This study sought to characterize the tipping point values (the functional scores that patients deem dysfunctional enough to warrant surgery) for patients undergoing first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA).
Methods
This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Tipping point evaluation utilized preoperative scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), raw and normalized Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) scores, and active range of motion including abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation score (IR) prior to elective revision rTSA.
Results
We included 125 revision rTSAs. Tipping points were 37.6 ASES score, 30.5 raw Constant score, 35.5 normalized Constant score, 68.1 SPADI, 3.7 SST, 13.2 UCLA score, 64° abduction, 69° FE, 23° ER, and 3.1 IR. Higher SST was found for older patients and patients with a lower body mass index. Lower abduction and FE tipping points were reported in patients undergoing revision rTSA for rotator cuff failure, unexplained pain, and implant wear.
Discussion
These tipping points can help surgeons counsel patients regarding when to undergo revision rTSA.
FarleyKXWilsonJMKumarA, et al.Prevalence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States and the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. JB JS Open Access2021; 6: e20.00156.
2.
BartelsDWMarigiESperlingJW, et al.Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for anatomical glenoid component loosening was not universally successful: a detailed analysis of 127 consecutive shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am2021; 103: 879–886.
3.
BlackEMRobertsSMSiegelE, et al.Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as salvage for failed prior arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2014; 23: 1036–1042.
4.
BlackEMRobertsSMSiegelE, et al.Failure after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: what is the success of component revision?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2015; 24: 1908–1914.
5.
HernandezNMChalmersBPWagnerER, et al.Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty restores stability for patients with unstable shoulder prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res2017; 475: 2716–2722.
6.
ChalmersPNBoileauPRomeoAA, et al.Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2019; 27: 426–436.
7.
HaoKABoschertENO’KeefeDS, et al.Comparison of clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Int2023; 7: 257–263.
8.
HolschenMFranetzkiBWittK-A, et al.Conversions from anatomic shoulder replacements to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: do the indications for initial surgery influence the clinical outcome after revision surgery?Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2017; 137: 167–172.
9.
KimKElbulukAJiaN, et al.Revision shoulder arthroplasty: patient-reported outcomes vary according to the etiology of revision. J Orthop2018; 15: 922–926.
10.
ShethMMSholderDGetzCL, et al.Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: 1074–1081.
11.
ShieldsEWiaterJM. Patient outcomes after revision of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff failure or component loosening: a matched cohort study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2019; 27: e193–e198.
12.
FortinPRPenrodJRClarkeAE, et al.Timing of total joint replacement affects clinical outcomes among patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Arthritis Rheum2002; 46: 3327–3330.
13.
GoldbergBASmithKJackinsS, et al.The magnitude and durability of functional improvement after total shoulder arthroplasty for degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2001; 10: 464–469.
14.
MatsenFA. Early effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for patients who have primary glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am1996; 78: 260–264.
15.
MatsenFARussSMVuPT, et al.What factors are predictive of patient-reported outcomes? A prospective study of 337 shoulder arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 2496–2510.
16.
ChalmersPNBoileauPRomeoAA, et al.Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2019; 27: 426–436.
17.
CoughlanMJSaleskyMAZhangAL, et al.Minimum clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score after revision shoulder arthroplasty. Semin Arthroplasty: JSES2022; 32: 23–28.
18.
HaoKAHonesKMO’KeefeDS, et al.Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: e516–e527.
19.
ShethMMSholderDGetzCL, et al.Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: 1074–1081.
20.
SimovitchRFlurinP-HWrightT, et al.Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinical benefit. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 903–911.
21.
ReamsRCViganMWrightTW, et al.A 10-year experience with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: are we operating earlier?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2020; 29: S126–S133.
22.
SchochBSKingJJWrightTW, et al.Defining the tipping point for primary shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Open Access2019; 3: 273–277.
23.
SimovitchRFlurinP-HWrightT, et al.Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 298–305.
24.
SomersonJSHsuJENeradilekMB, et al.The “tipping point” for 931 elective shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018; 27: 1614–1621.
25.
FlurinP-HJanoutMWrightT, et al.Comparison of outcomes using anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis2013; 71: 101–107.
26.
RocheCKumarVOvermanS, et al.Validation of a machine learning-derived clinical metric to quantify outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2021; 30: 2211–2224.
27.
OndeckNTFuMCSkripLA, et al.Treatments of missing values in large national data affect conclusions: the impact of multiple imputation on arthroplasty research. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 661–667.
28.
MatsenFAWhitsonAHsuJE, et al.Prearthroplasty glenohumeral pathoanatomy and its relationship to patient’s sex, age, diagnosis, and self-assessed shoulder comfort and function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2019; 28: 2290–2300.
29.
StekhovenDJBühlmannP. MissForest – non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics2012; 28: 112–118.
30.
AustinLZmistowskiBChangES, et al.Is reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reasonable alternative for revision arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 2531–2537.
31.
BoileauPWatkinsonDHatzidakisAM, et al.Neer Award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2006; 15: 527–540.
32.
CuffDPupelloDViraniN, et al.Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am2008; 90: 1244–1251.
33.
WallBNové-JosserandLO’ConnorDP, et al.Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 1476–1485.
34.
WernerCMLSteinmannPAGilbartM, et al.Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III Reverse-Ball-and-Socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87: 1476–1486.
35.
OttoRJClarkREFrankleMA. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: 2- to 12-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2017; 26: 792–797.
36.
LautenbacherSPetersJHHeesenM, et al.Age changes in pain perception: a systematic-review and meta-analysis of age effects on pain and tolerance thresholds. Neurosci Biobehav Rev2017; 75: 104–113.
37.
EichingerJKRaoMVLinJJ, et al.The effect of body mass index on internal rotation and function following anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2021; 30: 265–272.
38.
WhiteCAPatelAVCirinoCM, et al.Does body mass index influence long-term outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty?J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: 991–1000.
39.
SulkarHJAliajKTashjianRZ, et al.High and low performers in internal rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biplane fluoroscopic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2023; 32: e133–e144.
40.
DayJSMacDonaldDWOlsenM, et al.Polyethylene wear in retrieved reverse total shoulder components. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2012; 21: 667–674.
