UNASSIGNED: Shoulder arthroplasty has become an increasingly common procedure used to treat degenerative, inflammatory, and traumatic conditions of the glenohumeral joint. With a significant increase in primary anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, revision procedures have likewise increased. Updates in shoulder arthroplasty have allowed for the convertibility of implants, which allows for the retention of both glenoid and humeral components during revision surgery. This review aims to highlight the epidemiology, indications, and outcomes of convertible-platform total shoulder arthroplasty procedures.
UNASSIGNED: A review of the current literature surrounding convertible-platform shoulder arthroplasty was completed to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of commercially available instrumentation and implant systems as well as their outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Leading causes of shoulder arthroplasty revision surgery include glenoid failure, implant instability, and rotator cuff dysfunction. Variations in implant design between inlay and onlay humeral components and metal-backed glenoid components are important considerations at the time of revision surgery. Advantages of convertible-platform systems include increased efficiency and decreased complications during revision procedures as well as shorter recovery, lower cost, and better functional outcomes. Limitations of convertible systems include poorly positioned components during the index procedure, excessive soft-tissue tensioning, and problems associated with metal-backed glenoid implants. Changes in arm length have also been documented. These findings indicate the benefit of additional research and design to improve the effectiveness and utility of convertible-platform shoulder arthroplasty systems.

A lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO) is commonly performed during total shoulder arthroplasty to access the glenohumeral joint. Healing of the LTO is critical to optimizing the outcome of the procedure and is enhanced by a repair that provides stability and compression across the osteotomy site. The purpose of this article is to describe a technique that uses a tensionable suture construct to repair the LTO during anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty using a stemless humeral component. The technique involves passing a row of high-tensile sutures through bone tunnels lateral to the osteotomy site (transosseous sutures) and another row of sutures through the humeral implant (implant sutures). One limb of each bone tunnel suture is then tied to its corresponding limb of implant suture and the remaining free strands of the tied sutures are manually tensioned and tied to each other. This technique is an efficient and reproducible method for creating compression and stability across the osteotomy site that facilitates bony healing.

UNASSIGNED: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can present unique challenges. The aim of this study was to compare both systemic and joint-related postoperative complications in patients undergoing primary TSA with RA versus those with primary osteoarthritis (OA).
UNASSIGNED: Using the TriNetX database, Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition codes were used to identify patients who underwent primary TSA. Patients were categorized into two cohorts: RA and OA. After 1:1 propensity score matching, postoperative systemic complications within 90 days following primary TSA and joint-related complications within 5 years following anatomic TSA (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) were compared.
UNASSIGNED: After propensity score matching, the RA and OA cohorts each consisted of 8,523 patients. Within 90 days postoperation, RA patients had a significantly higher risk of total complications, deep surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, urinary tract infection, mortality, and readmission compared to the OA cohort. RA patients had a significantly greater risk of periprosthetic joint infection and prosthetic dislocation within 5 years following aTSA and RSA, and a greater risk of scapular fractures following RSA. Among RA patients, RSA had a significantly higher risk of prosthetic dislocation, scapular fractures, and revision compared to aTSA.
UNASSIGNED: Following TSA, RA patients should be considered at higher risk of systemic and joint-related complications compared to patients with primary OA. Knowledge of the risk profile of RA patients undergoing TSA is essential for appropriate patient counseling and education. Level of evidence: III.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infections remain a challenging complication following shoulder arthroplasty and an ideal treatment protocol has yet to be established. Two-stage revision is a common approach. Historically, the first stage entails placement of an all-cement antibiotic spacer. While prior studies have reported on cement spacers as definitive management, persistent pain and inadequate function often lead many to later request a second stage procedure. The functional composite spacer consists of a humeral hemiarthroplasty implant with antibiotic cement coated around the stem alone to preserve the metallic humeral head-glenoid articulation. Functional composite spacers have demonstrated improvements in function and motion with high patient satisfaction at 25 months, but longer-term follow-up is needed to better understand the role it may play in the management of shoulder infections. The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes at a minimum of 5 years in patients who initially planned to undergo two-stage revision but elected to retain the functional spacer.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a single institution\'s shoulder surgery repository from 2007 to 2018 identified 30 patients who underwent placement of a composite spacer. Overall, 5 patients underwent second stage reimplantation and 12 patients did not have 5-year follow-up (6 lost to follow-up and 6 deceased). A total 13 patients were included who maintained a functional composite spacer and had minimum 5-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome measures (ASES, SST, SANE, VAS F and VAS P), satisfaction, range of motion, and radiographic estimation of glenoid wear were evaluated.
RESULTS: Two of 13 patients (15%) required additional surgery: one secondary closure for early superficial wound dehiscence and one revision spacer for pain. There were no re-infections. At most recent follow-up patient satisfaction was high and significant improvements were noted for ASES (45.4; p<0.001), SST (5.3; p=0.003), SANE (47.3; p=0.002), VAS F (4.9; p=0.004), and VAS P (-4.4; p=0.007) as well as range of motion including abduction (39.2˚; p=0.005) and elevation (65.9˚; p=0.005). There was no significant change in humeral head medialization (p=0.11).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who do not undergo an early revision and retain a functional composite spacer maintain good function and range of motion with minimal pain at mid-term follow-up.

UNASSIGNED: This narrative review comprehensively aims to analyze recent advancements in shoulder arthroplasty, focusing on implant systems and their impact on patient outcomes. The purpose is to provide a nuanced understanding of the evolving landscape in shoulder arthroplasty, incorporating scientific, regulatory, and ethical dimensions.
UNASSIGNED: The review synthesizes recent literature on stemless implants, augmented glenoid components, inlay vs onlay configurations, convertible stems, and associated complications. Notable findings include improved patient-reported outcomes with stemless implants, variations in outcomes between inlay and onlay configurations, and the potential advantages of convertible stems. Additionally, the regulatory landscape, particularly the FDA\'s 510(k) pathway, is explored alongside ethical considerations, emphasizing the need for standardized international regulations.
UNASSIGNED: Recent innovations in shoulder arthroplasty showcase promising advancements, with stemless implants demonstrating improved patient outcomes. The review underscores the necessity for ongoing research to address unresolved aspects and highlights the importance of a standardized regulatory framework to ensure patient safety globally. The synthesis of recent findings contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the current state of shoulder arthroplasty, guiding future research and clinical practices.

Shoulder arthroplasty has become a standard surgical procedure for treating a variety of complex shoulder disorders, including those with degenerative and traumatic aetiologies. The ever-improving success rates of shoulder arthroplasty could be attributed to advancements in endoprosthesis design, improvements in the biomechanics of endoprosthetic components, and improvements in surgical techniques. It improves patient outcomes and helps restore shoulder joint function and mobility. Imaging plays a vital role by enabling surgeons to plan arthroplasty procedures, help guide endoprosthesis placement, and monitor postoperative outcomes. In addition, imaging plays a role in assessing the residual bone stock and status of rotator cuff integrity and in correcting the placement of prosthetic components to restore shoulder mobility. CT-guided navigation aids surgeons by helping them choose appropriate components for implants and ensuring that implants are placed optimally during surgery. It can lead to better surgical results with reduced patient morbidity and a longer duration of prosthetic stability. After surgery, it is crucial to use imaging techniques to detect issues such as periprosthetic loosening, infections, or fractures to start effective management strategies to enhance patient recovery. This article aims to provide orthopaedic surgeons and radiologists with knowledge on the imaging methods used in shoulder arthroplasty and their role in presurgical planning, intraoperative guidance and postoperative assessment. In this study, we aimed to investigate the rationale behind utilising various types of shoulder replacements: total shoulder replacement (TSA), reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), and hemiarthroplasty; methods, their respective advantages and limitations; and outcomes. Our objective is to comprehensively analyse the procedures mentioned above and highlight their unique features and benefits to facilitate a better understanding of these approaches. Additionally, we will discuss how these imaging techniques help identify issues such as loose components, fractures around the implant site, joint instability and infections.

UNASSIGNED: Revision shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is a surgical procedure performed to address complications or failures of primary total SA. However, limited evidence exists regarding the functional outcomes and longevity of implants following revision.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent revision SA for failed primary arthroplasty at a single institution between 2009 and 2021 with a minimum of 2-years follow-up. Data was collected from medical records, including type of arthroplasty (anatomic total SA [TSA], reverse total SA [RSA], or hemi-SA [HSA]), demographics and patient-specific information, functional measurements, and implant survival. Patient reported outcomes were obtained during follow-up by phone.
UNASSIGNED: The mean age at index and revision surgeries was 60.5 ± 12.1 years and 64.8 ± 11.1 years, respectively, and average total follow-up was 5.5 ± 3.5 years. The average time to revision was 4.5 ± 5.2 years (range 0.01-24.5 years). Among 99 revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures, 28 were TSA/HA to TSA/HA, 51 were TSA/HA to RSA, 18 were RSA to RSA, and 2 were RSA to HA. Revision surgery significantly improved functional outcomes in forward elevation (preoperative: 79.8 ± 41.0 vs postoperative: 118.5 ± 38.3; p < 0.001), external rotation (preoperative: 27.8 ± 19.3 vs postoperative: 34.3 ± 16.2; p = 0.028), internal rotation (preoperative: glute vs postoperative: S1; p = 0.002), and forward elevation strength (preoperative: 4+/5 vs postoperative: 5/5; p = 0.002). Postoperative patient reported outcomes included: VAS pain (2.2 ± 2.9), SANE (72.6 ± 21.5), ASES (73.3 ± 20.4), and SST (7.7 ± 2.8) scores. The overall 2-, 5-, and 10-year post-revision implant survival rate was 85.48%, 83.06%, and 79.84%, respectively. Patients who had an initial RSA and were revised to RSA were at higher risk of implant failure and subsequent re-revision (RSA to RSA: 1.5 ± 2.5 years vs. TSA/HA to RSA: 2.5 ± 2.1 years vs. TSA/HA to TSA/HA: 4.0 ± 3.5 years; p = 0.0046).
UNASSIGNED: Revision shoulder arthroplasty improved patient outcomes post-index arthroplasty failure. Revisions were more likely to be successful when revising from TSA/HA to RSA.
UNASSIGNED: Level III - retrospective comparative study.

UNASSIGNED: The use of stemless shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis has grown substantially over the past decades. The goal of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of the Lima SMR stemless anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
UNASSIGNED: Seventy-three implants in 73 patients (61 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties [aTSAs] and 12 reverse shoulder arthroplasties [RSAs]) were analyzed with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The average age in the aTSA group was 65.8 ± 8.7 and 78.3 ± 4.8 in the RSA group. Primary osteoarthritis was the indication in most cases (aTSA 93.7%, RSA 67%). Patients were evaluated preoperatively, at 4, 12, and 24 months postoperatively using the Constant score, the ASES, Oxford Shoulder Score, EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels questionnaire, range of motion scores, and radiographically. Statistical significance was evaluated using the paired t-test (P < .5).
UNASSIGNED: At 2-year follow-up, the overall average Constant score significantly improved from 40.0 ± 16.7 to 80.9 ± 21.4 (P < .001). Improvement of the ASES (from 31.7 ± 15.6 to 82.5 ± 19.4) and Oxford Shoulder Score (from 19.1 ± 7.4 to 41.9 ± 7.9) was also significant (P < .001). In the aTSA group, all range of motion scores improved significantly (P < .001). In the RSA group, all range of motion scores improved but only active forward flexion and external rotation in abduction improved significantly (P < .05). Most patients were satisfied or completely satisfied at 24 months (aTSA 93.9%, RSA 100%). Two humeral implants in the RSA configuration showed loosening on the first postoperative day related to excessive forces exerted on the shoulder, both requiring revision to a stemmed implant. In the aTSA group, no signs of radiolucencies, osteolysis, gradual loosening, or migration of the components were seen at the final follow-up. In the RSA group, one case had radiolucent lines with subsidence of the humeral core at 12 months, which had not progressed at 24 months and was asymptomatic. All other RSA cases showed no radiolucent lines, migration, scapular notching, or osteolysis. Three anatomic implants were converted with retention of the glenoid baseplate and humeral core to a reverse arthroplasty due to atraumatic cuff failure (N = 2) and traumatic cuff failure (N = 1). After these procedures, patients were satisfied with their results. There were no other complications.
UNASSIGNED: The 2-year results presented in this study show good functional and radiological outcomes using the SMR stemless system.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia is a valuable component of multimodal pain control in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and multiple interscalene block anesthetic options exist, including non-liposomal interscalene bupivacaine (NLIB) and liposomal interscalene bupivacaine (LIB). The purpose of the current of study was to compare pain control and opioid consumption within 48 hours postoperative in those undergoing TSA with either LIB or NLIB.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at a single academic medical center including consecutive patients undergoing inpatient (>23-hour hospitalization) primary anatomic or reverse TSA from 2016 to 2020 who received either LIB or a NLIB for perioperative pain control. Perioperative patient outcomes were collected including pain levels and opioid usage, as well as 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmissions. The primary outcome was postoperative pain and opioid use.
RESULTS: Overall, 489 patients were included in this study (316 LIB and 173 NLIB). Pain scores at 3, 6, 12, and 48 hours postoperatively were not statistically significantly different (p>0.05 for all). However, the LIB group had improved pain scores at 24- and 36-hours postoperative (p<0.05 all). There was no difference in the incidence of severe postoperative pain, defined as a 9 or 10 NRS-11 score, between the two anesthesia groups after adjusting for preoperative pain and baseline opioid use (OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.57-2.74; p=0.57). Overall, 99/316 (31.3%) of patients receiving LIB did not require any postoperative opioids compared with 38/173 (22.0%) receiving NLIB; however, this difference was not statistically significant after adjusting for prior opioid use and preoperative pain (p=0.33). No statistically significant differences in postoperative total morphine equivalents or mean daily morphine equivalents consumed between the groups were found during their hospital stays (p>0.05 for both). Finally, no significant differences in 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmission rates were found (all p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: LIB and NLIB demonstrated differences in patient reported pain scores at 24- and 36-hours post operation, although these did not reach clinical significance. There were no statistically significant differences in opioid consumption during the hospital stay, including opioid use, total morphine equivalents and daily mean morphine equivalents consumed during the hospital stay. Additionally, no differences were observed in 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmission rates.

BACKGROUND: SOT recipients are commonly prescribed immunosuppressive therapies which may predispose patients to higher infection and complication rates following total shoulder arthroplasty. This article aims to analyze the effects SOT and subsequent immunosuppressive regimens have on the functional and patient reported outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasties.
METHODS: A single institution, multi-surgeon retrospective case-control study investigating the functional and patient reported outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty after SOT was conducted between the years of 2010-2020. To be included in the study, patients must have undergone SOT prior to primary total shoulder arthroplasty. A 4:1 match-paired control group lacking SOT prior to arthroplasty was then constructed. Thirty-four SOT patients (18 males and 16 females) and 136 control patients (77 male and 59 female) were included in the study. Patients were analyzed who underwent SOT prior to shoulder arthroplasty, with outcomes compared to controls who only underwent arthroplasty. The primary outcomes include range of motion (ROM) and strength in forward elevation, external rotation, and internal rotation, and patient reported outcomes.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in improvement for range of motion and strength between the two cohorts, but within each cohort, improvement was statistically significant. In the SOT patients, forward elevation improved by 56o ± 52o, external rotation increased 13o ± 20o, and internal rotation increased by two vertebral levels. In the non-SOT patients, forward elevation improved 45o ± 51o, external rotation increased 16o ± 25o, and internal rotation increased by three vertebral levels. SOT patients had equivocal VAS pain and Simple Shoulder Test scores but lower ASES (59 ± 13 vs 79 ± 2; p=0.002) and SANE (61 ± 30 vs 84 ± 17; p<.001) scores than non-SOT patients. Complication rates were significantly higher in the SOT group (15% vs 6%; p=0.05), but incidence of surgical revisions was not significantly different (SOT = 3%; non-SOT = 5%; p=0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder arthroplasty is a safe, effective surgical intervention for improving shoulder function in patients with a history of SOT. Despite being on chronic immunosuppressive regimens, our solid organ transplants had comparable clinical outcomes and revision rates, but higher complication rates.