Risk Factors for Stiffness Requiring Intervention After Ream-and-Run Arthroplasty.

Ream-and-run arthroplasty can improve pain and function in patients with glenohumeral arthritis while avoiding the complications and activity restrictions associated with a prosthetic glenoid component. However, stiffness is a known complication after ream-and-run arthroplasty and can lead to repeat procedures such as a manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) or open surgical revision. The objective of this study was to determine risk factors associated with repeat procedures indicated for postoperative stiffness after ream-and-run arthroplasty. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of our shoulder arthroplasty database to identify patients who underwent ream-and-run arthroplasty and determined which patients underwent subsequent repeat procedures (MUA and/or open revision) indicated for postoperative stiffness. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. We collected baseline demographic information and preoperative and 2-year patient-reported outcome scores and analyzed preoperative radiographs. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the factors significantly associated with repeat procedures to treat postoperative stiffness. Results: There were 340 patients who underwent ream-and-run arthroplasty. The mean Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores for all patients improved from 5.0 ± 2.4 preoperatively to 10.2 ± 2.6 postoperatively (p < 0.001). Twenty-six patients (7.6%) underwent open revision for stiffness. An additional 35 patients (10.3%) underwent MUA. Univariate analysis found younger age (p = 0.001), female sex (p = 0.034), lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (p = 0.045), posterior decentering on preoperative radiographs (p = 0.010), and less passive forward elevation at the time of discharge after ream-and-run arthroplasty (p < 0.001) to be significant risk factors for repeat procedures. Multivariate analysis found younger age (p = 0.040), ASA class 1 compared with class 3 (p = 0.020), and less passive forward elevation at discharge (p < 0.001) to be independent risk factors for repeat procedures. Of the patients who underwent open revision for stiffness, 69.2% had multiple positive cultures for Cutibacterium. Conclusions: Younger age, ASA class 1 compared with class 3, and less passive forward elevation in the immediate postoperative period were independent risk factors for repeat procedures to treat postoperative stiffness after ream-and-run arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Ream and run and total shoulder: patient and shoulder characteristics in five hundred forty-four concurrent cases.

PURPOSE: Total shoulder (TSA) is commonly used to treat arthritic shoulders with intact rotator cuffs; however, some patients choose a ream and run (RnR) to avoid the potential risks and limitations of a prosthetic glenoid component. Little is known about how patients selecting each of these two procedures compare and contrast. METHODS: We analyzed the patient characteristics, shoulder characteristics, and two year clinical outcomes of 544 patients having RnR or TSA at the same institution during the same six year period. RESULTS: Patients selecting the RnR were more likely to be male (92.0% vs. 47.0%), younger (58 ± 9 vs. 67 ± 10 years), married (83.2% vs. 66.8%), from outside of our state (51.7% vs. 21.7%), commercially insured (59.1% vs. 25.2%), and to have type B2 glenoids (46.0% vs. 27.8%) as well as greater glenoid retroversion (19 ± 11 vs. 15 ± 11 degrees) (p < .001). The average two year SST score for the RnRs was 10.0 ± 2.6 vs. 9.5 ± 2.7 for the TSAs. The percent of maximum possible improvement (%MPI) for the RnRs averaged 72 ± 39% vs. 73 ± 29% for the TSAs. Patients with work-related shoulder problems had lower two year SSTs and lower %MPIs. Younger patients having TSAs did less well than older patients. Female patients having RnRs did less well than those having TSAs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation highlights important characteristics of patients selecting the RnR and the TSA for glenohumeral arthritis. Excellent outcomes can be achieved for appropriately selected patients having either procedure.

Significant improvement in patient self-assessed comfort and function at six weeks after the smooth and move procedure for shoulders with irreparable rotator cuff tears and retained active elevation.

BACKGROUND: It has been documented that the smooth and move procedure-smoothing the proximal humeral surface while maintaining the coracoacromial arch-can provide clinically significant long-term improvement in function for patients having irreparable rotator cuff tears with retained active elevation. This study sought to demonstrate that clinically significant gains in comfort, function, and active motion can be realized as early as 6 weeks after this procedure. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of the 6-week clinical outcomes for 48 patients enrolled prior to a smooth and move procedure for irreparable rotator cuff tears. Prior rotator cuff repair had been attempted in 28 (70%). RESULTS: In 40 patients with preoperative and 6-week postoperative measurements, the Simple Shoulder Test scores improved from an average of 3.4 ± 2.8 preoperatively to 5.7 ± 3.5 at 6 weeks (p < 0.001), an improvement that exceeded the published values for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The clinical outcomes were not worse for the 18 shoulders with irreparable tears of both the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. In 30 patients with preoperative and 6-week postoperative objective measurements of active motion, the average abduction improved from 93(± 43) to 123(± 47)° (p = 0.005) and the average flexion improved from 102(± 46) to 126(± 44)° (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to its previously documented long-term effectiveness for shoulders with irreparable rotator cuff tears and retained active elevation, this study demonstrates that the smooth and move procedure provides clinically significant improvement as early as 6 weeks after surgery.

Can the ream and run procedure improve glenohumeral relationships and function for shoulders with the arthritic triad?

BACKGROUND: The arthritic triad of glenoid biconcavity, glenoid retroversion, and posterior displacement of the humeral head on the glenoid is associated with an increased risk of failure of total shoulder joint replacement. Although a number of glenohumeral arthroplasty techniques are being used to manage this complex pathology, problems with glenoid component failure remain. In that the ream and run procedure manages arthritic pathoanatomy without a glenoid component, we sought evidence that this procedure can be effective in improving the centering of the humeral head contact on the glenoid and in improving the comfort and function of shoulders with the arthritic triad without the risk of glenoid component failure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked, for shoulders with the arthritic triad, whether the ream and run procedure could improve glenohumeral relationships as measured on standardized axillary radiographs and patient-reported shoulder comfort and function as recorded by the Simple Shoulder Test. METHODS: Between January 1, 2006 and December 14, 2011, we performed 531 primary anatomic glenohumeral arthroplasties for arthritis, of which 221 (42%) were ream and run procedures. Of these, 30 shoulders in 30 patients had the ream and run procedure for the arthritic triad and had two years of clinical and radiographic follow-up. These 30 shoulders formed the basis for this case series. The average age of the patients was 56 ± 8 years; all but one were male. Two of the 30 patients requested revision to total shoulder arthroplasty within the first year after their ream and run procedure because of their dissatisfaction with their rehabilitation progress. For the 28 shoulders not having had a revision, we determined on the standardized axillary views before and after surgery the glenoid type, glenoid version (90° minus the angle between the plane of the glenoid face and the plane of the body of the scapula), and location of the humeral contact point with respect to the anteroposterio dimension of the glenoid (the ratio of the distance from the anterior glenoid lip to the contact point divided by the distance between the anterior and posterior glenoid lips). We also recorded the patient's self-assessed shoulder comfort and function before and after surgery using the 12 questions of the Simple Shoulder Test. RESULTS: For the 28 unrevised shoulders the mean followup was 3.0 years (range, 2-9.2 years). In these patients, the ream and run procedure resulted in improved centering of the humeral head on the face of the glenoid (preoperative: 75% ± 7% posterior; postoperative: 59% ± 10% posterior; mean difference 16% [95% CI, 13%-19%]; p < 0.001), notably this improved centering was achieved without a significant change in the glenoid version. Patient-reported function was improved (preoperative Simple Shoulder Test: 5 ± 3, postoperative Simple Shoulder Test: 10 ± 4, mean difference 5 [95% CI, 4-6], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For shoulders with the arthritic triad, the ream and run procedure can provide improvement in humeral centering on the glenoid and in patient-reported shoulder comfort and function without the risk of glenoid component failure. In that ream and run is a new procedure, substantial additional clinical research with long-term follow-up is needed to define specifically the shoulder characteristics, the patient characteristics and the technical details that are most likely to lead to durable improvements in the comfort and function of shoulders with the challenging pathology known as the arthritic triad. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

The prognosis for improvement in comfort and function after the ream-and-run arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis: an analysis of 176 consecutive cases.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the factors affecting the prognosis for improvement in function and comfort with time after shoulder arthroplasty is important to clinical decision-making. This study sought to identify some of these factors in 176 consecutive patients undergoing the ream-and-run procedure. METHODS: The time course for improvement in patient function and comfort was determined for the entire group as well as for subsets by sex, age, diagnosis, preoperative function, and surgery date. Patients having repeat surgery were analyzed in detail. RESULTS: Shoulder comfort and function increased progressively after the ream-and-run procedure, reaching a steady state by approximately twenty months. The shoulders in 124 patients with at least two years of follow-up were improved by a minimal clinically important difference. The shoulders in sixteen patients with at least two years of follow-up were not improved by the minimal clinically important difference. Twenty-two patients had repeat procedures, but only seven had revision to a total shoulder arthroplasty. Fourteen patients did not have either a known revision arthroplasty or two years of follow-up. The best prognosis was for male patients over the age of sixty years, with primary osteoarthritis, no prior surgical procedures, a preoperative score on the simple shoulder test of ≥5 points, and surgery after 2004. Repeat surgical procedures were more common in patients who had a greater number of surgical procedures before the ream-and-run surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study is unique in that it characterizes the factors affecting the time course for improvement in shoulder comfort and function after a ream-and-run procedure. Improvement occurs after this procedure for at least 1.5 years. This procedure appears to be best suited for an older male patient with reasonable preoperative shoulder function without prior shoulder surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.