O’Keefe, Daniel S.

Background A variety of clinically important benchmarks of success (CIBS) have been defined for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to quantify success. However, it is unclear how the preoperative status of the patient influences their likelihood of achieving each CIBS. Questions/purposes (1) What proportion of patients achieve commonly used CIBS after TSA? (2) Is there a relationship between a patients’ preoperative function and their probability of achieving different CIBS? (3) Does there exist preoperative ranges for each outcome measure that are associated with greater achievement of CIBS? Methods We retrospectively queried a multicenter shoulder arthroplasty database for primary anatomic TSA (aTSA) and reverse TSA (rTSA). A total of 2041 aTSAs and 3205 rTSAs were included. The mean ± SD age at time of surgery was 66 ± 9 years for aTSAs and 72 ± 8 years for rTSAs. In all, 51% (1049 of 2041) of aTSAs and 61% (1955 of 3205) of rTSAs were in patients who were women. For aTSAs, osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff was the most common preoperative diagnosis (92% [1869 of 2041]). For rTSAs, the most common preoperative diagnoses included rotator cuff tear arthropathy (40% [1280 of 3205]), osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff (24% [780 of 3205]), osteoarthritis with a torn rotator cuff (20% [632 of 3205]), and massive rotator cuff tear (10% [309 of 3205]). Outcomes were evaluated at latest follow-up (aTSA 61 ± 36 months, rTSA 47 ± 26 months) and consisted of ROM (abduction, forward elevation, external and internal rotation) as well as the most commonly used outcome scores: the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and the Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score. The CIBS that we evaluated included the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), minimum clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement (MCI-%MPI), and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement (SCI-%MPI). Prosthesis-specific anchor-based CIBS were adopted from prior publications on patients from this database. Multivariable regression was performed to identify the relationship between preoperative outcome measures and achievement of CIBS. Additionally, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to determine whether thresholds in preoperative outcome measures were associated with achieving CIBS. Results For all ROM measures and outcome scores, poorer preoperative ROM was associated with greater odds of achieving the MCID and SCB but lower odds of achieving the PASS. For the SST and the two scores without ceiling effects (the Constant and SAS scores), poorer preoperative outcome scores were associated with greater odds of achieving the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI, but no association was demonstrated for the ASES, SPADI, and UCLA scores. Graphical analysis demonstrated that patients with greater preoperative ROM and outcome scores had a lower probability of achieving the MCID and SCB but a higher probability of achieving the PASS. For outcome scores with known ceiling effects, patients with more favorable preoperative outcome scores were more likely to achieve the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI than the MCID and SCB, respectively. For outcome scores without ceiling effects, patients undergoing aTSA were more likely to achieve the MCID, MCI-%MPI, and the SCI-%MPI than the SCB, but no clear trend was identified for patients undergoing rTSA. On ROC curve analysis, identified thresholds were reasonably accurate (area under the curve > 0.7) for achievement of measures of absolute improvement (the MCID and SCB), but not for absolute postoperative status (the PASS) or relative improvement (the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI). Conclusion While most patients reported being “much better” (aTSA 75%, rTSA 76%) or “better” (aTSA 15%, rTSA 18%) compared with before surgery, 10% of aTSAs and 6% of rTSAs were either “unchanged” or “worse.” Patients’ likelihood of achieving CIBS depends in part on their baseline function and whether success is defined as absolute improvement, absolute postoperative status, or relative improvement. Patients with more favorable preoperative status are more likely to achieve CIBS that evaluate relative improvement (the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI) than absolute improvement (the MCID and SCB). Future studies are needed to determine which individual CIBS or combinations thereof most accurately represent clinically relevant benefit. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

Background The increasing incidence of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSA) has led to an increase in revision surgery. We aimed to compare patients undergoing re-revision RTSA to a matched cohort undergoing first-revision RTSA. Methods A retrospective review of all revision RTSAs was performed at a single institution. Sixteen shoulders that underwent re-revision RTSA were matched 1:3 to shoulders that underwent revision RTSA with a minimum two-year follow-up. Outcome scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores, range of motion (ROM), and improvement from preoperative to postoperative outcomes after re-revision RTSA were assessed. Additionally, postoperative outcomes after re-revision RTSA were compared to patients that underwent first revision RTSA and subsequently compared to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the outcome scores and ROM measurements assessed. Results Sixteen shoulders that underwent re-revision RTSA and 78 revision RTSAs met the final inclusion criteria to be included in this study. Significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative re-revision RTSA was seen in the ASES score (p = 0.046), SPADI score (p = 0.044), SST (p = 0.008), abduction (p = 0.016), and elevation (p = 0.025), but not the SF-12 score (p = 0.396), external rotation (p = 0.449), or internal rotation (p = 0.451). Outcomes after revision RTSA were found to be superior to outcomes after re-revision RTSA for all outcome scores (ASES p = 0.029, SF-12 p = 0.018, SPADI p = 0.003) except the SST score (p = 0.080) and all ROM measures (p > 0.05 for all). Internal rotation was equivalent postoperatively between both groups. From preoperative to postoperative re-revision RTSA, the mean improvement exceeded the MCID for the SST score, abduction, forward elevation, and external rotation. When comparing postoperative revision RTSA to postoperative re-revision RTSA, the mean difference between revision and re-revision RTSA exceeded the MCID for the SPADI score and external rotation. The complication rate was 19% in shoulders undergoing first revision and 41% in shoulders undergoing re-revision RTSA. Conclusion Patients undergoing re-revision RTSA receive improvement in clinical outcomes, but do not achieve outcomes comparable to those achieved after first revision RTSA.