Back to Authors

Holt, K.

Mayo Clinic

University of Florida

Citations 3

Effect of prior rotator cuff repair technique and timing on clinical outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty
Holt, K., Hao, Kévin A. , Kaiser, Andrew H. A., Wright, Thomas W. , Struk, Aimee M., Wright, Thomas W , Hao, Kevin A , Holt, Kara E., Bindi, Victoria E. , Hones, Keegan M. , Wright, Jonathan O. , Schoch, Bradley S. , King, Joseph J.

The Bone & Joint Journal | July 1, 2026 | Volume: 108-B | Issue: 7 | Pages: 928-935

10.1302/0301-620x.108b7.bjj-2025-1393.r1 Get It

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.
Medialized vs. Lateralized Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fractures
Holt, K., Bindi, Victoria E. , Buchanan, Timothy R. , Reddy, Akshay , Tishad, Abtahi , Desai, Persis , Hones, Keegan M. , Wright, Thomas W. , King, Joseph J. , Holt, Kara E , Reddy, Akshay R , Schoch, Bradley S , King, Joseph J , Hao, Kevin A , Hones, Keegan M , Schoch, Bradley S. , Hao, Kévin A.

JBJS Reviews | January 21, 2025 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.2106/jbjs.rvw.24.00160 Get It

Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is increasingly used in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) with reliable clinical improvement. Lateralized RSA implants have conferred superior outcomes compared with the original Grammont design in patients with nontraumatic indications. However, in the setting of a PHF, lateralized components can place increased tension across the tuberosity fracture site and potentially compromise tuberosity healing and outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine the effect of implant design on clinical 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 implant manufacturer details. Our primary outcomes included postoperative external rotation (ER), forward elevation (FE), abduction, Constant score, rate of greater tuberosity (GT) healing, and the incidence of complications compared between medialized vs. lateralized global implant design. Results: Globally lateralized RSA cohorts (478 RSAs total with cumulative lateral offset achieved through humeral or glenoid lateralization or both humeral and glenoid lateralization) were found to have a greater mean postoperative Constant score compared with globally medialized (medialized glenoid and medialized humerus) RSA cohorts with 1,494 total medialized RSAs (66 vs. 59, p = 0.006), but there was no significant difference regarding mean postoperative ER (30° vs. 22°, p = 0.078), FE (117° vs. 119°, p = 0.708), or abduction (103° vs. 107°, p = 0.377). On meta-regression, neither implant design nor tuberosity status significantly influenced postoperative ER, FE, abduction, or Constant score on meta-regression independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery. The rate of GT healing was greater in lateralized compared with medialized RSAs (88% vs. 72%, p < 0.001). On meta-regression, medialized RSA design was associated with a 73% lower odds of GT healing (odds ratio = 0.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-0.68, p = 0.007) independent of mean follow-up and age at surgery. Conclusion: Lateralized RSA implants conferred no significant functional benefit over medialized implants when used in patients with PHFs. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Influence of Humeral Component Cement and Bone Grafting on Greater Tuberosity Healing and Functional Outcomes After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fractures
Kaiser, Andrew H.A. , Buchanan, Timothy R. , Bindi, Victoria E. , Holt, K., Reddy, Akshay , Tishad, Abtahi , Hones, Keegan M. , Wright, Jonathan O. , Wright, Thomas W., Holt, Kara E , Reddy, Akshay R , Schoch, Bradley S , King, Joseph J , Hao, Kevin A , Wright, Jonathan O , Hones, Keegan M , Kaiser, Andrew H.A. , Wright, Thomas W. , Schoch, Bradley S. , King, Joseph J. , Hao, Kévin A.

JBJS Reviews | December 11, 2024 | Volume: 12 | Issue: 12 | Pages: No page available

10.2106/jbjs.rvw.24.00148 Get It

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.