Brandon J. Erickson, MD

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Indications and Techniques Across the World

Article Type

Article

Changed

Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:17

Author(s)

Brandon J. Erickson, MD

Daniel D. Bohl, MD, MPH

Brian J. Cole, MBA, MD

Nikhil N. Verma, MD

Gregory Nicholson, MD

Anthony A. Romeo, MD

and Joshua D. Harris, MD

ABSTRACT

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a common treatment for rotator cuff tear arthropathy. We performed a systematic review of all the RTSA literature to answer if we are treating the same patients with RTSA, across the world.

A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews, and performed with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using 3 publicly available free databases. Therapeutic clinical outcome investigations reporting RTSA outcomes with levels of evidence I to IV were eligible for inclusion. All study, subject, and surgical technique demographics were analyzed and compared between continents. Statistical comparisons were conducted using linear regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fisher's exact test, and Pearson's chi-square test.

There were 103 studies included in the analysis (8973 patients; 62% female; mean age, 70.9 ± 6.7 years; mean length of follow-up, 34.3 ± 19.3 months) that had a low Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) (mean, 36.9 ± 8.7: poor). Most patients (60.8%) underwent RTSA for a diagnosis of rotator cuff arthropathy, whereas 1% underwent RTSA for fracture; indications varied by continent. There were no consistent reports of preopeartive or postoperative scores from studies in any region. Studies from North America reported significantly higher postoperative external rotation (34.1° ± 13.3° vs 19.3° ± 8.9°) (P < .001) and a greater change in flexion (69.0° ± 24.5° vs 56.3° ± 11.3°) (P = .004) compared with studies from Europe. North America had the greatest total number of publications followed by Europe. The total yearly number of publications increased each year (P < .001), whereas the MCMS decreased each year (P = .037).

The quantity, but not the quality of RTSA studies is increasing. Indications for RTSA varied by continent, although most patients underwent RTSA for rotator cuff arthropathy. The majority of patients undergoing RTSA are female over the age of 60 years for a diagnosis of rotator cuff arthropathy with pseudoparalysis.

Continue to: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty...

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a common procedure with indications including rotator cuff tear arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, and others.^1,2 Studies have shown excellent, reliable, short- and mid-term outcomes in patients treated with RTSA for various indications.^3-5 Al-Hadithy and colleagues⁶ reviewed 41 patients who underwent RTSA for pseudoparalysis secondary to rotator cuff tear arthropathy and, at a mean follow-up of 5 years, found significant improvements in range of motion (ROM) as well as age-adjusted Constant and Oxford Outcome scores. Similarly, Ross and colleagues⁷ evaluated outcomes of RTSA in 28 patients in whom RTSA was performed for 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fractures, and found both good clinical and radiographic outcomes with no revision surgeries at a mean follow-up of 54.9 months. RTSA is performed across the world, with specific implant designs, specifically humeral head inclination, but is more common in some areas when compared with others.^3,8,9

The number of RTSAs performed has steadily increased over the past 20 years, with recent estimates of approximately 20,000 RTSAs performed in the United States in 2011.^10,11 However, there is little information about the similarities and differences between those patients undergoing RTSA in various parts of the world regarding surgical indications, patient demographics, and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the RTSA body of literature to both identify and compare characteristics of studies published (level of evidence, whether a conflict of interest existed), patients analyzed (age, gender), and surgical indications performed across both continents and countries. Essentially, the study aims to answer the question, "Across the world, are we treating the same patients?" The authors hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in RTSA publications, subjects, and indications based on both the continent and country of publication.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹² A systematic review registration was performed using PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42014010578).¹³Two reviewers independently conducted the search on March 25, 2014, using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm utilized was: (((((reverse[Title/Abstract]) AND shoulder[Title/Abstract]) AND arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]) NOT arthroscopic[Title/Abstract]) NOT cadaver[Title/Abstract]) NOT biomechanical[Title/Abstract]. English language Level I to IV evidence (2011 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹⁴) clinical studies were eligible. Medical conference abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references within included studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if missed by the initial search with any additionally located studies screened for inclusion. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice, but rather the study with longer duration follow-up or, if follow-up was equal, the study with the greater number of patients was included. Level V evidence reviews, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical and cadaver studies, total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) papers, arthroscopic shoulder surgery papers, imaging, surgical techniques, and classification studies were excluded.

A total of 255 studies were identified, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 103 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1). Subjects of interest in this systematic review underwent RTSA for one of many indications including rotator cuff tear arthropathy, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, posttraumatic arthritis, instability, revision from a previous RTSA for instability, infection, acute proximal humerus fracture, revision from a prior proximal humerus fracture, revision from a prior hemiarthroplasty, revision from a prior TSA, osteonecrosis, pseudoparalysis, tumor, and a locked shoulder dislocation. There was no minimum follow-up or rehabilitation requirement. Study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and shoulders, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, and surgical positioning. Clinical outcome scores sought were the DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), SPADI (Shoulder Pain And Disability Index), Absolute Constant, ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Score), KSS (Korean Shoulder Score), SST-12 (Simple Shoulder Test), SF-12 (12-item Short Form), SF-36 (36-item Short Form), SSV (Subjective Shoulder Value), EQ-5D (EuroQol-5 Dimension), SANE (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation), Rowe Score for Instability, Oxford Instability Score, UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) activity score, Penn Shoulder Score, and VAS (visual analog scale). In addition, ROM (forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, internal rotation) was analyzed. Radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging data were extracted when available. The methodological quality of the study was evaluated using the MCMS (Modified Coleman Methodology Score).¹⁵

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

First, the number of publications per year, level of evidence, and Modified Coleman Methodology Score were tested for association with the calendar year using linear regression. Second, demographic data were tested for association with the continent using Pearson’s chi-square test or ANOVA. Third, indications were tested for association with the continent using Fisher’s exact test. Finally, clinical outcome scores and ROM were tested for association with the continent using ANOVA. Statistical significance was extracted from studies when available. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

There were 103 studies included in the analysis (Figure 1). A total of 8973 patients were included, 62% of whom were female with a mean age of 70.9 ± 6.7 years (Table 1). The average follow-up was 34.3 ± 19.3 months. North America had the overall greatest total number of publications on RTSA, followed by Europe (Figure 2). The total yearly number of publications increased by a mean of 1.95 publications each year (P < .001). There was no association between the mean level of evidence with the year of publication (P = .296) (Figure 3). Overall, the rating of studies was poor for the MCMS (mean 36.9 ± 8.7). The MCMS decreased each year by a mean of 0.76 points (P = .037) (Figure 4).

Table 1. Demographic Data by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total	P-value
Number of studies	52	43	4	4	103	-
Number of subjects	6158	2609	51	155	8973	-
Level of evidence						0.693
II	5 (10%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (8%)
III	10 (19%)	4 (9%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	15 (15%)
IV	37 (71%)	36 (84%)	4 (100%)	3 (75%)	80 (78%)
Mean MCMS	34.6 ± 8.4	40.2 ± 8.0	32.5 12.4	34.5 ± 6.6	36.9 ± 8.7	0.010
Institutional collaboration						1.000
Multi-center	7 (14%)	6 (14%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	13 (13%)
Single-center	45 (86%)	37 (86%)	4 (100%)	4 (100%)	90 (87%)
Financial conflict of interest						0.005
Present	28 (54%)	15 (35%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	43 (42%)
Not present	19 (37%)	16 (37%)	4 (100%)	4 (100%)	43 (42%)
Not reported	5 (10%)	12 (28%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	17 (17%)
Sex						N/A
Male	2157 (38%)	1026 (39%)	13 (25%)	61 (39%)	3257 (38%)
Female	3520 (62%)	1622 (61%)	38 (75%)	94 (61%)	5274 (62%)
Mean age (years)	71.3 ± 5.6	70.1 ± 7.9	68.1 ± 5.3	76.9 ± 3.0	70.9 ± 6.7	0.191
Minimum age (mean across studies)	56.9 ± 12.8	52.8 ± 15.7	62.8 ± 6.2	68.0 ± 12.1	55.6 ± 14.3	0.160
Maximum age (mean across studies)	82.1 ± 8.6	83.0 ± 5.5	73.0 ± 9.4	85.0 ± 7.9	82.2 ± 7.6	0.079
Mean length of follow-up (months)	26.5 ± 13.7	43.1 ± 21.7	29.4 ± 7.9	34.2 ± 16.6	34.3 ± 19.3	<0.001
Prosthesis type						N/A
Cemented	988 (89%)	969 (72%)	0 (0%)	8 (16%)	1965 (78%)
Press fit	120 (11%)	379 (28%)	0 (0%)	41 (84%)	540 (22%)

Abbreviations: MCMS, Modified Coleman Methodology Score; N/A, not available.

In studies that reported press-fit vs cemented prostheses, the highest percentage of press-fit prostheses compared with cemented prostheses was seen in Australia (84% press-fit), whereas the highest percentage of cemented prostheses was seen in North America (89% cemented). A higher percentage of studies from North America had a financial conflict of interest (COI) than did those from other countries (54% had a COI).

Continue to: Rotator cuff tear arthropathy...

Rotator cuff tear arthropathy was the most common indication for RTSA overall in 5459 patients, followed by pseudoparalysis in 1352 patients (Tables 2 and 3). While studies in North America reported rotator cuff tear arthropathy as the indication for RTSA in 4418 (75.8%) patients, and pseudoparalysis as the next most common indication in 535 (9.2%) patients, studies from Europe reported rotator cuff tear arthropathy as the indication in 895 (33.5%) patients, and pseudoparalysis as the indication in 795 (29.7%) patients. Studies from Asia also had a relatively even split between rotator cuff tear arthropathy and pseudoparalysis (45.3% vs 37.8%), whereas those from Australia were mostly rotator cuff tear arthropathy (77.7%).

Table 2. Number (Percent) of Studies With Each Indication by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total	P-value
Rotator cuff arthropathy	29 (56%)	19 (44%)	3 (75%)	3 (75%)	54 (52%)	0.390
Osteoarthritis	4 (8%)	10 (23%)	1 (25%)	1 (25%)	16 (16%)	0.072
Rheumatoid arthritis	9 (17%)	10 (23%)	0 (0%)	2 (50%)	21 (20%)	0.278
Post-traumatic arthritis	3 (6%)	5 (12%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	9 (9%)	0.358
Instability	6 (12%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	10 (10%)	0.450
Revision of previous RTSA for instability	5 (10%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	7 (7%)	0.192
Infection	4 (8%)	1 (2%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	6 (6%)	0.207
Unclassified acute proximal humerus fracture	9 (17%)	5 (12%)	1 (25%)	1 (25%)	16 (16%)	0.443
Acute 2-part proximal humerus fracture	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	N/A
Acute 3-part proximal humerus fracture	2 (4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (2%)	0.574
Acute 4-part proximal humerus fracture	5 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (5%)	0.183
Acute 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fracture	6 (12%)	2 (5%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (8%)	0.635
Revised from previous nonop proximal humerus fracture	7 (13%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	10 (10%)	0.787
Revised from ORIF	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (2%)	1.000
Revised from CRPP	0 (0%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (1%)	0.495
Revised from hemi	8 (15%)	4 (9%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	13 (13%)	0.528
Revised from TSA	15 (29%)	11 (26%)	0 (0%)	2 (50%)	28 (27%)	0.492
Osteonecrosis	4 (8%)	2 (5%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	7 (7%)	0.401
Pseudoparalysis irreparable tear without arthritis	20 (38%)	18 (42%)	2 (50%)	1 (25%)	41 (40%)	0.919
Bone tumors	0 (0%)	4 (9.3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (4%)	0.120
Locked shoulder dislocation	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	1 (1%)	0.078

Abbreviations: CRPP, closed reduction and percutaneous pinning; ORIF, open reduction internal fixation; RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 3. Number of Patients With Each Indication as Reported by Individual Studies by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total
Rotator cuff arthropathy	4418	895	24	122	5459
Osteoarthritis	90	251	1	14	356
Rheumatoid arthritis	59	87	0	2	148
Post-traumatic arthritis	62	136	0	1	199
Instability	23	15	0	1	39
Revision of previous RTSA for instability	29	2	0	1	32
Infection	28	11	2	0	41
Unclassified acute proximal humerus fracture	42	30	4	8	84
Acute 3-part proximal humerus fracture	60	0	0	0	6
Acute 4-part proximal humerus fracture	42	0	0	0	42
Acute 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fracture	92	46	0	0	138
Revised from previous nonop proximal humerus fracture	43	53	0	0	96
Revised from ORIF	3	9	0	0	12
Revised from CRPP	0	3	0	0	3
Revised from hemi	105	51	0	1	157
Revised from TSA	192	246	0	5	443
Osteonecrosis	9	6	1	0	16
Pseudoparalysis irreparable tear without arthritis	535	795	20	2	1352
Bone tumors	0	38	0	0	38
Locked shoulder dislocation	0	0	1	0	1

Abbreviations: CRPP, closed reduction and percutaneous pinning; ORIF, open reduction internal fixation; RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

The ASES, SST-12, and VAS scores were the most frequently reported outcome scores in studies from North America, whereas the Absolute Constant score was the most common score reported in studies from Europe (Table 4). Studies from North America reported significantly higher postoperative external rotation (34.1° ± 13.3° vs 19.3° ± 8.9°) (P < .001) and a greater change in flexion (69.0° ± 24.5° vs 56.3° +/- 11.3°) (P = .004) compared with studies from Europe (Table 5).

Table 4. Outcomes by Continent

Metric (number of studies)	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	P-value
DASH	1	2	0	0
Preoperative	54.0	62.0 ± 8.5	-	-	0.582
Postoperative	24.0	32.0 ± 2.8	-	-	0.260
Change	-30.0	-30.0 ± 11.3	-	-	1.000
SPADI	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	80.0 ± 4.2	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	34.8 ± 1.1	-	-	-	N/A
Change	-45.3 ± 3.2	-	-	-	N/A
Absolute constant	2	27	0	1
Preopeartive	33.0 ± 0.0	28.2 ± 7.1	-	20.0	0.329
Postoperative	54.5 ± 7.8	62.9 ± 9.0	-	65.0	0.432
Change	+21.5 ± 7.8	+34.7 ± 8.0	-	+45.0	0.044
ASES	13	0	2	0
Preoperative	33.2 ± 5.4	-	32.5 ± 3.5	-	0.867
Postoperative	73.9 ± 6.8	-	75.7 ± 10.8	-	0.752
Change	+40.7 ± 6.5	-	+43.2 ± 14.4	-	0.670
UCLA	3	2	1	0
Preoperative	10.1 ± 3.4	11.2 ± 5.7	12.0	-	0.925
Postoperative	24.5 ± 3.1	24.3 ± 3.7	24.0	-	0.991
Change	+14.4 ± 1.6	+13.1 ± 2.0	+12.0	-	0.524
KSS	0	0	2	0
Preopeartive	-	-	38.2 ± 1.1	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	-	72.3 ± 6.0	-	N/A
Change	-	-	+34.1 ± 7.1	-	N/A
SST-12	12	1	0	0
Preoperative	1.9 ± 0.8	1.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	7.1 ± 1.5	5.6	-	-	N/A
Change	+5.3 ± 1.2	+4.4	-	-	N/A
SF-12	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	34.5	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	38.5	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+4.0	-	-	-	N/A
SSV	0	5	0	0
Preopeartive	-	22.0 ± 7.4	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	63.4 ± 7.9	-	-	N/A
Change	-	+41.4 ± 2.1	-	-	N/A
EQ-5D	0	2	0	0
Preoperative	-	0.5 ± 0.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	0.8 ± 0.1	-	-	N/A
Change	-	+0.3 ± 0.1	-	-	N/A
OOS	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	24.7	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	14.9	-	-	-	N/A
Change	-9.9	-	-	-	N/A
Rowe	0	1	0	0
Preoperative	-	50.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	82.1	-	-	N/A
Change	-	31.9	-	-	N/A
Oxford	0	2	0	0
Preoperative	-	119.9 ± 138.8	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	39.9 ± 3.3	-	-	N/A
Change	-	-80.6 ± 142.2	-	-	N/A
Penn	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	24.9	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	66.4	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+41.5	-	-	-	N/A
VAS	10	1	1	1
Preoperative	6.6 ± 0.8	7.0	8.4	7.0	N/A
Postoperative	2.0 ± 0.7	1.0	0.8	0.8	N/A
Change	-4.6 ± 0.8	-6.0	-7.6	-6.2	N/A
SF-36 physical	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	32.7 ± 1.2	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	39.6 ± 4.0	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+7.0 ± 2.8	-	-	-	N/A
SF-36 mental	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	43.6 ± 2.8	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	48.1 ± 1.0	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+4.5 ± 1.8	-	-	-	N/A

Abbreviations: ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score; DASH, Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; EQ-5D, EuroQol-5 Dimension; KSS, Korean Shoulder Scoring system; N/A, not available; OOS, Orthopaedic Outcome Score; SF, short form; SPADI, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; SST, Simple Shoulder Test; SSV, Subjective Shoulder Value; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; VAS, visual analog scale.

Table 5. Shoulder Range of Motion, by Continent

Metric (number of studies)	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	P-value
Flexion	18	22	1	1
Preoperative	57.6 ± 17.9	65.5 ± 17.2	91.0	30.0	0.060
Postoperative	126.6 ± 14.4	121.8 ± 19.0	133.0	150.0	0.360
Change	+69.0 ± 24.5	+56.3 ± 11.3	+42.0	120.0	0.004
Abduction	11	12	1	0
Preoperative	53.7 ± 25.0	52.0 ± 19.0	88.0	-	0.311
Postoperative	109.3 ± 15.1	105.4 ± 19.8	131.0	-	0.386
Change	55.5 ± 25.5	53.3 ± 8.3	43.0	-	0.804
External rotation	17	19	0	0
Preoperative	19.4 ± 9.9	11.2 ± 6.1	-	-	0.005
Postoperative	34.1 ± 13.3	19.3 ± 8.9	-	-	<0.001
Change	+14.7 ± 13.2	+8.1 ± 8.5	-	-	0.079

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

RTSA is a common procedure performed in many different areas of the world for a variety of indications. The study hypotheses were partially confirmed, as there were no significant differences seen in the characteristics of the studies published and patients analyzed; although, the majority of studies from North America reported rotator cuff tear arthropathy as the primary indication for RTSA, whereas studies from Europe were split between rotator cuff tear arthropathy and pseudoparalysis as the primary indication. Hence, based on the current literature the study proved that we are treating the same patients. Despite this finding, we may be treating them for different reasons with an RTSA.

RTSA has become a standard procedure in the United States, with >20,000 RTSAs performed in 2011.¹⁰ This number will continue to increase as it has over the past 20 years given the aging population in the United States, as well as the expanding indications for RTSA.¹¹ Indications of RTSA have become broad, although the main indication remains as rotator cuff tear arthropathy (>60% of all patients included in this study), and pseudoparalysis (>15% of all patients included in this study). Results for RTSA for rotator cuff tear arthropathy and pseudoparalysis have been encouraging.^16,17 Frankle and colleagues¹⁶ evaluated 60 patients who underwent RTSA for rotator cuff tear arthropathy at a minimum of 2 years follow-up (average, 33 months). The authors found significant improvements in all measured clinical outcome variables (P < .0001) (ASES, mean function score, mean pain score, and VAS) as well as ROM, specifically forward flexion increased from 55° to 105.1°, and abduction increased from 41.4° to 101.8°. Similarly, Werner and colleagues¹⁷evaluated 58 consecutive patients who underwent RTSA for pseudoparalysis secondary to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction at a mean follow-up of 38 months. Overall, significant improvements (P < .0001) were seen in the SSV score, relative Constant score, and Constant score for pain, active anterior elevation (42° to 100° following RTSA), and active abduction (43° to 90° following RTSA).

It is essential to understand the similarities and differences between patients undergoing RTSA in different parts of the world so the literature from various countries can be compared between regions, and conclusions extrapolated to the correct patients. For example, an interesting finding in this study is that the majority of patients in North America have their prosthesis cemented whereas the majority of patients in Australia have their prosthesis press-fit. While the patients each continent is treating are not significantly different (mostly older women), the difference in surgical technique could have implications in long- or short-term functional outcomes. Prior studies have shown no difference in axial micromotion between cemented and press-fit humeral components, but the clinical implications surrounding this are not well defined.¹⁸ Small series comparing cementless to cemented humeral prosthesis in RTSA have found no significant differences in clinical outcomes or postoperative ROM, but larger series are necessary to validate these outcomes.¹⁹ However, studies have shown lower rates of postoperative infections in patients who receive antibiotic-loaded cement compared with those who receive plain bone cement following RTSA.²⁰

Similarly, as the vast majority of patients in North America had an RTSA for rotator cuff arthropathy (75.8%) whereas those from Europe had RTSA almost equally for rotator cuff arthropathy (33.5%) and pseudoparalysis (29.7%), one must ensure similar patient populations before attempting to extrapolate results of a study from a different country to patients in other areas. Fortunately, the clinical results following RTSA for either indication have been good.^6,21,22

One final point to consider is the cost effectiveness of the implant. Recent evidence has shown that RTSA is associated with a higher risk for in-hospital death, multiple perioperative complications, prolonged hospital stay, and increased hospital cost when compared with TSA.²³ This data may be biased as the patient selection for RTSA varies from that of TSA, but it is a point that must be considered. Other studies have shown that an RTSA is a cost-effective treatment option for treating patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy, and is a more cost-effective option in treating rotator cuff tear arthropathy than hemiarthroplasty.^24,25 Similarly, RTSA offers a more cost-effective treatment option with better outcomes for patients with acute proximal humerus fractures when compared with open reduction internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty.²⁶ However, TSA is a more cost-effective treatment option than RTSA for patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis.²⁷ With changing reimbursement in healthcare, surgeons must scrutinize not only anticipated outcomes with specific implants but the cost effectiveness of these implants as well. Further cost analysis studies are necessary to determine the ideal candidate for an RTSA.

LIMITATIONS

Despite its extensive review of the literature, this study had several limitations. While 2 independent authors searched for studies, it is possible that some studies were missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. No abstracts or unpublished works were included which could have introduced publication bias. Several studies did not report all variables the authors examined, and this could have skewed some of the results since the reporting of additional variables could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. As outcome measures for various pathologies were not compared, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment option for various indications. As case reports were included, this could have lowered both the MCMS as well as the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, given the overall poor quality of the underlying data available for this study, the validity/generalizability of the results could be limited as the level of evidence of this systematic review is only as high as the studies it includes. There are subtle differences between rotator cuff arthropathy and pseudoparalysis, and some studies may have classified patients differently than others, causing differences in indications. Finally, as the primary goal of this study was to report on demographics, no evaluation of concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols was performed.

CONCLUSION

The quantity, but not the quality of RTSA studies is increasing. Indications for RTSA varied by continent although most patients underwent RTSA for rotator cuff arthropathy. The majority of patients undergoing RTSA are female over the age of 60 years for a diagnosis of rotator cuff arthropathy with pseudoparalysis.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

References

1. Boileau P, Moineau G, Roussanne Y, O'Shea K. Bony increased-offset reversed shoulder arthroplasty: minimizing scapular impingement while maximizing glenoid fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2558-2567. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1775-4.

2. Gupta AK, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, et al. Surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures-a systematic review of 92 studies including 4,500 patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;29(1):54-59.

3. Cazeneuve JF, Cristofari DJ. Grammont reversed prosthesis for acute complex fracture of the proximal humerus in an elderly population with 5 to 12 years follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(1):93-97. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.12.005.

4. Clark JC, Ritchie J, Song FS, et al. Complication rates, dislocation, pain, and postoperative range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with and without repair of the subscapularis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):36-41. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.009.

5. De Biase CF, Delcogliano M, Borroni M, Castagna A. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: radiological and clinical result using an eccentric glenosphere. Musculoskelet Surg. 2012;96(suppl 1):S27-SS34. doi:10.1007/s12306-012-0193-4.

6. Al-Hadithy N, Domos P, Sewell MD, Pandit R. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 41 patients with cuff tear arthropathy with a mean follow-up period of 5 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):1662-1668. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.03.001.

7. Ross M, Hope B, Stokes A, Peters SE, McLeod I, Duke PF. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of three-part and four-part proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):215-222. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.022.

8. Mulieri P, Dunning P, Klein S, Pupello D, Frankle M. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tear without glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(15):2544-2556. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00912.

9. Erickson BJ, Frank RM, Harris JD, Mall N, Romeo AA. The influence of humeral head inclination in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(6):988-993. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.001.

10. Schairer WW, Nwachukwu BU, Lyman S, Craig EV, Gulotta LV. National utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(1):91-97. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.026.

11. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2249-2254. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.

12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1-e34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.

13. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, National Institute for Health Research. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. University of York Web site. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Accessed November 1, 2016.

14. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of evidence (March 2009). University of Oxford Web site: https://www.cebm.net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/. Accessed November 1, 2016.

15. Cowan J, Lozano-Calderón S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1693-1699. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00858.

16. Frankle M, Levy JC, Pupello D, et al. The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(suppl 1 Pt 2):178-190. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00123.

17. Werner CM, Steinmann PA, Gilbart M, Gerber C. 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 Am. 2005;87(7):1476-1486. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02342.

18. Peppers TA, Jobe CM, Dai QG, Williams PA, Libanati C. Fixation of humeral prostheses and axial micromotion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(4):414-418. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90034-9.

19. Wiater JM, Moravek JE Jr, Budge MD, Koueiter DM, Marcantonio D, Wiater BP. Clinical and radiographic results of cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative study with 2 to 5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(8):1208-1214. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.032.

20. Nowinski RJ, Gillespie RJ, Shishani Y, Cohen B, Walch G, Gobezie R. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement reduces deep infection rates for primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective, cohort study of 501 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):324-328. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.072.

21. Favard L, Levigne C, Nerot C, Gerber C, De Wilde L, Mole D. Reverse prostheses in arthropathies with cuff tear: are survivorship and function maintained over time? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2469-2475. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1833-y.

22. Naveed MA, Kitson J, Bunker TD. The Delta III reverse shoulder replacement for cuff tear arthropathy: a single-centre study of 50 consecutive procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(1):57-61. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B1.24218.

23. Ponce BA, Oladeji LO, Rogers ME, Menendez ME. Comparative analysis of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: in-hospital outcomes and costs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(3):460-467. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.016.

24. Coe MP, Greiwe RM, Joshi R, et al. The cost-effectiveness of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty for rotator cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(10):1278-1288. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.10.010.

25. Renfree KJ, Hattrup SJ, Chang YH. Cost utility analysis of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(12):1656-1661. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.002.

26. Chalmers PN, Slikker W, 3rd, Mall NA, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fracture: comparison to open reduction-internal fixation and hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(2):197-204. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.044.

27. Steen BM, Cabezas AF, Santoni BG, et al. Outcome and value of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a matched cohort. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(9):1433-1441. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.005.

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Erickson reports that he is a Committee Member for the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM). Dr. Cole reports that he submitted on 07/18/2018; Aesculap/B.Braun, research support; American Journal of Orthopedics, editorial or governing board; American Journal of Sports Medicine, editorial or governing board; Aqua Boom, stock or stock options; Arthrex, Inc, intellectual property (IP) royalties, paid consultant, research support; Arthroscopy, editorial or governing board; Arthroscopy Association of North America, board or committee member; Athletico, other financial or material support; Biomerix, stock or stock options; Cartilage, editorial or governing board; DJ Orthopaedics, IP royalties; Elsevier Publishing, IP royalties; Flexion, paid consultant; Geistlich, research support; Giteliscope, stock or stock options; International Cartilage Repair Society, board or committee member; Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – American, editor only, editorial or governing board; Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, editor only, editorial or governing board; Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, editor only, editorial or governing board; JRF Ortho, other financial or material support; National Institutes of Health (NIAMS and NICHD), research support; Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine, publishing royalties, financial or material support; Ossio, stock or stock options; Regentis, paid consultant, stock or stock options; Sanofi-Aventis, research support; Smith & Nephew, other financial or material support, paid consultant; Tornier, other financial or material support; and Zimmer Biomet, paid consultant, research support. Dr. Verma reports that he is AOSSM, board or committee member; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, board or committee member; Arthrex, Inc, paid consultant, research support; Arthroscopy, editorial or governing board, publishing royalties, financial or material support; Arthroscopy Association of North America, board or committee member; Arthrosurface, research support; Cymedica, stock or stock options; DJ Orthopaedics, research support; Journal of Knee Surgery, editorial or governing board; Minivasive, paid consultant, stock or stock options; Omeros, stock or stock options; Orthospace, paid consultant; Össur, research support; SLACK Incorporated, editorial or governing board; Smith & Nephew, IP royalties; Smith & Nephew, Athletico, ConMed Linvatec, Miomed, and Mitek, research support; and Vindico Medical-Orthopedics Hyperguide, publishing royalties, financial or material support. Dr. Nicholson reports that he is American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, board or committee member; Arthrosurface, paid presenter or speaker; Innomed, IP royalties; Tornier, paid consultant; and Wright Medical Technology, Inc., IP royalties, paid consultant. Dr. Romeo reports that he is American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, other financial or material support; Aesculap/B.Braun, research support; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, board or committee member; Arthrex, Inc, IP royalties, other financial or material support, paid consultant, paid presenter or speaker, research support; Atreon Orthopaedics, board or committee member; Histogenics, research support; Medipost, research support; Major League Baseball, other financial or material support; NuTech, research support; Orthopedics, editorial or governing board; Orthopedics Today, board or committee member, editorial or governing board; OrthoSpace, research support; SAGE, editorial or governing board; Saunders/Mosby-Elsevier, publishing royalties, financial or material support; SLACK Incorporated, editorial or governing board, publishing royalties, financial or material support; Smith & Nephew, research support; Wolters Kluwer Health-Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, editorial or governing board; and Zimmer Biomet, research support. Dr. Harris reports that he is American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, board or committee member; The American Journal of Orthopedics, editorial or governing board; AOSSM, board or committee member; Arthroscopy, editorial or governing board; Arthroscopy Association of North America, board or committee member; DePuy Synthes, A Johnson & Johnson Company, research support; Frontiers In Surgery, editorial or governing board; NIA Magellan, paid consultant; Össur, paid consultant, paid presenter or speaker; SLACK Incorporated, publishing royalties, financial or material support; and Smith & Nephew, paid consultant, paid presenter or speaker, research support. Dr. Bohl reports no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Dr. Erickson is an Attending Surgeon, Sports Medicine and Shoulder Division, Rothman Orthopadic Institute, New York, New York. He was a resident at the time the article was written. Dr. Bohl is an Orthopaedic Surgery Resident, Rush University; Dr. Cole, Dr. Verma, and Dr. Nicholson are Orthopaedic Surgery Attendings, Sports Medicine and Shoulder and Elbow and Sports Division, Midwest Orthopaedics, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. Dr. Romeo is the Managing Partner, Division Chief Shoulder & Elbow and Sports Medicine Department, and Attending Surgeon at Rothman Orthopadics Institute, New York, New York. Dr. Harris is an Orthopaedic Surgery Attending, Sports Medicine Department, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas.

Address correspondence to: Brandon J. Erickson, MD, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, 658 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY, 10591 (tel, 800-321-9999; email, [email protected]).

Brandon J. Erickson, MD Daniel D. Bohl, MD, MPH Brian J. Cole, MBA, MD Nikhil N. Verma, MD Gregory Nicholson, MD Anthony A. Romeo, MD and Joshua D. Harris, MD . Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Indications and Techniques Across the World. Am J Orthop.

September 26, 2018

Publications

MDedge Surgery

The American Journal of Orthopedics

Topics

Shoulder & Elbow

Arthroplasty/Joint Replacement

Orthopedics

Read more about Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Indications and Techniques Across the World

Sections

Clinical Review

Author(s)

Brandon J. Erickson, MD

Daniel D. Bohl, MD, MPH

Brian J. Cole, MBA, MD

Nikhil N. Verma, MD

Gregory Nicholson, MD

Anthony A. Romeo, MD

and Joshua D. Harris, MD

Author(s)

Brandon J. Erickson, MD

Daniel D. Bohl, MD, MPH

Brian J. Cole, MBA, MD

Nikhil N. Verma, MD

Gregory Nicholson, MD

Anthony A. Romeo, MD

and Joshua D. Harris, MD

Author and Disclosure Information

Address correspondence to: Brandon J. Erickson, MD, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, 658 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY, 10591 (tel, 800-321-9999; email, [email protected]).

September 26, 2018

Author and Disclosure Information

Address correspondence to: Brandon J. Erickson, MD, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, 658 White Plains Road, Tarrytown, NY, 10591 (tel, 800-321-9999; email, [email protected]).

September 26, 2018

ABSTRACT

Continue to: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty...

METHODS

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Table 1. Demographic Data by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total	P-value
Number of studies	52	43	4	4	103	-
Number of subjects	6158	2609	51	155	8973	-
Level of evidence						0.693
II	5 (10%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (8%)
III	10 (19%)	4 (9%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	15 (15%)
IV	37 (71%)	36 (84%)	4 (100%)	3 (75%)	80 (78%)
Mean MCMS	34.6 ± 8.4	40.2 ± 8.0	32.5 12.4	34.5 ± 6.6	36.9 ± 8.7	0.010
Institutional collaboration						1.000
Multi-center	7 (14%)	6 (14%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	13 (13%)
Single-center	45 (86%)	37 (86%)	4 (100%)	4 (100%)	90 (87%)
Financial conflict of interest						0.005
Present	28 (54%)	15 (35%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	43 (42%)
Not present	19 (37%)	16 (37%)	4 (100%)	4 (100%)	43 (42%)
Not reported	5 (10%)	12 (28%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	17 (17%)
Sex						N/A
Male	2157 (38%)	1026 (39%)	13 (25%)	61 (39%)	3257 (38%)
Female	3520 (62%)	1622 (61%)	38 (75%)	94 (61%)	5274 (62%)
Mean age (years)	71.3 ± 5.6	70.1 ± 7.9	68.1 ± 5.3	76.9 ± 3.0	70.9 ± 6.7	0.191
Minimum age (mean across studies)	56.9 ± 12.8	52.8 ± 15.7	62.8 ± 6.2	68.0 ± 12.1	55.6 ± 14.3	0.160
Maximum age (mean across studies)	82.1 ± 8.6	83.0 ± 5.5	73.0 ± 9.4	85.0 ± 7.9	82.2 ± 7.6	0.079
Mean length of follow-up (months)	26.5 ± 13.7	43.1 ± 21.7	29.4 ± 7.9	34.2 ± 16.6	34.3 ± 19.3	<0.001
Prosthesis type						N/A
Cemented	988 (89%)	969 (72%)	0 (0%)	8 (16%)	1965 (78%)
Press fit	120 (11%)	379 (28%)	0 (0%)	41 (84%)	540 (22%)

Abbreviations: MCMS, Modified Coleman Methodology Score; N/A, not available.

Continue to: Rotator cuff tear arthropathy...

Table 2. Number (Percent) of Studies With Each Indication by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total	P-value
Rotator cuff arthropathy	29 (56%)	19 (44%)	3 (75%)	3 (75%)	54 (52%)	0.390
Osteoarthritis	4 (8%)	10 (23%)	1 (25%)	1 (25%)	16 (16%)	0.072
Rheumatoid arthritis	9 (17%)	10 (23%)	0 (0%)	2 (50%)	21 (20%)	0.278
Post-traumatic arthritis	3 (6%)	5 (12%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	9 (9%)	0.358
Instability	6 (12%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	10 (10%)	0.450
Revision of previous RTSA for instability	5 (10%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	7 (7%)	0.192
Infection	4 (8%)	1 (2%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	6 (6%)	0.207
Unclassified acute proximal humerus fracture	9 (17%)	5 (12%)	1 (25%)	1 (25%)	16 (16%)	0.443
Acute 2-part proximal humerus fracture	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	N/A
Acute 3-part proximal humerus fracture	2 (4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (2%)	0.574
Acute 4-part proximal humerus fracture	5 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (5%)	0.183
Acute 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fracture	6 (12%)	2 (5%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (8%)	0.635
Revised from previous nonop proximal humerus fracture	7 (13%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	10 (10%)	0.787
Revised from ORIF	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (2%)	1.000
Revised from CRPP	0 (0%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (1%)	0.495
Revised from hemi	8 (15%)	4 (9%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	13 (13%)	0.528
Revised from TSA	15 (29%)	11 (26%)	0 (0%)	2 (50%)	28 (27%)	0.492
Osteonecrosis	4 (8%)	2 (5%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	7 (7%)	0.401
Pseudoparalysis irreparable tear without arthritis	20 (38%)	18 (42%)	2 (50%)	1 (25%)	41 (40%)	0.919
Bone tumors	0 (0%)	4 (9.3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (4%)	0.120
Locked shoulder dislocation	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	1 (1%)	0.078

Abbreviations: CRPP, closed reduction and percutaneous pinning; ORIF, open reduction internal fixation; RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 3. Number of Patients With Each Indication as Reported by Individual Studies by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total
Rotator cuff arthropathy	4418	895	24	122	5459
Osteoarthritis	90	251	1	14	356
Rheumatoid arthritis	59	87	0	2	148
Post-traumatic arthritis	62	136	0	1	199
Instability	23	15	0	1	39
Revision of previous RTSA for instability	29	2	0	1	32
Infection	28	11	2	0	41
Unclassified acute proximal humerus fracture	42	30	4	8	84
Acute 3-part proximal humerus fracture	60	0	0	0	6
Acute 4-part proximal humerus fracture	42	0	0	0	42
Acute 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fracture	92	46	0	0	138
Revised from previous nonop proximal humerus fracture	43	53	0	0	96
Revised from ORIF	3	9	0	0	12
Revised from CRPP	0	3	0	0	3
Revised from hemi	105	51	0	1	157
Revised from TSA	192	246	0	5	443
Osteonecrosis	9	6	1	0	16
Pseudoparalysis irreparable tear without arthritis	535	795	20	2	1352
Bone tumors	0	38	0	0	38
Locked shoulder dislocation	0	0	1	0	1

Abbreviations: CRPP, closed reduction and percutaneous pinning; ORIF, open reduction internal fixation; RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 4. Outcomes by Continent

Metric (number of studies)	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	P-value
DASH	1	2	0	0
Preoperative	54.0	62.0 ± 8.5	-	-	0.582
Postoperative	24.0	32.0 ± 2.8	-	-	0.260
Change	-30.0	-30.0 ± 11.3	-	-	1.000
SPADI	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	80.0 ± 4.2	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	34.8 ± 1.1	-	-	-	N/A
Change	-45.3 ± 3.2	-	-	-	N/A
Absolute constant	2	27	0	1
Preopeartive	33.0 ± 0.0	28.2 ± 7.1	-	20.0	0.329
Postoperative	54.5 ± 7.8	62.9 ± 9.0	-	65.0	0.432
Change	+21.5 ± 7.8	+34.7 ± 8.0	-	+45.0	0.044
ASES	13	0	2	0
Preoperative	33.2 ± 5.4	-	32.5 ± 3.5	-	0.867
Postoperative	73.9 ± 6.8	-	75.7 ± 10.8	-	0.752
Change	+40.7 ± 6.5	-	+43.2 ± 14.4	-	0.670
UCLA	3	2	1	0
Preoperative	10.1 ± 3.4	11.2 ± 5.7	12.0	-	0.925
Postoperative	24.5 ± 3.1	24.3 ± 3.7	24.0	-	0.991
Change	+14.4 ± 1.6	+13.1 ± 2.0	+12.0	-	0.524
KSS	0	0	2	0
Preopeartive	-	-	38.2 ± 1.1	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	-	72.3 ± 6.0	-	N/A
Change	-	-	+34.1 ± 7.1	-	N/A
SST-12	12	1	0	0
Preoperative	1.9 ± 0.8	1.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	7.1 ± 1.5	5.6	-	-	N/A
Change	+5.3 ± 1.2	+4.4	-	-	N/A
SF-12	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	34.5	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	38.5	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+4.0	-	-	-	N/A
SSV	0	5	0	0
Preopeartive	-	22.0 ± 7.4	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	63.4 ± 7.9	-	-	N/A
Change	-	+41.4 ± 2.1	-	-	N/A
EQ-5D	0	2	0	0
Preoperative	-	0.5 ± 0.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	0.8 ± 0.1	-	-	N/A
Change	-	+0.3 ± 0.1	-	-	N/A
OOS	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	24.7	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	14.9	-	-	-	N/A
Change	-9.9	-	-	-	N/A
Rowe	0	1	0	0
Preoperative	-	50.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	82.1	-	-	N/A
Change	-	31.9	-	-	N/A
Oxford	0	2	0	0
Preoperative	-	119.9 ± 138.8	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	39.9 ± 3.3	-	-	N/A
Change	-	-80.6 ± 142.2	-	-	N/A
Penn	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	24.9	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	66.4	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+41.5	-	-	-	N/A
VAS	10	1	1	1
Preoperative	6.6 ± 0.8	7.0	8.4	7.0	N/A
Postoperative	2.0 ± 0.7	1.0	0.8	0.8	N/A
Change	-4.6 ± 0.8	-6.0	-7.6	-6.2	N/A
SF-36 physical	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	32.7 ± 1.2	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	39.6 ± 4.0	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+7.0 ± 2.8	-	-	-	N/A
SF-36 mental	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	43.6 ± 2.8	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	48.1 ± 1.0	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+4.5 ± 1.8	-	-	-	N/A

Table 5. Shoulder Range of Motion, by Continent

Metric (number of studies)	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	P-value
Flexion	18	22	1	1
Preoperative	57.6 ± 17.9	65.5 ± 17.2	91.0	30.0	0.060
Postoperative	126.6 ± 14.4	121.8 ± 19.0	133.0	150.0	0.360
Change	+69.0 ± 24.5	+56.3 ± 11.3	+42.0	120.0	0.004
Abduction	11	12	1	0
Preoperative	53.7 ± 25.0	52.0 ± 19.0	88.0	-	0.311
Postoperative	109.3 ± 15.1	105.4 ± 19.8	131.0	-	0.386
Change	55.5 ± 25.5	53.3 ± 8.3	43.0	-	0.804
External rotation	17	19	0	0
Preoperative	19.4 ± 9.9	11.2 ± 6.1	-	-	0.005
Postoperative	34.1 ± 13.3	19.3 ± 8.9	-	-	<0.001
Change	+14.7 ± 13.2	+8.1 ± 8.5	-	-	0.079

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

LIMITATIONS

CONCLUSION

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

Continue to: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty...

METHODS

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Continue to: RESULTS...

RESULTS

Table 1. Demographic Data by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total	P-value
Number of studies	52	43	4	4	103	-
Number of subjects	6158	2609	51	155	8973	-
Level of evidence						0.693
II	5 (10%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (8%)
III	10 (19%)	4 (9%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	15 (15%)
IV	37 (71%)	36 (84%)	4 (100%)	3 (75%)	80 (78%)
Mean MCMS	34.6 ± 8.4	40.2 ± 8.0	32.5 12.4	34.5 ± 6.6	36.9 ± 8.7	0.010
Institutional collaboration						1.000
Multi-center	7 (14%)	6 (14%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	13 (13%)
Single-center	45 (86%)	37 (86%)	4 (100%)	4 (100%)	90 (87%)
Financial conflict of interest						0.005
Present	28 (54%)	15 (35%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	43 (42%)
Not present	19 (37%)	16 (37%)	4 (100%)	4 (100%)	43 (42%)
Not reported	5 (10%)	12 (28%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	17 (17%)
Sex						N/A
Male	2157 (38%)	1026 (39%)	13 (25%)	61 (39%)	3257 (38%)
Female	3520 (62%)	1622 (61%)	38 (75%)	94 (61%)	5274 (62%)
Mean age (years)	71.3 ± 5.6	70.1 ± 7.9	68.1 ± 5.3	76.9 ± 3.0	70.9 ± 6.7	0.191
Minimum age (mean across studies)	56.9 ± 12.8	52.8 ± 15.7	62.8 ± 6.2	68.0 ± 12.1	55.6 ± 14.3	0.160
Maximum age (mean across studies)	82.1 ± 8.6	83.0 ± 5.5	73.0 ± 9.4	85.0 ± 7.9	82.2 ± 7.6	0.079
Mean length of follow-up (months)	26.5 ± 13.7	43.1 ± 21.7	29.4 ± 7.9	34.2 ± 16.6	34.3 ± 19.3	<0.001
Prosthesis type						N/A
Cemented	988 (89%)	969 (72%)	0 (0%)	8 (16%)	1965 (78%)
Press fit	120 (11%)	379 (28%)	0 (0%)	41 (84%)	540 (22%)

Abbreviations: MCMS, Modified Coleman Methodology Score; N/A, not available.

Continue to: Rotator cuff tear arthropathy...

Table 2. Number (Percent) of Studies With Each Indication by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total	P-value
Rotator cuff arthropathy	29 (56%)	19 (44%)	3 (75%)	3 (75%)	54 (52%)	0.390
Osteoarthritis	4 (8%)	10 (23%)	1 (25%)	1 (25%)	16 (16%)	0.072
Rheumatoid arthritis	9 (17%)	10 (23%)	0 (0%)	2 (50%)	21 (20%)	0.278
Post-traumatic arthritis	3 (6%)	5 (12%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	9 (9%)	0.358
Instability	6 (12%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	10 (10%)	0.450
Revision of previous RTSA for instability	5 (10%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	7 (7%)	0.192
Infection	4 (8%)	1 (2%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	6 (6%)	0.207
Unclassified acute proximal humerus fracture	9 (17%)	5 (12%)	1 (25%)	1 (25%)	16 (16%)	0.443
Acute 2-part proximal humerus fracture	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	N/A
Acute 3-part proximal humerus fracture	2 (4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (2%)	0.574
Acute 4-part proximal humerus fracture	5 (10%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (5%)	0.183
Acute 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fracture	6 (12%)	2 (5%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	8 (8%)	0.635
Revised from previous nonop proximal humerus fracture	7 (13%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	10 (10%)	0.787
Revised from ORIF	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (2%)	1.000
Revised from CRPP	0 (0%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (1%)	0.495
Revised from hemi	8 (15%)	4 (9%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	13 (13%)	0.528
Revised from TSA	15 (29%)	11 (26%)	0 (0%)	2 (50%)	28 (27%)	0.492
Osteonecrosis	4 (8%)	2 (5%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	7 (7%)	0.401
Pseudoparalysis irreparable tear without arthritis	20 (38%)	18 (42%)	2 (50%)	1 (25%)	41 (40%)	0.919
Bone tumors	0 (0%)	4 (9.3%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	4 (4%)	0.120
Locked shoulder dislocation	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (25%)	0 (0%)	1 (1%)	0.078

Abbreviations: CRPP, closed reduction and percutaneous pinning; ORIF, open reduction internal fixation; RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 3. Number of Patients With Each Indication as Reported by Individual Studies by Continent

	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	Total
Rotator cuff arthropathy	4418	895	24	122	5459
Osteoarthritis	90	251	1	14	356
Rheumatoid arthritis	59	87	0	2	148
Post-traumatic arthritis	62	136	0	1	199
Instability	23	15	0	1	39
Revision of previous RTSA for instability	29	2	0	1	32
Infection	28	11	2	0	41
Unclassified acute proximal humerus fracture	42	30	4	8	84
Acute 3-part proximal humerus fracture	60	0	0	0	6
Acute 4-part proximal humerus fracture	42	0	0	0	42
Acute 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fracture	92	46	0	0	138
Revised from previous nonop proximal humerus fracture	43	53	0	0	96
Revised from ORIF	3	9	0	0	12
Revised from CRPP	0	3	0	0	3
Revised from hemi	105	51	0	1	157
Revised from TSA	192	246	0	5	443
Osteonecrosis	9	6	1	0	16
Pseudoparalysis irreparable tear without arthritis	535	795	20	2	1352
Bone tumors	0	38	0	0	38
Locked shoulder dislocation	0	0	1	0	1

Abbreviations: CRPP, closed reduction and percutaneous pinning; ORIF, open reduction internal fixation; RTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 4. Outcomes by Continent

Metric (number of studies)	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	P-value
DASH	1	2	0	0
Preoperative	54.0	62.0 ± 8.5	-	-	0.582
Postoperative	24.0	32.0 ± 2.8	-	-	0.260
Change	-30.0	-30.0 ± 11.3	-	-	1.000
SPADI	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	80.0 ± 4.2	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	34.8 ± 1.1	-	-	-	N/A
Change	-45.3 ± 3.2	-	-	-	N/A
Absolute constant	2	27	0	1
Preopeartive	33.0 ± 0.0	28.2 ± 7.1	-	20.0	0.329
Postoperative	54.5 ± 7.8	62.9 ± 9.0	-	65.0	0.432
Change	+21.5 ± 7.8	+34.7 ± 8.0	-	+45.0	0.044
ASES	13	0	2	0
Preoperative	33.2 ± 5.4	-	32.5 ± 3.5	-	0.867
Postoperative	73.9 ± 6.8	-	75.7 ± 10.8	-	0.752
Change	+40.7 ± 6.5	-	+43.2 ± 14.4	-	0.670
UCLA	3	2	1	0
Preoperative	10.1 ± 3.4	11.2 ± 5.7	12.0	-	0.925
Postoperative	24.5 ± 3.1	24.3 ± 3.7	24.0	-	0.991
Change	+14.4 ± 1.6	+13.1 ± 2.0	+12.0	-	0.524
KSS	0	0	2	0
Preopeartive	-	-	38.2 ± 1.1	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	-	72.3 ± 6.0	-	N/A
Change	-	-	+34.1 ± 7.1	-	N/A
SST-12	12	1	0	0
Preoperative	1.9 ± 0.8	1.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	7.1 ± 1.5	5.6	-	-	N/A
Change	+5.3 ± 1.2	+4.4	-	-	N/A
SF-12	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	34.5	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	38.5	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+4.0	-	-	-	N/A
SSV	0	5	0	0
Preopeartive	-	22.0 ± 7.4	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	63.4 ± 7.9	-	-	N/A
Change	-	+41.4 ± 2.1	-	-	N/A
EQ-5D	0	2	0	0
Preoperative	-	0.5 ± 0.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	0.8 ± 0.1	-	-	N/A
Change	-	+0.3 ± 0.1	-	-	N/A
OOS	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	24.7	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	14.9	-	-	-	N/A
Change	-9.9	-	-	-	N/A
Rowe	0	1	0	0
Preoperative	-	50.2	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	82.1	-	-	N/A
Change	-	31.9	-	-	N/A
Oxford	0	2	0	0
Preoperative	-	119.9 ± 138.8	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	-	39.9 ± 3.3	-	-	N/A
Change	-	-80.6 ± 142.2	-	-	N/A
Penn	1	0	0	0
Preoperative	24.9	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	66.4	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+41.5	-	-	-	N/A
VAS	10	1	1	1
Preoperative	6.6 ± 0.8	7.0	8.4	7.0	N/A
Postoperative	2.0 ± 0.7	1.0	0.8	0.8	N/A
Change	-4.6 ± 0.8	-6.0	-7.6	-6.2	N/A
SF-36 physical	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	32.7 ± 1.2	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	39.6 ± 4.0	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+7.0 ± 2.8	-	-	-	N/A
SF-36 mental	2	0	0	0
Preoperative	43.6 ± 2.8	-	-	-	N/A
Postoperative	48.1 ± 1.0	-	-	-	N/A
Change	+4.5 ± 1.8	-	-	-	N/A

Table 5. Shoulder Range of Motion, by Continent

Metric (number of studies)	North America	Europe	Asia	Australia	P-value
Flexion	18	22	1	1
Preoperative	57.6 ± 17.9	65.5 ± 17.2	91.0	30.0	0.060
Postoperative	126.6 ± 14.4	121.8 ± 19.0	133.0	150.0	0.360
Change	+69.0 ± 24.5	+56.3 ± 11.3	+42.0	120.0	0.004
Abduction	11	12	1	0
Preoperative	53.7 ± 25.0	52.0 ± 19.0	88.0	-	0.311
Postoperative	109.3 ± 15.1	105.4 ± 19.8	131.0	-	0.386
Change	55.5 ± 25.5	53.3 ± 8.3	43.0	-	0.804
External rotation	17	19	0	0
Preoperative	19.4 ± 9.9	11.2 ± 6.1	-	-	0.005
Postoperative	34.1 ± 13.3	19.3 ± 8.9	-	-	<0.001
Change	+14.7 ± 13.2	+8.1 ± 8.5	-	-	0.079

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

LIMITATIONS

CONCLUSION

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

References

2. Gupta AK, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, et al. Surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures-a systematic review of 92 studies including 4,500 patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;29(1):54-59.

11. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2249-2254. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.

18. Peppers TA, Jobe CM, Dai QG, Williams PA, Libanati C. Fixation of humeral prostheses and axial micromotion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(4):414-418. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90034-9.

25. Renfree KJ, Hattrup SJ, Chang YH. Cost utility analysis of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(12):1656-1661. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.002.

References

2. Gupta AK, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, et al. Surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures-a systematic review of 92 studies including 4,500 patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;29(1):54-59.

11. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2249-2254. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.

18. Peppers TA, Jobe CM, Dai QG, Williams PA, Libanati C. Fixation of humeral prostheses and axial micromotion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(4):414-418. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90034-9.

25. Renfree KJ, Hattrup SJ, Chang YH. Cost utility analysis of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(12):1656-1661. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.002.

Publications

MDedge Surgery

The American Journal of Orthopedics

Publications

MDedge Surgery

The American Journal of Orthopedics

Topics

Shoulder & Elbow

Arthroplasty/Joint Replacement

Orthopedics

Article Type

Article

Sections

Clinical Review

Inside the Article

TAKE-HOME POINTS

RTSA is an effective treatment for rotator cuff tear arthropathy (the most common reason patients undergo RTSA).
While there has been a plethora of literature surrounding outcomes of RTSA over the past several years, the methodological quality of this literature has been limited.
Similarly, this study found the number of publications surrounding RTSA is increasing each year while the average methodological quality of these studies is decreasing.
Females undergo RTSA more commonly than males, and the average age of patients undergoing RTSA is 71 years.
Interestingly, patients’ postoperative external rotation was higher in studies out of North America compared to other continents. Further research into this area is needed to understand more about this finding.

Disallow All Ads

Content Gating

No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Alternative CME

Disqus Comments

Default

Gate On Date

Thu, 03/28/2019 - 15:45

Un-Gate On Date

Thu, 03/28/2019 - 15:45

Consolidated Pubs: Do Not Show Source Publication Logo

Use ProPublica

CFC Schedule Remove Status

Thu, 03/28/2019 - 15:45

Management of Isolated Greater Tuberosity Fractures: A Systematic Review

Article Type

Article

Changed

Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:19

Author(s)

David M. Levy, MD

Brandon J. Erickson, MD

Joshua D. Harris, MD

Bernard R. Bach Jr, MD

Nikhil N. Verma, MD

Anthony A. Romeo, MD

Take-Home Points

Fractures of the greater tuberosity are often mismanaged.
Comprehension of greater tuberosity fractures involves classification into nonoperative and operative treatment, displacement >5mm or <5 mm, and open vs arthroscopic surgery.
Nearly a third of patients may suffer concomitant anterior glenohumeral instability.
Stiffness is the most common postoperative complication.
Surgery is associated with high patient satisfaction and low rates of complications and reoperations.

Although proximal humerus fractures are common in the elderly, isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity occur less often. Management depends on several factors, including fracture pattern and displacement.^1,2 Nondisplaced fractures are often successfully managed with sling immobilization and early range of motion.^3,4 Although surgical intervention improves outcomes in displaced greater tuberosity fractures, the ideal surgical treatment is less clear.⁵

Displaced greater tuberosity fractures may require surgery for prevention of subacromial impingement and range-of-motion deficits.² Superior fracture displacement results in decreased shoulder abduction, and posterior displacement can limit external rotation.⁶Although the greater tuberosity can displace in any direction, posterosuperior displacement has the worst outcomes.¹ The exact surgery-warranting displacement amount ranges from 3 mm to 10 mm but is yet to be clearly elucidated.^5,6 Less displacement is tolerated by young overhead athletes, and more displacement by older less active patients.^5,7,8Surgical options for isolated greater tuberosity fractures include fragment excision, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), closed reduction with percutaneous fixation, and arthroscopically assisted reduction with internal fixation.^3,9,10

We conducted a study to determine the management patterns for isolated greater tuberosity fractures. We hypothesized that greater tuberosity fractures displaced <5 mm may be managed nonoperatively and that greater tuberosity fractures displaced >5 mm require surgical fixation.

Methods

Search Strategy

We performed this systematic review according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist¹¹ and registered it (CRD42014010691) with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews. Literature searches using the PubMed/Medline database and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials were completed in August 2014. There were no date or year restrictions. Key words were used to capture all English- language studies with level I to IV evidence (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine) and reported clinical or radiographic outcomes. Initial exclusion criteria were cadaveric, biomechanical, histologic, and kinematic results. An electronic search algorithm with key words and a series of NOT phrases was designed to match our exclusion criteria:

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((greater[Title/Abstract]) AND tuberosity [Title/Abstract] OR tubercle [Title/Abstract]) AND fracture[Title/Abstract]) AND proximal[Title/Abstract] AND (English[lang]))) NOT intramedullary[Title] AND (English[lang]))) NOT nonunion[Title] AND (English[lang]))) NOT malunion[Title] AND (English[lang]))) NOT biomechanical[Title/Abstract] AND (English[lang]))) NOT cadaveric[Title/Abstract] AND (English[lang]))) NOT cadaver[Title/Abstract] AND (English[lang]))) NOT ((basic[Title/Abstract]) AND science[Title/Abstract] AND (English[lang])) AND (English[lang]))) NOT revision[Title] AND (English[lang]))) NOT pediatric[Title] AND (English[lang]))) NOT physeal[Title] AND (English[lang]))) NOT children[Title] AND (English[lang]))) NOT instability[Title] AND (English[lang]))) NOT imaging[Title])) NOT salter[Title])) NOT physis[Title])) NOT shaft[Title])) NOT distal[Title])) NOT clavicle[Title])) NOT scapula[Title])) NOT ((diaphysis[Title]) AND diaphyseal[Title]))) NOT infection[Title])) NOT laboratory[Title/Abstract])) NOT metastatic[Title/Abstract])) NOT (((((((malignancy[Title/Abstract]) OR malignant[Title/Abstract]) OR tumor[Title/Abstract]) OR oncologic[Title/Abstract]) OR cyst[Title/Abstract]) OR aneurysmal[Title/Abstract]) OR unicameral[Title/Abstract]).

Study Selection

We obtained 135 search results and reviewed them for further differentiation. All the references in these studies were cross-referenced for inclusion (if missed by the initial search), which added another 15 studies. Technical notes, letters to the editor, and level V evidence reviews were excluded. Double-counting of patients was avoided by comparing each study’s authors, data collection period, and ethnic population with those of the other studies. In cases of overlapping authorship, period, or place, only the study with the longer follow-up, more patients, or more comprehensive data was included. For studies separating outcomes by diagnosis, only outcomes of isolated greater tuberosity fractures were included. Data on 3- or 4-part proximal humerus fractures and isolated lesser tuberosity fractures were excluded. Studies that could not be deconstructed as such or that were devoted solely to one of our exclusion criteria were excluded. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. After all inclusion and exclusion criteria were accounted for, 13 studies with 429 patients (429 shoulders) were selected for inclusion (Figure, Table 1).^2,5,12-22

Data Extraction

We extracted data from the 13 studies that met the eligibility criteria. Details of study design, sample size, and patient demographics, including age, sex, and hand dominance, were recorded, as were mechanism of injury and concomitant anterior shoulder instability. To capture the most patients, we noted radiographic fracture displacement categorically rather than continuously; patients were divided into 2 displacement groups (<5 mm, >5 mm). Most studies did not define degree of comminution or specific direction of displacement per fracture, so these variables were not included in the data analysis. Nonoperative management and operative management were studied. We abstracted surgical factors, such as approach, method, fixation type (screws or sutures), and technique (suture anchors or transosseous tunnels). Clinical outcomes included physical examination findings, functional assessment results (patient satisfaction; Constant and University of California Los Angeles [UCLA] shoulder scores), and the number of revisions. Radiologic outcomes, retrieved from radiographs or computed tomography scans, focused on loss of reduction (as determined by the respective authors), malunion, nonunion, and heterotopic ossification. Each study’s methodologic quality and bias were evaluated with the 15-item Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), which was described by Cowan and colleagues.²³ The MCMS has been used to assess randomized and nonrandomized patient trials.^24,25 Its scaled potential score ranges from 0 to 100 (85-100, excellent; 70-84, good; 55-69, fair; <55, poor).

Statistical Analysis

We report our data as weighted means (SDs). A mean was calculated for each study that reported a respective data point, and each mean was then weighed according to its study sample size. This calculation was performed by multiplying a study’s individual mean by the number of patients enrolled in that study and dividing the sum of these weighted data points by the number of eligible patients in all relevant studies. The result was that the nonweighted means from studies with smaller sample sizes did not carry as much weight as the nonweighted means from larger studies. We compared 3 paired groups: treatment type (nonoperative vs operative), fracture displacement amount (<5 mm vs >5 mm), and surgery type (open vs arthroscopic). Regarding all patient, surgery, and outcomes data, unpaired Student t tests were used for continuous variables and 2-tailed Fisher exact tests for categorical variables with α = 0.05 (SPSS Version 18; IBM).

Results

Demographic information and treatment strategies are listed in Table 2. Fifty-eight percent of patients were male, 59.0% of dominant shoulders were affected, and 59.2% of fractures were displaced <5 mm. Concomitant shoulder instability was reported in 28.1% of patients. Mechanism of injury was not reported in all studies but most commonly (n = 75; 49.3%) involved a fall on an outstretched hand; 31 patients (20.4%) had a sports-related injury, and another 37 (24.3%) were injured in a motor vehicle collision. Of the 429 patients, 217 (50.6%) were treated nonoperatively, and 212 (49.4%) underwent surgery. Open, arthroscopic, and percutaneous approaches were reported. No studies presented outcomes of fragment excision.

Postoperative physical examination findings were underreported so that surgical groups could be compared. Of all the surgical studies, 4 reported postoperative forward elevation (mean, 160°; SD, 9.8°) and external rotation (mean, 46.4°; SD 26.3°).^14,15,18,22No malunions and only 1 nonunion were reported in all 13 studies. No deaths or other serious medical complications were reported. Patients with anterior instability more often underwent surgery than were treated nonoperatively (39.2% vs 12.0%; P < .01) and more often had fractures displaced >5 mm than <5 mm (44.3% vs 14.5%; P < .01).

Comparisons of treatment type are listed in Table 3. Compared with nonoperative patients, operative patients had significantly fewer radiographic losses of reduction (P < .01) and better patient satisfaction (P < .01). Operative patients had a significantly higher rate of shoulder stiffness (P < .01). Eight operative patients (3.8%) and no nonoperative patients required reoperation during clinical follow-up (P < .01). All 12 reported cases of stiffness were in the operative group, and 3 required revision surgery. One patient required revision ORIF. There were 2 cases of postoperative superficial infection (0.9%) and 4 neurologic injuries (1.9%).

Comparisons of displacement amount are listed in Table 4. Compared with fractures displaced >5 mm, those displaced <5 mm had more radiographic losses of reduction (P < .01) but fewer instances of heterotopic ossification (P < .01). Fractures displaced >5 mm were significantly more likely than not to be managed with surgery (P < .01) and significantly more likely to develop stiffness after treatment (P = .01). One patient (0.4%) with a fracture displaced <5 mm eventually underwent surgery for stiffness, and 6 patients (3.6%) with fractures displaced >5 mm required reoperation (P = .02).

Comparisons of surgery type are listed in Table 5. All open procedures were performed with a deltoid-splitting approach. Screw fixation was used in 4 cases: 2 percutaneous^5,21and 2 open.^2,5 The other open and arthroscopic studies described suture fixation, half with anchors (77/156 patients; 49.4%) and half with transosseous tunnels (79/156; 50.6%). There were no statistically significant differences between open/percutaneous and arthroscopic techniques in terms of stiffness, superficial infection, neurologic injury, or reoperation rate.

Fisher exact tests were used to perform isolated comparisons of screws and sutures as well as suture anchors and transosseous tunnels. Patients with screw fixation were significantly (P = .051) less likely to require reoperation (0/56; 0%) than patients with suture fixation (8/100; 8.0%). Screw fixation also led to significantly less stiffness (0% vs 12.0%; P < .01) but trended toward a higher rate of superficial infection (3.6% vs 0%; P = .13). There was no statistical difference in nerve injury rates between screws and sutures (1.8% vs 3.0%; P = 1.0). There were no significant differences in reoperations, stiffness, superficial infections, or nerve injuries between suture anchor and transosseous tunnel constructs.

For all 13 studies, mean (SD) MCMS was 41.1 (8.6).

Discussion

Five percent of all fractures involve the proximal humerus, and 20% of proximal humerus fractures are isolated greater tuberosity fractures.^26,27 In his classic 1970 article, Neer⁶ formulated the 4-part proximal humerus fracture classification and defined greater tuberosity fracture “parts” using the same criteria as for other fracture “parts.” Neer⁶ recommended nonoperative management for isolated greater tuberosity fractures displaced <1 cm but did not present evidence corroborating his recommendation. More recent cutoffs for nonoperative management include 5 mm (general population) and 3 mm (athletes).^7,17

In the present systematic review of greater tuberosity fractures, 3 separate comparisons were made: treatment type (nonoperative vs operative), fracture displacement amount (<5 mm vs >5 mm), and surgery type (open vs arthroscopic).

Treatment Type. Only 4 studies reported data on nonoperative treatment outcomes.^5,12,16,17 Of these 4 studies, 2 found successful outcomes for fractures displaced <5 mm.^12,17Platzer and colleagues¹⁷ found good or excellent results in 97% of 135 shoulders after 4 years. Good results were defined with shoulder scores of ≥80 (Constant), <8 (Vienna), and >28 (UCLA), and excellent results were defined with maximum scores on 2 of the 3 systems. Platzer and colleagues¹⁷ also found nonsignificantly worse shoulder scores with superior displacement of 3 mm to 5 mm and recommended surgery for overhead athletes in this group. Rath and colleagues¹² described a successful 3-phase rehabilitation protocol of sling immobilization for 3 weeks, pendulum exercises for 3 weeks, and active exercises thereafter. By an average of 31 months, patient satisfaction scores improved to 9.5 from 4.2 (10-point scale), though the authors cautioned that pain and decreased motion lasted 8 months on average. Conservative treatment was far less successful in the 2 studies of fractures displaced >5 mm.^5,16 Keene and colleagues¹⁶ reported unsatisfactory results in all 4 patients with fractures displaced >1.5 cm. In a study separate from their 2005 analysis,¹⁷ Platzer and colleagues⁵in 2008 evaluated displaced fractures and found function and patient satisfaction were inferior after nonoperative treatment than after surgery. The studies by Keene and colleagues¹⁶and Platzer and colleagues⁵ support the finding of an overall lower patient satisfaction rate in nonoperative patients.

Fracture Displacement Amount. Only 2 arthroscopic studies and no open studies addressed surgery for fractures displaced <5 mm. Fewer than 16% of these fractures were managed operatively, and <1% required reoperation. By contrast, almost all fractures displaced >5 mm were managed operatively, and 3.6% required reoperation. Radiographic loss of reduction was more common in fractures displaced <5 mm, primarily because they were managed without fixation. Radiographic loss of reduction was reported in only 9 operatively treated patients, none of whom was symptomatic enough to require another surgery.⁵Reoperations were most commonly performed for stiffness, which itself was significantly more common in fractures displaced >5 mm. Bhatia and colleagues¹⁴ reported the highest reoperation rate (14.3%; 3/21), but they studied more complex, comminuted fractures of the greater tuberosity. Two of their 3 reoperations were biceps tenodeses for inflamed, stiff tenosynovitis, and the third patient had a foreign body giant cell reaction to suture material. Fewer than 1% of patients with operatively managed displaced fractures required revision ORIF, and <2% developed a superficial infection or postoperative nerve palsy.^19,22 For displaced greater tuberosity fractures, surgery is highly successful overall, complication rates are very low, and 90% of patients report being satisfied.

Surgery Type. Patients were divided into 2 groups. In the nonarthroscopic group, open and percutaneous approaches were used. All studies that described a percutaneous approach used screw fixation^5,21; in addition, 32 patients were treated with screws through an open approach.^2,5 The other open and arthroscopic studies used suture fixation. Interestingly, no studies reported on clinical outcomes of fragment excision. There were no statistically significant differences in rates of reoperation, stiffness, infection, or neurologic injury between the arthroscopic and nonarthroscopic groups. Patient satisfaction scores were slightly higher in the nonarthroscopic group (91.0% vs 87.8%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

With surgical techniques isolated, there were no significant differences between suture anchors and transosseous tunnel constructs, but screws performed significantly better than suture techniques. Compared with suture fixation, screw fixation led to significantly fewer cases of stiffness and reoperation, which suggests surgeons need to give screws more consideration in the operative management of these fractures. However, the number of patients treated with screws was smaller than the number treated with suture fixation; it is possible the differences between these cohorts would be eliminated if there were more patients in the screw cohort. In addition, screw fixation was universally performed with an open or percutaneous approach and trended toward a higher infection rate. As screw and suture techniques have low rates of complications and reoperations, we recommend leaving fixation choice to the surgeon.

Anterior shoulder instability has been associated with greater tuberosity fractures.^1,8,19 The supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and teres minor muscles all insert into the greater tuberosity and resist anterior translation of the proximal humerus. Loss of this dynamic muscle stabilization is amplified by tuberosity fracture displacement: Anterior shoulder instability was significantly more common in fractures displaced >5 mm (44.3%) vs <5 mm (14.5%). In turn, glenohumeral instability was more common in patients treated with surgery, specifically open surgery, because displaced fractures may not be as easily accessed with arthroscopic techniques. No studies reported concomitant labral repair or capsular plication techniques.

This systematic review was limited by the studies analyzed. All but 1 study⁵ had level IV evidence. Mean (SD) MCMS was 41.8 (8.6). Any MCMS score <54 indicates a poor methodology level, but this scoring system is designed for randomized controlled trials,²³ and there were none in this study. Physical examination findings, such as range of motion, were underreported. In addition, radiographic parameters were not consistently described but rather were determined by the respective authors’ subjective interpretations of malunion, nonunion, and loss of reduction. Publication bias is present in that we excluded non- English language studies and medical conference abstracts and may have omitted potentially eligible studies not discoverable with our search methodology. Performance bias is a factor in any systematic review with multiple surgeons and wide variation in surgical technique.

Conclusion

Greater tuberosity fractures displaced <5 mm may be safely managed nonoperatively, as there are no reports of nonoperatively managed fractures that subsequently required surgery. Nonoperative treatment was initially associated with low patient satisfaction, but only because displaced fractures were conservatively managed in early studies.^5,16 Fractures displaced >5 mm respond well to operative fixation with screws, suture anchors, or transosseous suture tunnels. Stiffness is the most common postoperative complication (<6%), followed by heterotopic ossification, transient neurapraxias, and superficial infection. There are no discernible differences in outcome between open and arthroscopic techniques, but screw fixation may lead to significantly fewer cases of stiffness and reoperation in comparison with suture constructs.

References

1. Verdano MA, Aliani D, Pellegrini A, Baudi P, Pedrazzi G, Ceccarelli F. Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity in proximal humerus: does the direction of displacement influence functional outcome? An analysis of displacement in greater tuberosity fractures. Acta Biomed. 2013;84(3):219-228.

2. Yin B, Moen TC, Thompson SA, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS, Levine WN. Operative treatment of isolated greater tuberosity fractures: retrospective review of clinical and functional outcomes. Orthopedics. 2012;35(6):e807-e814.

3. Green A, Izzi J. Isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(6):641-649.

4. Norouzi M, Naderi MN, Komasi MH, Sharifzadeh SR, Shahrezaei M, Eajazi A. Clinical results of using the proximal humeral internal locking system plate for internal fixation of displaced proximal humeral fractures. Am J Orthop. 2012;41(5):E64-E68.

5. Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Oberleitner G, et al. Displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment. J Trauma. 2008;65(4):843-848.

6. Neer CS. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. Classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077-1089.

7. Park TS, Choi IY, Kim YH, Park MR, Shon JH, Kim SI. A new suggestion for the treatment of minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1997;56(3):171-176.

8. McLaughlin HL. Dislocation of the shoulder with tuberosity fracture. Surg Clin North Am. 1963;43:1615-1620.

9. DeBottis D, Anavian J, Green A. Surgical management of isolated greater tuberosity fractures of the proximal humerus. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014;45(2):207-218.

10. Monga P, Verma R, Sharma VK. Closed reduction and external fixation for displaced proximal humeral fractures. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2009;17(2):142-145.

11. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006-1012.

12. Rath E, Alkrinawi N, Levy O, Debbi R, Amar E, Atoun E. Minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity: outcome of non-operative treatment. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(10):e8-e11.

13. Dimakopoulos P, Panagopoulos A, Kasimatis G. Transosseous suture fixation of proximal humeral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1700-1709.

14. Bhatia DN, van Rooyen KS, Toit du DF, de Beer JF. Surgical treatment of comminuted, displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal humerus: a new technique of double-row suture-anchor fixation and long-term results. Injury. 2006;37(10):946-952.

15. Flatow EL, Cuomo F, Maday MG, Miller SR, McIlveen SJ, Bigliani LU. Open reduction and internal fixation of two-part displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity of the proximal part of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(8):1213-1218.

16. Keene JS, Huizenga RE, Engber WD, Rogers SC. Proximal humeral fractures: a correlation of residual deformity with long-term function. Orthopedics. 1983;6(2):173-178.

17. Platzer P, Kutscha-Lissberg F, Lehr S, Vecsei V, Gaebler C. The influence of displacement on shoulder function in patients with minimally displaced fractures of the greater tuberosity. Injury. 2005;36(10):1185-1189.

18. Park SE, Ji JH, Shafi M, Jung JJ, Gil HJ, Lee HH. Arthroscopic management of occult greater tuberosity fracture of the shoulder. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(4):475-482.

19. Dimakopoulos P, Panagopoulos A, Kasimatis G, Syggelos SA, Lambiris E. Anterior traumatic shoulder dislocation associated with displaced greater tuberosity fracture: the necessity of operative treatment. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(2):104-112.

20. Kim SH, Ha KI. Arthroscopic treatment of symptomatic shoulders with minimally displaced greater tuberosity fracture. Arthroscopy. 2000;16(7):695-700.

21. Chen CY, Chao EK, Tu YK, Ueng SW, Shih CH. Closed management and percutaneous fixation of unstable proximal humerus fractures. J Trauma. 1998;45(6):1039-1045.

22. Ji JH, Shafi M, Song IS, Kim YY, McFarland EG, Moon CY. Arthroscopic fixation technique for comminuted, displaced greater tuberosity fracture. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(5):600-609.

23. Cowan J, Lozano-Calderón S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1693-1699.

24. Harris JD, Siston RA, Pan X, Flanigan DC. Autologous chondrocyte implantation: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(12):2220-2233.

25. Harris JD, Siston RA, Brophy RH, Lattermann C, Carey JL, Flanigan DC. Failures, re-operations, and complications after autologous chondrocyte implantation—a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(7):779-791.

26. Chun JM, Groh GI, Rockwood CA. Two-part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3(5):273-287.

27. Gruson KI, Ruchelsman DE, Tejwani NC. Isolated tuberosity fractures of the proximal humeral: current concepts. Injury. 2008;39(3):284-298.

Article PDF

ajo04606445e.pdf

Author and Disclosure Information

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. Harris reports that he serves as a board or committee member for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Arthroscopy Association of North America, and Frontiers in Surgery; he has received research support from DePuy Synthes and Smith & Nephew, royalties from SLACK Incorporated, and is paid by NIA Magellan, Ossur, and Smith & Nephew. Dr. Bach reports that he has received research support from Arthrex, Inc., CONMED Linvatec, DJ Orthopaedics, Ossur, Smith & Nephew, and Tornier as well as royalties from SLACK Incorporated. Dr. Verma reports that he serves as a board or committee member for the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Arthroscopy Association Learning Center Committee, Journal of Knee Surgery, and SLACK Incorporated; he has received research support from Arthrex, Inc., Arthrosurface, DJ Orthopaedics, Smith & Nephew, Athletico, ConMed Linvatec, Miomed, and Mitek; he has received publishing royalties, financial, or material support from Arthroscopy and Vindico Medical-Orthopedics Hyperguide; he has received stock or stock options from Cymedica, Minivasive, and Omeros and serves as a paid consultant for Orthospace and Smith & Nephew. Dr. Romeo reports that he serves as a board or committee member for the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Orthopedics, Orthopedics Today, SAGE, and Wolters Kluwer Health—Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; he has received research support from Aesculap/B.Braun, Arthrex, Inc., Histogenics, Medipost, NuTech, Orthospace, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer Biomet; he has received other financial or material support from AANA, Arthrex, Inc., and Major League Baseball; he has received publishing royalties, financial and/or material support from Saunders/Mosby-Elsevier and SLACK Incorporated. The other authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue

The American Journal of Orthopedics - 46(6)

Publications

The American Journal of Orthopedics

Topics

Page Number

E445-E453

Read more about Management of Isolated Greater Tuberosity Fractures: A Systematic Review

Sections

Original Research

Author(s)

David M. Levy, MD

Brandon J. Erickson, MD

Joshua D. Harris, MD

Bernard R. Bach Jr, MD

Nikhil N. Verma, MD

Anthony A. Romeo, MD

Author(s)

David M. Levy, MD

Brandon J. Erickson, MD

Joshua D. Harris, MD

Bernard R. Bach Jr, MD

Nikhil N. Verma, MD

Anthony A. Romeo, MD

Author and Disclosure Information

Article PDF

ajo04606445e.pdf

Article PDF

ajo04606445e.pdf

Take-Home Points

Fractures of the greater tuberosity are often mismanaged.
Comprehension of greater tuberosity fractures involves classification into nonoperative and operative treatment, displacement >5mm or <5 mm, and open vs arthroscopic surgery.
Nearly a third of patients may suffer concomitant anterior glenohumeral instability.
Stiffness is the most common postoperative complication.
Surgery is associated with high patient satisfaction and low rates of complications and reoperations.

Methods

Search Strategy

Study Selection

Data Extraction

Statistical Analysis

Results

For all 13 studies, mean (SD) MCMS was 41.1 (8.6).

Discussion

Conclusion

Take-Home Points

Fractures of the greater tuberosity are often mismanaged.
Comprehension of greater tuberosity fractures involves classification into nonoperative and operative treatment, displacement >5mm or <5 mm, and open vs arthroscopic surgery.
Nearly a third of patients may suffer concomitant anterior glenohumeral instability.
Stiffness is the most common postoperative complication.
Surgery is associated with high patient satisfaction and low rates of complications and reoperations.