Wright, Thomas W.

While anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is a successful procedure that provides reliable pain relief and restoration of function in most patients, its success has been limited by glenoid component loosening. While series reporting the outcomes of inlay glenoid components have demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes with low rates of component loosening and need for revision, surgeons have been hesitant to adopt these implants due to concerns of inadequate pain relief secondary to the remaining glenoid rim contacting the humeral head implant. The inset glenoid component, a variant of the traditional inlay components, has gained interest because its design aims to achieve similar stability to traditional inlay components through implantation within strong subchondral bone, reduce the amount of glenoid vault removed compared to inlay components, and has a glenoid face designed to limit the rocking-horse phenomenon. In limited series, the inset glenoid component has demonstrated superior biomechanical and clinical performance compared to traditional onlay glenoid components. Although there have been minimal clinical studies investigating the inset glenoid in comparison to onlay and inlay components to date, a subset of case series with short-term follow-up have demonstrated favorable outcomes. The purpose of this article was to review the design rationale, biomechanical evidence, and clinical performance of the inset glenoid component.

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 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: 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.

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.