Final American Shoulder And Elbow Surgeons Score Research Articles

Variations in subpectoral biceps tenodesis locations do not impact clinical outcomes

Biceps tenodesis is a common treatment for pathologies involving the long head of the biceps brachii. Given variations in surgical approach, focus has been placed on the location of the tenodesis to maintain appropriate length-tension relationship. The purpose of this study is to assess for variations in the tunnel placement in subpectoral biceps tenodesis procedures and correlation of tunnel position with patient-reported outcomes. This is a retrospective case series of outcomes as a function of tunnel location with open subpectoralis biceps tenodesis. The location of the biceps tenodesis tunnel was measured on postoperative Grashey radiographs. Correlation between the tenodesis tunnel and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was assessed. 31 patients were included in the study with an average follow-up of 17 months. The overall tunnel position from the superior edge of the greater tuberosity ranged from 4.20 cm to 12.61 cm, with an average of 7.46 cm. Final ASES score and VAS were 84.5 and 1.2, respectively. There was only weak correlation between both ASES score and tunnel position (r=-0.12) and VAS and tunnel position (r=-0.23). Subpectoralis biceps tenodesis continues to be a viable treatment option for biceps and superior labral pathology. There remains no consensus on tenodesis location, and this study found no significant difference between tunnel location and patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, it is likely that a range of tenodesis locations exists in which favorable clinical results are achieved, explaining the numerous recommendations on tunnel placement.

Improved outcomes for proximal humerus fracture open reduction internal fixation augmented with a fibular allograft in elderly patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To date, no meta-analysis has been performed on the efficacy of fibular allograft augmentation for the management of proximal humerus fractures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of proximal humerus fractures treated with a locking compression plate (LCP) with or without fibular allograft augmentation. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS were queried in June of 2021 for literature comparing the radiographic and clinical outcomes for patients with proximal humerus fractures that were treated with an LCP only or an LCP augmented with a fibular allograft. Data describing study design, level of evidence, demographic information, final follow-up, radiographic changes in humeral head height (HHH), radiographic changes in neck shaft angle (NSA), final American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, final Constant-Murley scores, and major complications were collected. Risk of bias was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). A meta-analysis was performed using pooled weighted mean differences (WMD) to compare changes in HHH, NSA, final ASES and final Constant-Murley scores between the 2 groups; a pooled odds ratio (OR) was used to compare complications between the groups. Ten studies with a total of 802 patients were identified. There was a significant difference that favored patients augmented with a fibular allograft for change in HHH (WMD=-2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.49 to -2.31; P<.00001), change in NSA (WMD=-5.71; 95% CI, -6.69 to -4.72; P<.00001), final ASES scores (WMD=5.08; 95% CI, 3.69-6.48; P<.00001), and OR for developing a major complication (OR=0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.59; P<.0001). There was no significant difference in final Constant-Murley scores (WMD=3.36; 95% CI, -0.21 to 6.93; P=.06) or revision surgery rate (P=.182) between the 2 groups. The pooled WMD and prediction interval suggest that 95% of patients with proximal humerus fractures treated with an LCP augmented with a fibular allograft will have improved radiographic outcomes, improved ASES clinical outcome scores, and decreased odds of a major complication when compared with patients treated with an LCP alone. Limitations of this study include a relatively short average final follow-up time (<2 years) and a potential lack of standardization for radiographic outcomes among included studies.

Comparison of Early Range of Motion in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Based on Indication: A Single Center Retrospective Review.

BackgroundReverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is commonly used in the treatment of rotator cuff arthropathy. Indications for RSA have expanded to include complex proximal humerus fractures. Studies directly comparing outcomes between traumatic and traditional elective indications are limited. The purpose of this study was to compare early active range of motion (aROM) within the first two years postoperatively between traumatic and non-traumatic primary RSA, as well as compare ASES scores, and patient satisfaction at final follow-up.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted of all RSA performed by a single surgeon between January 2000 and December 2018. Patients were grouped by indication into traumatic and non-traumatic elective groups. Demographics, surgical data, and routine aROM data were collected. aROM was compared at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and patient satisfaction were determined at the time of this investigation.Results367 RSA procedures were performed by the senior author during the study period, 88 for fracture (24%), and 279 for non-traumatic elective indications (76%). Forward elevation and external rotation were inferior in the fracture group at all time points in the first two years. Internal rotation was equivalent throughout the first two years. Final ASES scores were 77.6 versus 83.5 in the fracture and non-fracture groups, respectively (p = .33).ConclusionPatients undergoing RSA for fracture had statistically significant inferior aROM in forward elevation and external rotation throughout the first two years. Despite having inferior aROM, ASES scores and patient satisfaction at final follow-up were statistically equivalent.Level of EvidenceLevel III; Retrospective Cohort Comparision; Prognosis Study

Effect of complications on outcomes after revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundRevision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) reliably improves shoulder pain and function in patients with failed shoulder arthroplasty, although it can lead to significant postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of postoperative complications on shoulder pain and function after revision RTSA.MethodsWe evaluated 36 patients at an average of 4.3 years (range, 2-8.6 years) after revision of a shoulder arthroplasty to RTSA. Of these patients, 9 had a failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, 23 had a failed hemiarthroplasty, and 4 had a failed RTSA. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score were evaluated postoperatively, and patients with and without postoperative complications were compared.ResultsThe final ASES score and VAS pain score were 61 ± 23 and 2.4 ± 2.3, respectively. A major postoperative complication occurred in 7 patients (19%) (infection in 3, hematoma in 1, instability in 1, and acromial and/or scapular spine fracture in 2). Further surgical treatment was required in 5 patients (14%) (irrigation and débridement and component exchange for infection in 3, irrigation and débridement for hematoma in 1, and open reduction–internal fixation of scapular spine fracture in 1). On comparison of clinical outcomes between patients with and patients without complications, the ASES score and VAS pain score were significantly worse in patients with complications vs. those without them (ASES score, 43 ± 24 vs. 66 ± 21 [P = .04]; VAS pain score, 4.3 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 2.2 [P = .03]).ConclusionRevision RTSA resulted in postoperative pain and shoulder function comparable to primary RTSA reported in the literature, although postoperative complications led to clinically significant declines in function and increases in pain.

Outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty for instability arthropathy with a prior coracoid transfer procedure: a retrospective review and matched cohort

Many surgeons are concerned about reports of increased complications, worse outcomes, and early failures in patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty after coracoid transfer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate minimum 2-year outcomes following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for instability arthropathy with a prior coracoid transfer procedure and compare them with a matched cohort of patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. We identified 11 primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties performed by a single surgeon for instability arthropathy with a prior coracoid transfer procedure with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up (mean, 58 ± 35 months). A matched cohort of 33 patients with a total shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis served as the control group. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, patient satisfaction, complications, and revisions were evaluated in both cohorts. The coracoid transfer cohort showed no difference in the final ASES score (88 vs. 82, P = .166) or SANE score (85 vs. 67, P=.120) vs. the matched cohort. The postoperative ASES pain score (45 vs. 41, P = .004) was higher in the coracoid transfer cohort, but the mean improvement from preoperative to postoperative values for the ASES score (P = .954), ASES pain score (P = .183), and SANE score (P = .293) was no different between cohorts. Both cohorts had high patient satisfaction without a statistically significant difference(P = .784). At early- to mid-term follow-up, total shoulder arthroplasty performed after a coracoid transfer demonstrated similar results to total shoulder arthroplasty performed for primary osteoarthritis. Longer follow-up and larger patient cohorts will provide further insights and highlight any potential differences in outcomes or revision rates.