Comparable low revision rates of stemmed and stemless total anatomic shoulder arthroplasties after exclusion of metal backed glenoid components: a collaboration between the Australian and Danish national shoulder arthroplasty registries.

BACKGROUND: The stemmed anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty is the gold standard in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. However, the use of stemless total shoulder arthroplasties has increased in recent years. The number of revision procedures are relatively low and therefore it has been recommended that national joint replacement registries should collaborate when comparing revision rates. Therefore, we aimed to compare the revision rates of stemmed and stemless TSA used for the diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis using data from both the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR). METHODS: We included all patients who were registered in the AOANJRR and the DSR from January 1 2012 to December 2021 with an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty used for osteoarthritis. Revision for any reason was used as the primary outcome. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to illustrate the cumulative revision rates and a multivariate cox regression model to calculate the hazard ratios. All analyses were performed separately for data from AOANJRR and DSR, and the results were then reported using a qualitative approach. RESULTS: 13066 arthroplasties from AOANJRR and 2882 arthroplasties from DSR were included. The hazard ratio for revision of stemmed TSA with stemless TSA as reference, adjusted for age and gender, was 1.67 (95% CI 1.34-2.09, p<0.001) in AOANJRR and 0.57 (95% CI 0.36-0.89, p=0.014) in DSR. When including glenoid type and fixation, surface bearing (only in AOANJRR) and hospital volume in the cox regression model the hazard ratio for revision of stemmed TSA compared to stemless TSA was 1.22 (95% CI 0.85-1.75, p=0.286) in AOANJRR and 1.50 (95% CI 0.91-2.45, p=0.109) in DSR. The adjusted hazard ratio for revision of total shoulder arthroplasties with metal backed glenoid components compared to all-polyethylene glenoid components was 2.54 (95% CI 1.70-3.79, p < 0.001) in AOANJRR and 4.1 (95% CI 1.92-8.58, p<0.001) in DSR. CONCLUSION: Based on data from two national shoulder arthroplasty registries, we found no significant difference in risk of revision between stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasties after adjusting for the type of glenoid component. We advocate that metal-backed glenoid components should be used with caution and not on a routine basis.

A comparison of revision rates for stemmed and stemless primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty with all-polyethylene glenoid components: analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: We compared the rate of all-cause revision of 2 classes of primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, stemmed (stTSA) and stemless (slTSA), undertaken with cemented all-polyethylene glenoid components. METHODS: A large national arthroplasty registry identified 2 cohort groups for comparison, stTSA and l undertaken for all diagnoses between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2021. A subanalysis from January 1, 2017, allowed capturing of additional patient demographics including American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and glenoid morphology. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and gender. RESULTS: Of the 7995 stTSA procedures, the CPR at 9 years was 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0, 6.4), and for 3156 slTSA procedures, the CPR was 4.4% (95% CI: 3.6, 5.5). There was no significant difference in the rate of revision between the study groups (HR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.51, 1.14], P = .189, adjusted for age, gender, humeral head size, humeral fixation, bearing surface, glenoid design, and mean surgeon volume [MSV]). There was an increased rate of revision for stTSA and slTSA undertaken with humeral head sizes <44 mm (stTSA <44 mm vs. 44-50 mm, HR = 1.56 [CI: 1.18, 2.08], P = .001; slTSA <44 mm vs. 44-50 mm, HR = 2.08 [CI: 1.32, 3.33], P = .001). MSV as a continuous predictor was not a revision risk to stTSA vs. slTSA, but categorically, a low MSV (<10 stTSA + slTSA cases per annum) was associated with a higher revision rate for stTSA (10-20 cases/yr vs. <10 cases/yr, HR = 0.72 [CI: 0.55, 0.95], P = .019) but was not in slTSA. Revision rates were increased for stTSA with non-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) glenoids vs. XPLE after 2 years (HR = 2.20 [CI: 1.57, 3.08], P < .001) but did not significantly differ for slTSA. Metal/XPLE (humeral/glenoid) bearing surface of stTSA rate of revision was not different from each combination of slTSA bearing surface. Instability/dislocation was a revision risk for slTSA vs. stTSA (HR = 1.93 [CI: 1.28, 2.91], P = .001), but from 2017, neither of American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and glenoid morphology changed the rate of revision. CONCLUSIONS: Revision rates of stTSA and slTSA did not significantly differ and were associated with humeral head size but not patient characteristics. Surgeon inexperience of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and non-XLPE glenoids were risk factors for stTSA revision but not slTSA. The metal/XLPE stTSA rate of revision was not found to differ significantly from slTSA regardless of polyethylene or humeral head bearing type. Revision for instability/dislocation was more common for slTSA.

A Comparison of Revision Rates for Osteoarthritis of Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Primary Anatomic Shoulder Arthroplasty with a Cemented All-polyethylene Glenoid: Analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: There has been decreased use of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) because reverse TSA (rTSA) is increasingly being used for the same indications. Although short-term studies generally have not found survivorship differences between these implant designs, these studies are often small and their follow-up is limited to the short term. Likewise, the degree to which patient characteristics (such as gender, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] score) may or may not be associated with survivorship differences calls for larger and longer-term studies than is often possible in single-center designs. Large national registry studies may be able to help answer these questions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: By analyzing a large Australian registry series of primary aTSAs with cemented all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for osteoarthritis (OA), we asked: (1) Is the revision risk for OA higher for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids or for rTSA, adjusting for patient characteristics such as age, gender, ASA score, and BMI? (2) Is the patient's gender associated with differences in the revision risk after controlling for the potentially confounding factors of age, ASA score, and BMI? METHODS: In this comparative, observational registry study performed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019, all primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for OA as determined by the treating surgeon and reported to our national registry formed two groups for analysis. The study period was set to time-match for the collection of ASA score and BMI in 2012 and 2015, respectively. Our registry enrolls more than 97% of all shoulder arthroplasties undertaken in Australia. There were 29,294 primary shoulder arthroplasties; 1592 hemiarthroplasties, 1876 resurfacing and stemless shoulders, 269 stemmed, and 11,674 reverse shoulder arthroplasties were excluded for other diagnoses. A total of 1210 metal-backed glenoids in stemmed aTSA for OA were excluded. A total of 3795 primary aTSAs with all-polyethylene glenoids and 8878 primary rTSAs for OA were compared. An aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid and rTSA were more likely to be performed in women (56% and 61% of patients, respectively). The mean age was 69 ± 8 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 74 ± 8 years for rTSA. One aTSA for OA was performed in a patient with an unknown glenoid type. The ASA score (n = 12,438) and BMI (n = 11,233) were also recorded. The maximum follow-up was 5 years for both groups, and the mean follow-up was 2.6 ± 1.4 years for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and 2.1 ± 1.4 years for rTSA. The endpoint was time to revision (all causes), and the cumulative percent revision was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship (time to revision) and HRs from Cox proportional hazard models that were adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI category. RESULTS: Overall, there were no differences in the 4-year cumulative percent revision between the groups; the 4-year cumulative percent revision was 3.5% for aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids (95% CI 2.9%-4.2%) and 3.0% for rTSA (95% CI 2.6%-3.5%). There was an increased risk of revision of rTSA compared with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids in the first 3 months (HR 2.17 [95% CI 1.25-3.70]; p = 0.006, adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, and BMI). After that time, there was no difference in the rate of revision, with the same adjustments. In the first 3 months, men undergoing rTSA had a higher rate of revision than men with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids (HR 4.0 [95% CI 1.72-9.09]; p = 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA). There was no difference between men in the two groups after that time. Women with aTSA using all-polyethylene glenoids were at a greater risk of revision than women with rTSA from 3 months onward (HR 2.77 [95% CI 1.55-4.92]; p < 0.001, adjusted for age, BMI, and ASA), with no difference before that time. CONCLUSION: Given the absence of survivorship differences at 4 years between rTSA and aTSA, but in light of the differences in the revision risk between men and women, surgeons might select an aTSA with an all-polyethylene glenoid to treat OA, despite the current popularity of rTSA. However, there are survivorship differences between genders. Future studies should evaluate whether our comparative findings are replicated in men and women undergoing aTSA with all-polyethylene glenoids and rTSA for primary diagnoses such as rheumatoid arthritis or post-traumatic arthritis, and whether there are functional differences between the two implant designs when used for OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The rate of 2nd revision for shoulder arthroplasty as analyzed by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR).

Background and purpose - The increase in shoulder arthroplasty may lead to a burden of revision surgery. This study compared the rate of (2nd) revision following aseptic 1st revision shoulder arthroplasty, considering the type of primary, and the class and type of the revision.Patients and methods - All aseptic 1st revisions of primary total reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA group) and of primary total stemmed and stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (non-rTSA group) procedures reported to our national registry between April 2004 to December 2018 were included. The rate of 2nd revision was determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates and comparisons were made using Cox proportional hazards models.Results - There was an increased risk of 2nd revision in the 1st month only for the rTSA group (n = 700) compared with the non-rTSA group (n = 991); hazard ratio (HR) = 4.8 (95% CI 2.2-9). The cumulative percentage of 2nd revisions (CPR) was 24% in the rTSA group and 20% in the non-rTSA group at 8 years. There was an increased risk of 2nd revision for the type (cup vs. head) HR = 2.2 (CI 1.2-4.2), but not class of revision for the rTSA group. Minor (> 3 months) vs. major class revision, and humeral revision vs. all other revision types were second revision risk factors for the non-rTSA group.Interpretation - The CPR of revision shoulder arthroplasty was > 20% at 8 years and was influenced by the type of primary, the class, and the type of revision. The most common reasons for 2nd revision were instability/dislocation, loosening, and infection.

The anteromedial approach for shoulder arthroplasty: the importance of the anterior deltoid.

Protection of the anterior aspect of the deltoid muscle is critical to the success of shoulder arthroplasty. Between 1975 and 1980, 75 patients with 81 shoulder arthroplasties had exposure via the anteromedial approach with careful anterior deltoid detachment through fascial tissues, systematic repair, and standardized rehabilitation with early passive range of motion. As with other reports on arthroplasty, pain was significantly reduced and motion was improved. No anterior deltoid detachments occurred; deltoid strength was preserved. Greater postoperative deltoid strength was statistically associated with lesser postoperative pain, greater postoperative active elevation, improved limb function, and an enhanced overall result rating. To understand the contemporary indications for this approach better, those undergoing shoulder arthroplasty between 1990 and 1994 were assessed. The anteromedial approach was used in 14 of these 236 shoulders (5.9%). This approach is currently reserved for patients with frail anterior deltoids that will not tolerate retraction, with severely osteopenic humeral shafts that will not tolerate torsion, with extreme scarring and an inflexible deltoid muscle, with severe bony deformity, or with posterosuperior rotator cuff tearing requiring repair. The importance of the anterior deltoid in shoulder arthroplasty cannot be denied. Use of the extended deltopectoral approach with preservation of the deltoid origin insertion is a very positive step forward. In uncommon instances where added exposure is needed, the anteromedial approach with careful attention to incision and repair of the deltoid with appropriate postoperative rehabilitation can accomplish the goal of maintaining anterior deltoid function and enhancing the success of shoulder arthroplasty.