Publications

BACKGROUND: With increasing efforts to transition shoulder arthroplasty to the ambulatory surgery setting, there is increased interest in predictive factors of failure of same-day discharge (SDD). The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of failing SDD, defined as requiring at least an overnight hospital stay after shoulder arthroplasty, and to develop a predictive model to identify which patients may require postoperative hospital admission.

METHODS: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients with rotator cuff arthropathy or osteoarthritis treated with primary anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty between January 2019 and June 2023 was conducted. Inclusion criteria included patients intended for SDD, whereas patients who underwent arthroplasty for fractures, patients younger than 45 years, and patients with incomplete data were excluded. Data on demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative opioid use, and preoperative steroid injections were collected. In addition, intraoperative metrics including American Society of Anesthesiologists score, surgical/anesthesia time, surgical start time, and blood loss were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of failure of SDD. Results were displayed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals. The α threshold was set to P < .05.

RESULTS: A total of 333 patients (69 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and 264 reverse total shoulder arthroplasty) were included with 92 failures of SDD (27.6%). According to multivariate results, we found older age (OR: 1.44, P = .004), anesthesia start time per hour later in the day (OR: 6.03, P = .017), preoperative opioid use within the past year (OR: 1.82, P = .046), and female sex (OR: 2.76, P = .001) as statistically significant risk factors for not achieving SDD. In addition, each half-hour increase in length of time under anesthesia was statistically significant, increasing odds of failing SSD by 4.28 per half hour (P < .001). A diagnosis of rotator cuff arthropathy had 3.40 greater odds of failing to achieve SDD as compared with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis (P < .001). Overall, the model had a high level of predictability, yielding a receiver operating characteristic curve area under the curve of 83%.

CONCLUSIONS: Older age, rotator cuff arthropathy, female sex, preoperative opioid use, and prolonged anesthesia exposure were significant predictors of failure of SDD after shoulder arthroplasty. These results support the utility in risk stratification strategies of patients to accurately triage them into SDD pathways. In addition, our results suggested that collaboration between surgeons and anesthesia teams may allow for more accurate risk stratification and optimization of resource utilization when deciding which patients are appropriate candidates for SDD.

PURPOSE: To evaluate rates of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability among patients with "on-track" Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent either arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) alone or arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage augmentation (ABR+R) and develop a risk assessment tool for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability as well as evaluate the role of remplissage augmentation for on-track shoulders to predict outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of patients aged 14 to 40 years who underwent ABR or ABR+R between 2013 and 2021. Chart review was performed to gather patient-specific risk factors such as patient age, gender, sport-specific participation, number of preoperative dislocations, and shoulder laxity, whereas imaging measurements were used to gather glenoid bone loss and distance-to-dislocation. Recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability was defined as recurrent dislocation and/or subjective subluxation postoperatively. Exclusion criteria included revision procedure, less than 2-year follow-up, presence of an "off-track" Hill-Sachs lesion, documented connective tissue disorder, concomitant rotator cuff tear, missing data, or the presence of glenoid bone loss >20%. Multivariate hazard ratio estimates were used to create a risk assessment tool and correlated with patient-specific risk via postestimation analysis.

RESULTS: A total of 170 patients were included for analysis (ABR: 116, ABR+R: 54) with an average age of 21.5 ± 6.2 years and an average follow-up of 5.1 years (2.0-9.0 years). Near-track lesions ("on-track" lesions with a distance-to-dislocation value less than 10 mm), presence of hyperlaxity, younger age, 2+ preoperative recurrent instability episodes, contact sport athlete status, and increasing glenoid bone loss were independent risk factors for ABR failure on the basis of a final multivariate model predicting postoperative failure. Furthermore, patients undergoing ABR alone had a greater risk of recurrent instability than those undergoing ABR+R. From the final multivariate model using these prognostic factors, the hazard ratios were used to create the Pittsburgh Instability Tool (PIT) and was subsequently used to create risk-stratifying subgroups: low-risk (0-3), moderate-risk (4-8), high-risk (9-13), extreme-risk (14+). Remplissage augmentation lowered the PIT score by 8 points. Recurrent instability rates range from 2.2% among low-risk groups to 51.3% among extreme-risk groups.

CONCLUSIONS: The current study indicates that arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage augmentation can lower the rate of recurrent instability in patients with high-risk "on-track" lesions. Surgeons can use the PIT tool to identify suitable candidates who may or may not benefit from arthroscopic Bankart repair with or without remplissage augmentation by computing PIT scores for both scenarios. However, if patient risk remains elevated with or without remplissage augmentation, these individuals may not benefit solely from arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization. The PIT risk assessment tool is a valuable resource for surgeons in evaluating the recurrence risks associated with remplissage augmentation, thus optimizing surgical strategies for on-track lesions with less than 20% glenoid bone loss.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

Internal rotation (IR) is not reliably improved after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study aimed to identify surgical parameters that predict kinematics of the hand-to-back motion (H2B) after RSA and to identify associations between kinematics and clinical outcomes after RSA. We hypothesized that less humeral retroversion, more lateralization and a larger glenosphere would predict kinematics associated with favorable outcomes post-RSA. Thirty-five patients performed H2B while synchronized biplane radiographs were collected. Digitally reconstructed radiographs, constructed from patient-specific bone plus implant models, were matched to the biplane radiographs to determine kinematics. The total contribution to motion, the end position, peak angles, and range of motion (ROM) were found for all glenohumeral and scapular rotations. The path of the center of the humeral insert on the glenosphere was calculated. Patient-reported outcomes, clinical ROM, and strength were measured. Associations were determined between intraoperative variables and kinematics as well as between kinematics and outcomes. The results demonstrated that glenosphere tilt predicted glenohumeral and scapular kinematics; these kinematics were associated with IR ROM, strength, and more favorable patient-reported outcomes. A larger glenosphere predicted a center of contact that was associated with more strength in IR. All components of scapular rotation were associated with favorable outcomes, suggesting rehabilitation focusing on scapular motion may improve outcomes post-RSA. Glenosphere tilt and size predicted kinematics that were associated with range of motion, strength, and patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) exhibit lower healing rates and inferior outcomes compared to primary repairs. There is limited evidence regarding the use of bioaugmentation in the setting of revision RCRs. Autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) is a promising adjunct that has been shown to improve healing rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the primary setting. In addition, bioinductive patches such as collagen bovine patches have become a popular adjunct for stimulating healing in the primary setting. The aim of this study is to assess the outcomes after use of ACP and collagen bovine patch augmentation for revision arthroscopic RCR. We hypothesized improved PROs and higher healing rates would be observed with bioaugmentation for revision repair compared to without.

METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved, retrospective case-control study from 2 fellowship-trained surgeons that included all consecutive patients undergoing arthroscopic revision RCR from 2010 to 2021. Reconstruction such as superior capsular reconstruction, partial revision repair, and less than 1-year follow-up were excluded. The bioaugmentation cohort received ACP and/or collagen bovine patch at the time of revision repair. PROs were collected from all patients including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Assessment Form (ASES), visual analog scale for pain (VAS), Brophy score, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) mental and physical scores. Failure of revision RCR was defined as an ASES postoperative total score less than 60 or a symptomatic retear confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging. Student's t-test was used for all comparisons of continuous variables. Chi-squared test used for comparison of all categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at <0.05.

RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients met inclusion criteria with average follow-up of 3.5 ± 1.7 years. There was no significant difference in follow-up between patients with and without bioaugmentation. Of the 38 patients, 14 patients met failure criteria. There was no significant difference in the rate of failure between the bioaugmentation cohort (6/19, 31.6%) vs. patients who did not receive bioaugmentation (8/19, 42.1%) (P = .74). In addition, no significant differences were identified for ASES (64.6 ± 20.1 vs. 57.5 ± 17.2, P = .32), Brophy (6.4 ± 5.2 vs. 6.0 ± 4.1, P = .84), PROMIS Mental (13.4 ± 3.9 vs. 11.7 ± 3.2), or PROMIS Physical (12.8 ± 3.1 vs. 11.9 ± 3.2) scores between the bioaugmentation vs. no bioaugmentation groups.

CONCLUSION: Bioaugmentation with a bioinductive collagen patch or ACP demonstrated similar failure and PROs compared to without bioaugmentation in the setting of revision RCR.

Cadaveric and computer simulations suggest lateral humeral offset (LHO) and humeral retroversion (HR) are associated with strength and range of motion (ROM) after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), butin vivodata is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of implant parameters (i.e. LHO and HR) on strength and ROM. LHO and HR were measured using pre-operative and post-operative computed tomography (CT) scans. Postoperative strength was measured across three planes of motion using a Biodex isokinetic dynamometer. Postoperative active and passive ROM during forward elevation, external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR) were assessed using a goniometer or spinal level. 30 rTSA patients (14 M, 16F, age: 71.8 ± 6.7yrs) participated with an average postoperative follow-up of 2.4 ± 1.1 years. Regarding strength, higher post-op LHO values were predictive of greater postoperative strength across all movements. However, lateralization of the implant beyond pre-op values (i.e. post-op LHO > pre-op LHO) was associated with poorer strength performance across all ranges of motion. Similar to strength outcomes, greater deviations from pre-op LHO was predictive of poorer IR ROM. Lastly, patients with minimal deviations in HR (post-op HR within 10° of pre-op HR) and minimal deviations in LHO (post-op LHO ≤ pre-op LHO) displayed the greatest postoperative ER ROM. Anatomic restoration of LHO combined with anatomic restoration of HR may be ideal for maximizing strength and ROM following rTSA. Overlateralization beyond anatomic may have negative consequences. Optimal implant lateralization and version may need to be individualized based on preoperative values.

BACKGROUND: Anterior shoulder instability is a common pathology seen especially in young men and highly active patient populations. Subluxation is a commonly encountered clinical issue, yet little is known about the effects of first-time subluxation compared with dislocation on shoulder stability and clinical outcomes after surgical stabilization.

PURPOSE: To compare revision and redislocation rates as well as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between subluxators and dislocators after a first-time anterior shoulder instability event.

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS: Included were patients who underwent operative intervention for a first-time anterior instability event between 2013 and 2020 at a single institution. Exclusion criteria were posterior/multidirectional instability, revision surgery, and recurrent instability. The main outcomes of interest were the rates of redislocation and revision. Demographics and surgical details were retrospectively collected. Instability was categorized as subluxation (no documentation of formal shoulder reduction) or dislocation (documented formal shoulder reduction). Labral tear location and size were determined from preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. PROs and return-to-sport, redislocation, and revision rates were collected from prospective survey data.

RESULTS: A total of 256 patients (141 subluxators and 115 dislocators) were available for analysis. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics or preoperative physical examination findings. Rates of bony Bankart lesions were comparable, but Hill-Sachs lesions were more commonly present in dislocators compared with subluxators (88.7% vs 53.9%; P < .01). There were no group differences in labral tear size, incidence of concomitant posterior or superior labrum anterior-posterior tears, or number of anchors used. Rates of remplissage were comparable between groups. Prospectively collected survey data of 60 patients (35 subluxators, 25 dislocators) were collected at 6.4 and 7.1 years of follow-up, respectively. Rates of recurrent dislocation (11.8% vs 20.0%) and revision (8.8% vs 16.0%) were comparable between subluxators and dislocators, respectively. All PROs and return-to-sport rates were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION: Subluxators and dislocators may present with comparable rates of redislocation and revision surgery even at midterm follow-up. Both cohorts may further present with comparable injury characteristics and PROs. Given the findings, future prospective studies comparing outcomes of first-time instability events are needed.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare short-term outcomes following Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA) and Humeral Head Resurfacing (HHR) in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA).

METHODS: A retrospective analysis included patients who had undergone either TSA or HHR for GHOA at a single institution. Baseline demographics, complications, range of motion (active forward flexion, FF and active external rotation, ER), visual analog scores (VAS), and Subjective Shoulder Values (SSV) were collected.

RESULTS: A total of 69 TSA and 56 HHR patients were analyzed. More HHR patients were laborers (44% versus 21%, P=0.01). There were more smokers in the TSA group (25% versus 11%, P=0.04) and more cardiovascular disease in the HHR cohort (64% versus. 6%, p<0.0001). Postoperative FF was similar, but ER was greater in the HHR (47° ± 15°) vs. TSA group (40° ± 12°, P = 0.01). VAS was lower after TSA vs. HHR (median 0, IQR 1 versus median 3.7, IQR 6.9, p<0.0001), and SSV was higher after TSA (89% ± 13% vs. 75% ± 20% after HHR; p<0.0001). Post-operative impingement was more common after HHR (32% vs. 3% for TSA, p<0.0001). All other complications were equivalent.

CONCLUSION: While younger patients and heavy laborers had improved ER following HHR, their pain relief was greater after TSA. Decisions on surgical technique should be based on patient-specific demographic and anatomic factors.

Studies have shown that glenoid- and humeral-sided bone loss may be present in up to 73-93% of individuals with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. As such, bone loss must be addressed appropriately, as the amount of bone loss drives surgical decision making and influences outcomes. Methods to describe and measure bone loss have changed over time. Originally, glenoid and humeral bone loss were viewed separately. However, the concepts of bipolar bone loss, the glenoid track (GT), and "on/off-track" lesions arose, highlighting the interplay between the two entities in contributing to recurrent instability. Classically, "off-track" lesions have been described as those Hill-Sachs interval (HSI) greater than the GT, and have been shown to result in higher rates of re-instability when addressed nonoperatively or with Bankart repair alone. More recently, further attention has been given to "on-track" lesions (HSI < GT). The new concept of "distance to dislocation" (DTD) has gained popularity. DTD is calculated as the difference between the GT and HSI, and literature evaluating DTD suggests that not all "on-track" lesions should be treated in the same manner. The purpose of this concept review article is twofold: (I) describe glenoid, humeral, and bipolar bone loss in the setting of anterior shoulder instability; and (II) elaborate on the new concept of "DTD" and its use in guidance of management.