Aims. A recent study used the RAND Corporation at University of California, Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) method to develop anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) appropriateness criteria. The purpose of our study was to determine how patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) vary based on appropriateness. Methods. Clinical data from a multicentre database identified patients who underwent primary aTSA from November 2004 to January 2023. A total of 390 patients (mean follow-up 48.1 months (SD 42.0)) were included: 97 (24.9%) were classified as appropriate, 218 (55.9%) inconclusive, and 75 (19.2%) inappropriate. Patients were classified as “appropriate”, “inconclusive”, or “inappropriate”, using a modified version of an appropriateness algorithm, which accounted for age, rotator cuff status, mobility, symptomatology, and Walch classification. Multiple pre- and postoperative scores were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-squared test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Postoperative complications were also analyzed. Results. All groups achieved significant improvement in mean PROM scores postoperatively. “Appropriate” patients experienced significantly greater improvement in visual analogue scale (VAS) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score compared to “inconclusive” and “inappropriate”. The appropriate group had a significantly greater proportion of patients who achieved minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (95.8%; n = 93) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) (92.6%; n = 89). Overall, 13 patients had postoperative complications. No significant differences in postoperative complications among classifications were found. Conclusion. Our data clinically validate the RAND/UCLA aTSA appropriateness criteria algorithm, allowing for more rapid and reliable determination of aTSA candidacy. “Appropriate” patients were more likely to achieve MCID and SCB for ASES scores compared to “inappropriate” patients. Among “appropriate” patients who did not achieve SCB, 50% (n = 4) had a postoperative complication. There was a significantly higher proportion of postoperative complications among those who did not achieve SCB across all three groups. Only 7.1% (n = 1) of patients who did not achieve SCB in the inappropriate group had a postoperative complication. Thus, it can be inferred that the failure to reach SCB in the appropriate group was likely to be due to a postoperative complication, whereas for patients deemed “inappropriate”, failure to reach SCB may be secondary to factors accounted for within our algorithm. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1451–1460

Aims

We sought to compare functional outcomes and survival between non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers who underwent anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) in a large cohort of patients.

Aims

Professional dancers represent a unique patient population in the setting of hip arthroplasty, given the high degree of hip strength and mobility required by their profession. We sought to determine the clinical outcomes and ability to return to professional dance after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Aims. Both anatomical and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA and rTSA) provide functional improvements. A reported benefit of aTSA is better range of motion (ROM). However, it is not clear which procedure provides better outcomes in patients with limited foward elevation (FE). The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of aTSA and rTSA in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), an intact rotator cuff, and limited FE. Methods. This was a retrospective review of a single institution’s prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database for TSAs undertaken between 2007 and 2020. A total of 344 aTSAs and 163 rTSAs, which were performed in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff with a minimum follow-up of two years, were included. Using the definition of preoperative stiffness as passive FE ≤ 105°, three cohorts were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and follow-up: stiff aTSAs (85) to non-stiff aTSAs (85); stiff rTSAs (74) to non-stiff rTSAs (74); and stiff rTSAs (64) to stiff aTSAs (64). We the compared ROMs, outcome scores, and complication and revision rates. Results. Compared with non-stiff aTSAs, stiff aTSAs had poorer passive FE and active external rotation (ER), whereas there were no significant postoperative differences between stiff rTSAs and non-stiff rTSAs. There were no significant differences in preoperative function when comparing stiff aTSAs with stiff rTSAs. However, stiff rTSAs had significantly greater postoperative active and passive FE (p = 0.001 and 0.004, respectively), and active abduction (p = 0.001) compared with stiff aTSAs. The outcome scores were significantly more favourable in stiff rTSAs for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, University of California, Los Angeles score, and the Constant score, compared with stiff aTSAs. When comparing the proportion of stiff aTSAs versus stiff rTSAs that exceeded the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit, stiff rTSAs achieved both at greater rates for all measurements except active ER. The complication rate did not significantly differ between stiff aTSAs and stiff rTSAs, but there was a significantly higher rate of revision surgery in stiff aTSAs (p = 0.007). Conclusion. Postoperative overhead ROM, outcome scores, and rates of revision surgery favour the use of a rTSA rather than aTSA in patients with glenohumeral OA, an intact rotator cuff and limited FE, with similar rotational ROM in these two groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1303–1313

Aims

The aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) up to long-term follow-up, when using cemented keel, cemented peg, and hybrid cage peg glenoid components and the same humeral system.

Aims. This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) under distribution- and anchor-based methods for the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and range of movement (ROM) after open elbow arthrolysis (OEA). We also assessed the proportion of patients who achieved MCID and SCB; and identified the factors associated with achieving MCID. Methods. A cohort of 265 patients treated by OEA were included. The MEPI and ROM were evaluated at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Distribution-based MDC was calculated with confidence intervals (CIs) reflecting 80% (MDC 80), 90% (MDC 90), and 95% (MDC 95) certainty, and MCID with changes from baseline to follow-up. Anchor-based MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) were calculated using a five-level Likert satisfaction scale. Multivariate logistic regression of factors affecting MCID achievement was performed. Results. The MDC increased substantially based on selected CIs (MDC 80, MDC 90, and MDC 95), ranging from 5.0 to 7.6 points for the MEPI, and from 8.2° to 12.5° for ROM. The MCID of the MEPI were 8.3 points under distribution-based and 12.2 points under anchor-based methods; distribution- and anchor-based MCID of ROM were 14.1° and 25.0°. The SCB of the MEPI and ROM were 17.3 points and 43.4°, respectively. The proportion of the patients who attained anchor-based MCID for the MEPI and ROM were 74.0% and 94.7%, respectively; furthermore, 64.2% and 86.8% attained SCB. Non-dominant arm (p = 0.022), higher preoperative MEPI rating (p < 0.001), and postoperative visual analogue scale pain score (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of not achieving MCID for the MEPI, while atraumatic causes (p = 0.040) and higher preoperative ROM (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for ROM. Conclusion. In patients undergoing OEA, the MCID for the increased MEPI is 12.2 points and 25° increased ROM. The SCB is 17.3 points and 43.3°, respectively. Future studies using the MEPI and ROM to assess OEA outcomes should report not only statistical significance but also clinical importance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):366–372

Aims

Thresholds for operative eligibility based on body mass index (BMI) alone may restrict patient access to the benefits of arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between BMI and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to determine how many patients would have been denied improvements in PROMs if BMI cut-offs were to be implemented.