Return to Sport Following Hemiarthroplasty With Concentric Reaming Versus Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Matched Pair Analysis.

The purpose of this study was to establish functional outcomes regarding return to sport activity for patients receiving anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) vs the ream and run procedure (hemi RR). Patients who underwent hemi RR and who underwent aTSA with a polyethylene glenoid component for end-stage glenohumeral arthritis were retrospectively identified from 2000 to 2014. Patients were matched regarding age, body mass index, sex, and hand dominance. Patients were surveyed to determine their level of sport and satisfaction after surgery. At a mean follow-up of 69.1±24.8 months, a total of 26 hemi RR and 30 aTSA patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Mean±SD age at the time of surgery was 53.0±8.5 years. There was no statistical difference between the two cohorts regarding patients who reported no postoperative problems (69.2% vs 76.7%, P=.529), reoperation (11.5% vs 6.7%, P=.522), return to overall sport (94.4% vs 86.4%, P=.395), return to high-demand upper-extremity sport (92.3% vs 81.3%, P=.390), and return to same or better level of intensity sport (83.3% vs 72.7%, P=.424). Patients returned to sport at a mean of 7.5±5.7 months and 6.2±3.6 months in the hemi RR and aTSA cohorts, respectively (P=.485). Radiographic measurements of medialization (mean, -2.4±5.0 vs -2.2±5.7; P=.913) and postoperative decentering (mean, 3.6%±2.6% vs 4.3%±3.3%; P=.795) were equivalent for the two cohorts. Hemi RR was found to have high and equivalent rates of sporting outcomes, clinical outcomes, and radiographic outcomes compared with aTSA. As appropriately indicated patients are counseled for surgery, realistic expectations regarding sports should be discussed. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(5):276-284.].

Comparative analysis of work-related outcomes in hemiarthroplasty with concentric glenoid reaming and total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) has demonstrated high levels of return to work, although there are fears of glenoid component loosening with higher work demand. METHODS: A retrospective query was performed of all patients who received hemiarthroplasty with ream-and-run resurfacing (Hemi RR) between 2005 and 2014. Included patients were matched to an aTSA cohort by age, body mass index, sex, and hand dominance. Preoperative and postoperative work status, by level of duty and occupation, was collected. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients receiving Hemi RR and 28 patients receiving TSA completed this questionnaire (82.8% compliance). Mean follow-up was 69.1 ± 24.8 months. In total, 100% of Hemi RR patients returned to work, and 89.3% of TSA patients returned to work (P = .091). The Hemi RR patients had higher rates of return to work for heavy-duty workers only (7 of 7 vs. 2 of 4, P = .038), although only 1 patient in the TSA group reported failure to work was due to shoulder reasons. Mean duration of return to work was 2.5 ± 4.8 months for patients receiving Hemi RR and 1.98 ± 2.6 months for those receiving TSA (P = .653). CONCLUSIONS: Hemi RR had a high return to heavy-duty work, likely due to fewer surgeon-imposed restrictions. The results of this study may help manage return to work expectations after Hemi RR according to the level of duty and suggest Hemi RR is a viable option for heavy-duty laborers with end-stage glenohumeral arthritis.

Short-term Clinical Outcomes of Hemiarthroplasty With Concentric Glenoid Reaming: The Ream and Run Procedure.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of humeral hemiarthroplasty and concentric glenoid reaming ("ream and run" procedure) and to compare the outcomes with those of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for glenohumeral arthritis. Patients with glenohumeral arthritis who underwent the ream and run procedure with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was revision to TSA. Secondary outcome measures included functional outcome scores, range of motion, and radiographic assessment. The outcome measures were compared with those of age- and sex-matched control patients who underwent anatomic TSA during the study period. One patient in the ream and run group required revision to TSA 14 months after the surgery because of excessive shoulder pain. There were significant improvements in the postoperative outcome scores and range of motion and external rotation in the ream and run group. Postoperative radiographs showed concentric glenoids without posterior subluxation in all except 1 shoulder. The outcome measures in the ream and run group were similar to those in the TSA control group except for active forward elevation and external rotation. The ream and run procedure provides improved pain relief and shoulder function at short-term follow-up for patients with shoulder arthritis. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(6):e854-e860.].

Can the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Shoulder and Elbow Score Be Reliably Administered Over the Phone?: A Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: The Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) shoulder and elbow outcome score is a functional assessment tool for the upper extremity of the overhead athlete, which is currently validated for administration in person. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to validate the KJOC score for administration over the phone. The hypothesis was that no difference will exist in KJOC scores for the same patient between administration in person versus over the phone. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Fifty patients were randomized to fill out the KJOC questionnaire either over the phone first (25 patients) or in person first (25 patients) based on an a priori power analysis. One week after the patients completed the initial KJOC on the phone or in person, they then filled out the score via the opposite method. Results were compared per question and for overall score. RESULTS: There was a mean ± SD of 8 ± 5 days between when patients completed the first and second questionnaires. There were no significant differences in the overall KJOC score between the phone and paper groups (P = .139). The intraclass correlation coefficient comparing paper and phone scores was 0.802 (95% CI, 0.767-0.883; P < .001), with a Cronbach alpha of 0.89. On comparison of individual questions, there were significant differences for questions 1, 3, and 8 (P = .013, .023, and .042, respectively). CONCLUSION: The KJOC questionnaire can be administered over the phone with no significant difference in overall score as compared with that from in-person administration.