Wright, Jonathan O.

Aims Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) is commonly performed for recurrence of pain and arthritic progression; however, the influence of prior RCR timing and technique on outcomes of RSA has not been adequately explored. Our primary aim was to evaluate the relationship between the postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, whether prior RCR was performed open or arthroscopic, and the time interval between RSA and prior RCR. Secondary outcomes were forward elevation (FE) and external rotation (ER). Methods A prospectively collected single-institution shoulder arthroplasty database was queried to identify patients undergoing primary RSA after prior RCR between 2004 and 2022 for non-tumour and non-fracture indications with minimum two-year follow-up. We evaluated the relationship between the postoperative ASES score, FE, and ER stratified by prior RCR approach (open vs arthroscopic) and time between RSA and RCR. Multivariable analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders. Results We included 104 RSAs (99 patients) with a mean 8.8 years (SD 7.3) after RCR and a mean age of 68 years (SD 8.3). Prior RCR was performed arthroscopically in 40 RSAs (38%). Mean follow-up was 4.8 years (SD 2.8). On multivariable analysis, arthroscopic RCR was independently associated with a 13-point greater postoperative ASES score (p = 0.008), 14° greater forward elevation (p = 0.011), and 8° greater external rotation (p = 0.018) compared with open RCR. A ten-year increase in time between RCR and RSA was associated with a seven-point greater postoperative ASES score (p = 0.029) and 5° greater external rotation (p = 0.015). Conclusion A greater time interval between prior RCR and RSA, as well as arthroscopic techniques, is associated with improved outcomes after primary RSA in patients with prior RCR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2026;108-B(7):928–935.

Background: When missing data are present in clinical outcomes studies, complete-case analysis (CCA) is often performed, whereby patients with missing data are excluded. While simple, CCA analysis may impart selection bias and reduce statistical power, leading to erroneous statistical results in some cases. However, there exist more rigorous statistical approaches, such as single and multiple imputation, which approximate the associations that would have been present in a full dataset and preserve the study’s power. The purpose of this study is to evaluate how statistical results differ when performed after CCA analysis versus imputation methods. Methods: This simulation study analyzed a sample dataset consisting of 2204 shoulders, with complete datapoints from a larger multicenter total shoulder arthroplasty database. From the sampled dataset of demographics, surgical characteristics, and clinical outcomes, we created five test datasets, ranging from 100 to 2000 shoulders, and simulated 10–50% missingness in the postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and range of motion in four planes in missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), and not missing at random (NMAR) patterns. Missingness in outcomes was remedied using CCA, three single imputation techniques, and two multiple imputation techniques. The imputation performance was evaluated relative to the native complete dataset using the root mean squared error (RMSE) and the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). We also compared the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the postoperative ASES score and the results of multivariable linear and logistic regression to understand the effects of imputation on the study results. Results: The average overall RMSE and MAPE were similar for MCAR (22.6 and 27.2%) and MAR (19.2 and 17.7%) missingness patterns, but were substantially poorer for NMAR (37.5 and 79.2%); the sample size and the percentage of data missingness minimally affected RMSE and MAPE. Aggregated mean postoperative ASES scores were within 5% of the true value when missing data were remedied with CCA, and all candidate imputation methods for nearly all ranges of sample size and data missingness when data were MCAR or MAR, but not when data were NMAR. When data were MAR, CCA resulted in overestimates of the SD. When data were MCAR or MAR, the accuracy of the regression estimate (β or OR) and its corresponding 95% CI varied substantially based on the sample size and proportion of missing data for multivariable linear regression, but not logistic regression. When data were MAR, the width of the 95% CI was up to 300% larger when CCA was used, whereas most imputation methods maintained the width of the 95% CI within 50% of the true value. Single imputation with k-nearest neighbor (kNN) method and multiple imputation with predictive mean matching (MICE-PMM) best-reproduced point estimates and intervariable relationships resembling the native dataset. Availability of correlated outcome scores improved the RMSE, MAPE, accuracy of the mean postoperative ASES score, and multivariable linear regression model estimates. Conclusions: Complete-case analysis can introduce selection bias when data are MAR, and it results in loss of statistical power, resulting in loss of precision (i.e., expansion of the 95% CI) and predisposition to false-negative findings. Our data demonstrate that imputation can reliably reproduce missing clinical data and generate accurate population estimates that closely resemble results derived from native primary shoulder arthroplasty datasets (i.e., prior to simulated data missingness). Further study of the use of imputation in clinical database research is critical, as the use of CCA may lead to different conclusions in comparison to more rigorous imputation approaches.

Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is increasingly used in the treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) with reliable clinical improvement. However, the preferred techniques for humeral stem fixation are varied and may be influenced by patient and injury characteristics, including bone quality and fracture pattern. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine the effect of humeral component cementing and bone grafting on tuberosity healing rates and functional outcomes after RSA for PHFs. Methods: A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for clinical studies on RSA performed for PHFs that reported on the use of cemented humeral stems and autograft bone. The primary outcome was the rate of greater tuberosity healing between the various techniques. Secondarily, the authors compared clinical outcomes including postoperative external rotation, forward elevation, abduction, Constant score, and the incidence of complications and revision surgery. Outcomes were compared based on the use of an uncemented press-fit stem, a fully cemented stem without bone graft, or a partially cemented stem with humeral head autograft (i.e., black and tan technique). Results: Forty-eight studies reporting on 1,797 RSAs were included (mean patient age, 75 years; follow-up, 34 months; 81% female). Tuberosity healing was highest in the uncemented cohort, then the black and tan cohort, and lowest in the cemented cohort (80% vs. 70% vs. 61%, p = 0.006). No significant differences in postoperative range of motion, Constant score, complication rates, or revision rates were found. Conclusion: Uncemented fixation with a press-fit stem was associated with superior greater tuberosity healing rates; however, functional outcomes and complications did not differ among techniques. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AimsWe 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.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty database was performed between August 1991 and September 2020 to identify patients who underwent primary aTSA. Patients were excluded for preoperative diagnoses of fracture, infection, or oncological disease. Three cohorts were created based on smoking status: non-smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. Outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant-Murley score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), University of California, Los Angeles activity scale (UCLA)), range of motion (external rotation (ER), forward elevation (FE), internal rotation, abduction), and shoulder strength (ER, FE) evaluated at two- to four-year follow-up were compared between cohorts. Evaluation of revision-free survival was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method to final follow-up.ResultsWe included 428 primary aTSAs with a mean follow-up of 2.4 years (SD 0.6). Our cohort consisted of 251 non-smokers, 138 former smokers who quit a mean 21 years (SD 14) prior to surgery (25 pack-years (SD 22)), and 39 current smokers (23 pack-years (SD 20)). At two- to four-year follow-up, former smokers had less favourable SPADI, SST, and FE strength compared to non-smokers, and current smokers had less favourable SPADI, SST, ASES score, UCLA score, Constant-Murley score, FE, abduction, and ER strength compared to non-smokers. Non-smokers exhibited higher revision-free survival rates at two, five, eight, and ten years postoperatively compared to former smokers and current smokers, who had similar rates.ConclusionOur study suggests that smoking has a negative effect on aTSA functional outcomes that may persist even after quitting.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1263–1272.

Background This study sought to characterize the tipping point values (the functional scores that patients deem dysfunctional enough to warrant surgery) for patients undergoing first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Methods This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Tipping point evaluation utilized preoperative scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), raw and normalized Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) scores, and active range of motion including abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation score (IR) prior to elective revision rTSA. Results We included 125 revision rTSAs. Tipping points were 37.6 ASES score, 30.5 raw Constant score, 35.5 normalized Constant score, 68.1 SPADI, 3.7 SST, 13.2 UCLA score, 64° abduction, 69° FE, 23° ER, and 3.1 IR. Higher SST was found for older patients and patients with a lower body mass index. Lower abduction and FE tipping points were reported in patients undergoing revision rTSA for rotator cuff failure, unexplained pain, and implant wear. Discussion These tipping points can help surgeons counsel patients regarding when to undergo revision rTSA. Level of evidence Level III; retrospective cohort study; treatment study.

Abstract: Today, well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the pinnacle of clinical research, and they inform many practices in orthopaedics. When designing these studies, researchers conduct a power analysis, which allows researchers to strike a balance between (1) enrolling enough patients to detect a clinically important treatment effect (i.e., researchers can be confident that the effect is unlikely due to chance) and (2) cost, time, and risk to patients, which come with enrolling an excessive number of patients. Because researchers will have a desire to conduct resource-efficient RCTs and protect patients from harm, many studies report a p value that is close to the threshold for significance. The concept of the fragility index (FI) was introduced as a simple way to interpret RCT findings, but it does not account for RCT design. The adoption of the FI conflicts with researchers’ goals of designing efficient RCTs that conserve resources and limit ineffective or harmful treatments to patients. The use of the FI may reflect many clinicians’ lack of familiarity with interpreting p values beyond “significant” or “nonsignificant.” Instead of inventing new metrics to convey the same information provided by the p value, greater emphasis should be placed on educating clinicians on how to interpret p values and, more broadly, statistics, when reading scientific studies.

Background Improper sizing of the humeral head component in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) can overstuff the joint, potentially compromising outcomes. The purpose of this study was to validate a novel method of evaluating glenohumeral joint overstuffing in which superoinferior and mediolateral overstuffing can be evaluated independently relative to the native humeral anatomy. Methods We identified 25 patients who underwent ATSA and the best Grashey radiograph taken within 1 year of follow-up was assessed using our proposed technique. First, a circle overlaying the implanted humeral head was made. Then, Iannotti's Perfect Circle (IPC) was drawn as originally described. Measurements of superior and medial overstuffing were made using our proposed axes. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by computing interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) using a one-way model. Measurements were summarized as the mean and range, with positive values denoting overstuffing. Results The inter-rater reliability for all measurements was excellent (ICC > 0.9). Compared to our method, the IPC method would have missed 77% of overstuffed cases. Conclusion We present a reproducible method to assess glenohumeral joint overstuffing in ATSA. This technique addresses limitations of other methods that underestimate overstuffing. Further study is needed to establish a clinically significant value of overstuffing based on the proposed method.

Context: Elbow medial ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries have become increasingly common in athletes. Despite this, rehabilitation protocols appear to vary drastically, which may explain the clinical equipoise regarding optimal management. Objective: This systematic review reports rehabilitation characteristics reported after UCL injuries and compares reported outcomes based on early versus delayed rehabilitation. Data Sources: Our search utilized PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to identify all articles on UCL rehabilitation published between January 1, 2002 and October 1, 2022. Study Selection: Studies in English with ≥5 patients that reported rehabilitation protocols for UCL injuries were evaluated. Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Data included sample characteristics, time to achieve physical therapy milestones, outcome scores, and return-to-play (RTP) rate and timing. Results: Our review included 105 articles with a total of 15,928 elbows (98% male; weighted mean age, 23 years; follow-up, 47 months), with 15,077 treated operatively and 851 treated nonoperatively. The weighted mean time patients spent adhering to nonweightbearing status was 42 days. The mean time until patients were given clearance for active range of motion (ROM) 15 days, full ROM 40 days, and elbow strengthening exercises 32 days. The mean time until all restrictions were lifted was 309 days. The mean time to begin a throwing program was 120 days. Across all rehabilitation characteristics, protocols for patients undergoing nonoperative management started patients on rehabilitation earlier. After UCL reconstruction, earlier active ROM (≤14 days), elbow strengthening (≤30 days), no restrictions (≤180 days), and throwing (≤120 days) postoperatively led to earlier RTP without a negative effect on functional outcome scores. Conclusion: Current literature provides a spectrum of protocols for elbow UCL rehabilitation, regardless of management. Nonoperative patients began ROM activities, strengthening, and throwing programs sooner than operative patients, and earlier milestones led to earlier RTP.

Purpose To evaluate return to play (RTP) and return to same level of play (RTSP) rates as well as preoperative and postoperative in‐game performance metrics in baseball pitchers who underwent ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR). Secondarily, this review sought to assess outcomes based on primary versus revision UCLR as well as level of competition. Methods This review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried to identify articles evaluating UCLR in baseball players between January 2002 and October 2022. Data included RTP, RTSP, and performance metrics including earned run average, innings pitched, walks and hits per inning pitched, batting average against, strikeouts per 9 innings, walks per 9 innings, percentage of fastballs thrown, and average fastball velocity. The Methodological Index for Non‐randomized Studies criteria were used for quality assessment. Results Analysis included 25 articles reporting on 2,100 elbows. After primary UCLR, RTP ranged from 336 to 615 days (57% to 100% achieved) and RTSP ranged from 330 to 513 days (61% to 95%). After revision UCLR, RTP ranged from 381 to 631 days (67% to 98%) and RTSP ranged from 518 to 575 days (42% to 78%). When stratifying primary UCLR outcomes by competitive level, RTP and RTSP ranged respectively from 417 to 615 days (75% to 100%) and 513 days (73% to 87%) for Major League Baseball only, 409 to 615 days (57% to 100%) and 470 to 513 days (61% to 95%) for Major League Baseball plus Minor League Baseball, and 336 to 516 days (73% to 85%) and 330 days (55% to 74%) for college plus high school. Heterogeneity was seen in postoperative sports performance metrics. Conclusions Although more than half of baseball players appear able to RTP after primary and revision UCLR, RTSP rates after revision UCLR were as low as 42% in the literature. Preoperative and postoperative performance metrics varied. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level II‐IV studies.

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.