Quantifying glenoid bone loss in the setting of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Are primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty appropriately reimbursed based on relative value units?

Functional internal rotation after shoulder arthroplasty: a comparison of anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Complications after primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty: a matched cohort study

Deep infection after shoulder arthroplasty is a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. The current literature on this topic is from single institutions or Medicare samples, lacking generalizability to the larger shoulder arthroplasty population. We sought to identify (1) patient-specific risk factors for deep infection, and (2) the pathogen profile after primary shoulder arthroplasty in a large integrated healthcare system. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Of 4528 patients identified, 320 had died and 302 were lost to followup. The remaining 3906 patients had a mean followup of 2.7 years (1 day-7 years). The study endpoint was the diagnosis of deep infection, which was defined as revision surgery for infection supported clinically by more than one of the following criteria: purulent drainage from the deep incision, fever, localized pain or tenderness, a positive deep culture, and/or a diagnosis of deep infection made by the operating surgeon based on intraoperative findings. Risk factors evaluated included age, sex, race, BMI, diabetes status, American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, traumatic versus elective procedure, and type of surgical implant. For patients with deep infections, we reviewed the surgical notes and microbiology records for the pathogen profile. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association of risk factors and deep infection. Adjusted hazard ratios and 95% CI are presented. With every 1-year increase in age, a 5% (95% CI, 2%-8%) lower risk of infection was observed. Male patients had a risk of infection of 2.59 times (95% CI, 1.27-5.31) greater than female patients. Patients undergoing primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty had a 6.11 times (95% CI, 2.65-14.07) greater risk of infection compared with patients having primary unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty. Patients having traumatic arthroplasties were 2.98 times (95% CI, 1.15-7.74) more likely to have an infection develop than patients having elective arthroplasties. BMI, race, ASA score, and diabetes status were not associated with infection risk (all p > 0.05). Propionibacterium acnes was the most commonly cultured organism, accounting for 31% of isolates. Younger, male patients are at greater risk for deep infection after primary shoulder arthroplasty. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and traumatic shoulder arthroplasties also carry a greater risk for infection. Propionibacterium acnes was the most prevalent pathogen causing infection in our primary shoulder arthroplasty population. Level II, prognostic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty has similar outcomes to primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty at 5 Year average follow-up

Tranexamic acid achieves less blood loss volume of in primary shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized controlled trials

Tranexamic acid is not associated with decreased infection risk after primary shoulder arthroplasty: A cohort study of 9276 patients.

Survivorship of autologous structural bone graft at a minimum of 2 years when used to address significant glenoid bone loss in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty: a computed tomographic and clinical review

Early aseptic reoperation after shoulder arthroplasty increases risk of subsequent prosthetic joint infection.

There has been decreased use of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) because reverse TSA (rTSA) is increasingly being used for the same indications. Although short-term studies generally have not found survivorship differences between these implant designs, these studies are often small and their follow-up is limited to the short term. Likewise, the degree to which patient characteristics (such as gender, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score) may or may not be associated with survivorship differences calls for larger and longer-term studies than is often possible in single-center designs. Large national registry studies may be able to help answer these questions. By analyzing a large Australian registry series of primary aTSAs with cemented all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for osteoarthritis (OA), we asked: (1) Is the revision risk for OA higher for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids or for rTSA, adjusting for patient characteristics such as age, gender, ASA score, and BMI? (2) Is the patient's gender associated with differences in the revision risk after controlling for the potentially confounding factors of age, ASA score, and BMI? In this comparative, observational registry study performed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, all primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for OA as determined by the treating surgeon and reported to our national registry formed two groups for analysis. The study period was set to time-match for the collection of ASA score and BMI in 2012 and 2015, respectively. Our registry enrolls more than 97% of all shoulder arthroplasties undertaken in Australia. There were 29,294 primary shoulder arthroplasties; 1592 hemiarthroplasties, 1876 resurfacing and stemless shoulders, 269 stemmed, and 11,674 reverse shoulder arthroplasties were excluded for other diagnoses. A total of 1210 metal-backed glenoids in stemmed aTSA for OA were excluded. A total of 3795 primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and 8878 primary rTSAs for OA were compared. An aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid and rTSA were more likely to be performed in women (56% and 61% of patients, respectively). The mean age was 69 ± 8 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 74 ± 8 years for rTSA. One aTSA for OA was performed in a patient with an unknown glenoid type. The ASA score (n = 12,438) and BMI (n = 11,233) were also recorded. The maximum follow-up was 5 years for both groups, and the mean follow-up was 2.6 ± 1.4 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 2.1 ± 1.4 years for rTSA. The endpoint was time to revision (all causes), and the cumulative percent revision was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship (time to revision) and HRs from Cox proportional hazard models that were adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI category. Overall, there were no differences in the 4-year cumulative percent revision between the groups; the 4-year cumulative percent revision was 3.5% for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids (95% CI 2.9%-4.2%) and 3.0% for rTSA (95% CI 2.6%-3.5%). There was an increased risk of revision of rTSA compared with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids in the first 3 months (HR 2.17 [95% CI 1.25-3.70]; p = 0.006, adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI). After that time, there was no difference in the rate of revision, with the same adjustments. In the first 3 months, men undergoing rTSA had a higher rate of revision than men with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids (HR 4.0 [95% CI 1.72-9.09]; p = 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA). There was no difference between men in the two groups after that time. Women with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids were at a greater risk of revision than women with rTSA from 3 months onward (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.55-4.92]; p < 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA), with no difference before that time. Given the absence of survivorship differences at 4 years between rTSA and aTSA, but in light of the differences in the revision risk between men and women, surgeons might select an aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid to treat OA, despite the current popularity of rTSA. However, there are survivorship differences between genders. Future studies should evaluate whether our comparative findings are replicated in men and women undergoing aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for primary diagnoses such as rheumatoid arthritis or post-traumatic arthritis, and whether there are functional differences between the two implant designs when used for OA. Level III, therapeutic study.

What's New in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

Medicaid reimbursement for shoulder arthroplasty procedures is substantially lower than Medicare and decreasing when adjusted for inflation.

Pain and falls among top reasons for early return to care following primary elective shoulder arthroplasty in a United States cohort

Rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continue to grow. Glenoid bone loss and deformity remains a technical challenge to the surgeon and may reduce improvements in patients' outcomes. However, there is no consensus as to the optimal surgical technique to best reconstruct these patients' anatomy. This review aims to compare the outcomes of glenoid bone grafting versus augmented glenoid prostheses in the management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated study-level data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We performed searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed from their dates of inception to January 2022. From included studies, we analyzed data for preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported functional outcomes, and complication rates. A total of 13 studies (919 shoulders) were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients at initial evaluation was 72.2 years (42 to 87), with a mean follow-up time of 40.7 months (24 to 120). Nine studies with 292 rTSAs evaluated the use of bone graft and five studies with 627 rTSAs evaluated the use of augmented glenoid baseplates. One study was analyzed in both groups. Both techniques demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures and ROM assessment, with augmented prostheses outperforming bone grafting on improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score. There was a higher complication rate (8.9% vs 3.5%; p < 0.001) and revision rate among the bone grafting group compared with the patients who were treated with augmented prostheses (2.4% vs 0.6%; p = 0.022). This review provides strong evidence that both bone graft and augmented glenoid baseplate techniques to address glenoid bone loss give excellent ROM and functional outcomes in primary rTSA. The use of augmented base plates may confer fewer complications and revisions.Cite this article: Bone Joint J2022;104-B(12):1334-1342.

Relative value units (RVUs) have been fundamental to reimbursement calculations in payment models for arthroplasty surgeons. RVUs are based on various factors, including physician work, and have been higher for increased complexity, such as revision arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare RVUs and estimated reimbursement differences between primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to collect primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty cases in 2017. Data variables collected included age at the time of surgery, surgical time, and RVU for each shoulder arthroplasty. A total of 4,948 shoulder arthroplasty patients (4,657 primary and 291 revision) were included in this study. The mean age was 69.1 years (9.6 SD) for primary shoulder arthroplasty and 67.8 years (10.4 SD) for revision shoulder arthroplasty, P = 0.02. RVU for primary shoulder arthroplasty was 22.1 (0 SD) compared with 26.4 (1.1 SD) for revision shoulder arthroplasty (P = 0.0001). Surgical time was significantly higher in revision versus primary cases, 131.5 minutes (89.0 SD) versus 109.3 minutes (42.5 SD) (P = 0.0001). RVUs per minute were near equivalent for primary and revision arthroplasty at 0.20 (0.1 SD) and 0.20 (01 SD), respectively. However, owing to the difference in surgical time and cases per day, this translates to an estimated reimbursement difference of $174,554.4 per year more for primary shoulder arthroplasty over revision cases. The current RVU model does not adequately factor surgical time for revision shoulder arthroplasty and translates to a notable yearly reimbursement difference that favors primary shoulder arthroplasty.