used to manage glenohumeral arthritis in patients who may be candidates for future total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). In the conservative management of these patients, corticosteroid injections are often provided for symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of corticosteroid injections prior to TSA or rTSA is associated with changes in rates of revision and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following these procedures. Methods. Data were collected from a national insurance database from January 2006 to December 2017. Patients who underwent shoulder corticosteroid injection within one year prior to ipsilateral TSA or rTSA were identified and stratified into the following cohorts: < three months, three to six months, six to nine months, and nine to 12 months from time of corticosteroid injection to TSA or rTSA. A control cohort with no corticosteroid injection within one year prior to TSA or rTSA was used for comparison. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the association between specific time intervals and outcomes. Results. In total, 4,252 patients were included in this study. Among those, 1,632 patients (38.4%) received corticosteroid injection(s) within one year prior to TSA or rTSA and 2,620 patients (61.6%) did not. On multivariate analysis, patients who received corticosteroid injection < three months prior to TSA or rTSA were at significantly increased risk for revision (odds ratio (OR) 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 3.28); p < 0.001) when compared with the control cohort. However, there was no significant increase in revision risk for all other timing interval cohorts. Notably, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause revision (OR 4.00 (95% CI 1.40 to 8.92); p = 0.036). Conclusion. There is a time-dependent relationship between the preoperative timing of corticosteroid injection and the incidence of all-cause revision surgery following TSA or rTSA. This analysis suggests that an interval of at least three months should be maintained between corticosteroid injection and TSA or rTSA to minimize risks of subsequent revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):620–626