Prior reviews have demonstrated a strong link between surgeon and hospital TSA volume and outcomes of the procedure.^8–10 Somerson and colleagues¹¹ investigated fellowship training among surgeons performing TSA in 2012 and found that only 28% had completed a shoulder and elbow fellowship. In addition to prior analyses2, ¹², Somerson and colleagues confirmed a persistent geographic variation in utilization of TSA.¹¹ In conjunction with the evolution of shoulder arthroplasty, dedicated shoulder and elbow fellowship training has expanded. With a shift toward specialization in care, nearly 90% of orthopedic surgery residents plan to pursue shoulder and elbow fellowships, comprising 4.6% of (42/897) of available positions.¹³  

What remains unknown is the specialization of surgeons performing TSA, the regularity of their arthroplasty volume, and trends in TSA specialization over time. Therefore, this study aims to (a) identify surgeons performing shoulder arthroplasty and cohort changes over time, (b) determine the case profile of surgeons consistently performing shoulder arthroplasty, and (c) establish the characteristics of shoulder arthroplasty surgeons with a specific focus on fellowship training. 

METHODS

Prior to collecting surgeon-specific data, we identified surgeons performing TSA through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ public release of “Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier.”¹⁴ Datasets from 2012, 2013, and 2014 were used to identify all surgeons performing >10 TSAs (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] Code 23472) during at least 1 of those years. This dataset provides the name, identification number, address, and all billing (by volume) for each unique CPT code submitted ≥10 times in a calendar year.

Once the cohort of surgeons had been generated, the number of surgeons consistently performing TSA year-over-year was determined. This allowed for an analysis of the consistency with which surgeons are performing moderate- to high-volume TSA. To form a case profile of surgeons performing TSA and observe how this shifted over time, a count and a description of each CPT code submitted by each surgeon was identified. To maintain patient privacy, only those claims made >10 times are reported for a provider (both physicians and physician-extenders are included in this dataset). First, all CPT codes were reviewed and tagged as surgical or non-surgical events. Then, every procedural CPT code identified was reviewed and categorized based upon anatomic location and procedure (eg, total knee arthroplasty [TKA]). It is important to note that all claims in this dataset are limited to those patients participating in Medicare’s fee-for-service program. 

Specialization was defined as the number of categorized procedures as a percentage of all procedures performed on Medicare patients. The trends for national, regional, and individual specialization of TSA, arthroplasty (major joint), and shoulder procedures were determined.

Continue to: To investigate the characteristics of surgeons...

To investigate the characteristics of surgeons consistently performing TSA, all surgeons performing a minimum of 11 TSA in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in all years between 2012 and 2014 were identified. Such surgeons were defined as consistent TSA surgeons. Investigation of this cohort included a web-based search of their self-reported post-graduate fellowship training and year of graduation from medical school. Using these data, the percentage of surgeons performing TSA who underwent formal shoulder and elbow training was determined. In addition, the impact of fellowship training on shoulder specialization and practice location was determined. Surgeons who had completed multiple fellowships were categorized under all of them. As such, there may be some duplication of surgeons in the comparisons. In addition, other potential characteristics of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons were investigated: number of regional shoulder surgeons, urban area, total number of Medicare beneficiaries, average reimbursement for TSA, ethnicity of Medicare beneficiaries, and percentage of Medicare patients eligible for Medicaid. Geographic regions were defined by the Dartmouth Atlas and assigned by hospital referral region.¹⁵ These defined regions were used to assess the beneficiaries (number and characteristics) that individual surgeons were likely serving. The United States Census Bureau characterization of zip code-based regions as urban areas (population >50,000), urban clusters (2500 to 50,000), and rural region (<2500) was used to categorize practice location.¹⁶ 

Descriptive statistics were used initially to report these findings. To analyze predictors of utilization and specialization, comparative statistics were undertaken. For comparison of binomial variables between groups, a χ2analysis was utilized. For continuous variables, data normality was assessed. A skewness and kurtosis <2 and 12, respectively, was considered to represent parametric data. For parametric data, the mean was reported; conversely, the median is reported for non-parametric data. To assess continuous variables between groups, a t test or a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for parametric and non-parametric distributions, respectively. 

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2014, 1374 surgeons (39 females [2.8%]) performed >10 TSA in Medicare patients in at least 1 year, for a combined total of 71,973 TSAs (Table 1). In 2012, only 834 surgeons (13 females [1.6%]) performed a minimum of 10 TSA in Medicare patients (21,137 arthroplasties; 25.3 per surgeon). This increased to 1078 surgeons (33 females [3.1%]; P = .04) performing 26,865 TSA (24.92 per surgeon) in 2014. Utilization of non-physician assistants in TSA also increased significantly over this period, with 307 assisting in 6885 TSAs (22.4 per provider) in 2012 and 465 assisting 10,433 TSA (22.4 per provider) in 2014. When all procedures were considered, including those performed at outpatient visits, 1319 physicians (95.9% of cohort) were active in 2012—providing either surgical procedures or outpatient consults to the Medicare population. Yet, only 63.2% performed >10 TSA in Medicare patients. The number of active surgeons performing TSA increased to 79.6% (1078/1353) in 2014 (P < .001). 

Table 1. Trends in the Number of Providers Performing TSA between 2012 and 2014*

* Included are the number of arthroplasties and total procedures over time among this cohort. The number of active providers, determined by billing Medicare for office or surgical procedures within that year, is reported.

Abbreviation: TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.  

In addition to TSA, this cohort of surgeons submitted 240 unique CPT codes with case volumes >10 annually over the 3-year study period. Of these, 80.2% (1102/1374) of surgeons performed non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures on Medicare patients, for a combined total of 202,335 procedures over the 3-year study period (Table 2). A significant proportion of these procedures were arthroscopic debridement (60,014 procedures performed by 908 surgeons) and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (47,089 procedures performed by 809 surgeons). Just under half (49.1%; 674/1374) of surgeons performing TSA also performed TKA during this period (77,873 arthroplasties). Fewer surgeons (27.8%; 382/1374) performed total hip arthroplasty during this period (27,322 arthroplasties). Other procedure types that this group of surgeons routinely performed on Medicare patients were repairs of traumatic injuries (29.8%), non-arthroplasty knee surgeries (27.2%), elbow procedures (19.6%), and hand surgery (15.4%). By case load, non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures consisted of 43% of Medicare volume over the study period (Figure 1). Between 2012 and 2014, the average proportion of Medicare cases that were shoulder arthroplasties increased from 13.8% (21,137/152,862) to 16.7% (26,865/160,851; P = .001). Shoulder arthroplasty constituted 100% of the Medicare surgical case volume for 67 (4.9%; 67/1374) of the surgeons.    

Table 2. Case Volumes over Time with All Procedures Categorized by Anatomic Region and Arthroplasty vs Non-arthroplasty*

* Procedures of interest with high case volumes are reported individually.

Only 44.3% (609/1374) of surgeons performed TSA in a minimum of 11 Medicare patients in all 3 years of the study period (consistent providers of TSA), providing a total of 55,538 TSA (77.2%; 55,538/71,973). When fellowship training was evaluated, 191 (31.4%; 191/609) of these surgeons were shoulder and elbow fellowship trained (21,444 TSA; 38.6%; Table 3). More than one-third (36.6%; 223/609) had completed a sports surgery fellowship (18,899 TSA; 34.0%). Surgeons trained in hand surgery (12.5%; 76/609) and adult reconstruction (5.3%; 32/610) also made contributions to meeting the TSA demand with 6971 (12.6%) and 2485 (4.5%) TSA, respectively. One-fifth of this cohort (18.1%; 110/609) had unknown fellowship training: they either reported no fellowship (13.6%; 83/609) or did not specify the type of training (4.4%; 27/609). Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons performed more TSA (median: 89.0 TSA per surgeon between 2012 and 2014) than surgeons without shoulder and elbow fellowship training (median: 67.0 TSA per surgeon; P < 0.001). More than one-third (37%) of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons’ surgical case volume was comprised of TSA, with an additional 35% from non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures (Figure 2). In order for the current supply of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons to meet the Medicare TSA demand, each fellowship graduate would have to perform 140.6 TSA in Medicare patients annually. Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons were more likely to practice in referral regions with an increased Medicare population (P < .001), an increased number of surgeons performing TSA (P < .001), and a higher proportion of Medicaid-eligible patients (P = .01; Table 4). Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons (18.7 years post-medical school graduation) were also earlier in their careers than other consistent TSA surgeons (23.1 years post-graduation; P < .001). 

Table 3. A Representation of Fellowships Among TSA Surgeons and Their Shoulder Arthroplasty Case Load*

* Not all fellowships (eg, oncology) included due to small numbers. Also, many surgeons performed multiple fellowships.

Abbreviations: SA, shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 4. Breakdown of Geographic Characteristics of Orthopedic Surgeons Consistently

Performing TSA between 2012 and 2014 Stratified by Fellowship Training

Abbreviations: HRR, hospital referral region; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Utilization of TSA has continued to rise; however, access to this cost-effective procedure was recently demonstrated to be limited.¹¹ In a separate analysis, we established the continued rise in use of TSA in the Medicare population, coupled with an increase in the number of surgeons routinely performing TSA.² Multiple analyses have demonstrated the importance of high-volume surgeons and hospitals familiar with the intricacies of shoulder arthroplasty concepts in minimizing complications, improving the quality and decreasing the cost of TSA.^6,10,17 Specifically, Singh and colleagues18 demonstrated from a multi-center registry that surgeons and hospitals with greater shoulder arthroplasty volumes had decreased intra-operative blood loss, operative time, and hospital length of stay. As the demand for TSA, both anatomic and reverse, continues to rise, it is imperative that the healthcare delivery system is optimized to provide the best possible care. Before we can determine whether specialized training in shoulder arthroplasty influences surgical outcomes, characteristics and training of surgeons performing TSA should be described. 

The number of surgeons performing >10 TSA in the Medicare population rose significantly between 2012 and 2014 (29.3%). However, the number of TSAs per surgeon over this time period remained consistent (approximately 25 per surgeon). Furthermore, the increase in the number of surgeons performing a reportable volume of TSA by 2014 was from the addition of already active surgeons (ie, the growth in TSA was not from the addition of newly trained arthroplasty surgeons but originated from the existing orthopedic surgeon workforce). In a recently published analysis, Somerson and colleagues, ¹¹ using this same dataset, demonstrated persistent limitations in access to high-volume TSA surgeons. In a more recent analysis, we showed that while still lacking for some patients, access to a high-volume TSA surgeon has improved significantly over the past 3 years, with 96.9% of the United States population residing within 200 kilometers of a high-volume TSA surgeon (>20 Medicare cases).² This analysis validates those findings, with the caveat that the average annual volume per surgeon is not increasing. What remains unknown, due to limitations of this dataset, is how many surgeons are not identified because they are performing ≤10 TSA each year or are performing TSA in non-Medicare patients. 

With the specialization of healthcare delivery, specifically in orthopedics, it is imperative that mechanisms for providing specialty-focused care be established. However, the proportion of their practice that surgeons dedicate to TSA was unknown. This study demonstrates that this proportion is increasing. Including non-arthroplasty procedures, more than half (58%) of the procedures performed by this surgeon cohort were shoulder-specific. Furthermore, this analysis demonstrates that surgeons performing TSA have significant case diversity, including nearly half of the cohort performing TKA. Repeated evidence has demonstrated the effect of case volume on improved outcomes following orthopedic procedures.^8,19–21 The pre-existing location-based model for delivering orthopedic care supports case diversity; however, this model continues to be challenged with high-volume centers of excellence and patient travel.^22–24 Hip and knee arthroplasty experienced a similar surge in demand, with a subsequent shift in care to high-volume surgeons and centers.²⁵ Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons would need to nearly quadruple their current Medicare TSA volume to meet the entire current demand for TSA in the Medicare population (and this does not account for TSA performed by very low-volume surgeons not included in this cohort). With increased utilization of TSA, policymakers and the orthopedic community must determine the structure of delivery (centers of excellence or medium-volume disseminated throughout the country) that is optimal. 

For those surgeons consistently performing TSA over the study period, fellowship training was diverse. While the current focus in orthopedics is on case volume, research in other specialties, namely general surgery, has provided repeated evidence that surgical specialization (more so than high case volume) provides improved outcomes.^26–29Furthermore, Leopold and colleagues³⁰ demonstrated an inverse relationship between competency in performing a procedure and confidence in one’s ability to do so. In their study, educational intervention provided improved competency in the procedure. Less than one-third (29.8%) of TSA in this cohort were performed by a shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeon consistently performing this procedure. Approximately another quarter (26.2%) were performed by consistent TSA surgeons trained in sports surgery. Meanwhile, 34.6% of TSA in this study cohort were performed by a surgeon who did not consistently meet the minimum threshold in all study years (16,435 TSA; 22.8%) or by a surgeon performing TSA without fellowship training (8,489 TSA; 11.8%). There has been a trend toward orthopedic subspecialty training with an increased demand for fellowship-trained surgeons.³¹ Despite this and the complexities of TSA, many continue to be performed by surgeons with an inconsistent volume and those without arthroplasty-specific fellowship training. The available evidence supports a push toward the fellowship-trained, high-volume TSA surgeon in providing reproducible high-quality shoulder arthroplasty care. For now, that surgeon is more likely to be earlier in his/her career and reside in large, referral-based centers surrounded by other surgeons performing TSA.

These findings must be considered in the light of the study limitations. First, this is a large publicly available database. While this type of database provides a unique opportunity to assess the geographic distributions and characteristics of orthopedic surgeons, specifically those performing TSA, it completely prevents any assessment of the relationship between these findings and quality. As such, while the reader may generate hypotheses regarding the implications of our findings on the quality of TSA delivery, the true effects cannot be determined. In the same vein, for the purpose of privacy, surgeons performing ≤10 TSA were not included in this dataset. This limitation prevents the identification of low-volume TSA surgeons. Also, it is likely that the observed increase in surgeons over time is likely a reflection of small increases in volume for surgeons already performing TSA. Lastly, a web-based search was undertaken to identify surgeons’ self-reported fellowship training. The results of this web-based search could not be validated, and it is possible that fellowship training, or the lack thereof, was mischaracterized and simply not obtainable through a web-based search. Furthermore, it is not possible to fully assess the extent of high-quality TSA training in these various fellowships.

CONCLUSION

In just the past decade, the utilization of TSA in the Medicare population has increased significantly. However, this increase was not achieved by the addition of highly specialized, high-volume surgeons but by the addition of many surgeons performing lower numbers of TSA surgeries. Furthermore, for those performing this cost-effective procedure, TSA constitutes a relatively small proportion of the surgeries they perform. Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons currently account for a low percentage of the overall number of surgeons performing TSA. The implications of these findings must be considered and investigated.

Prior reviews have demonstrated a strong link between surgeon and hospital TSA volume and outcomes of the procedure.^8–10 Somerson and colleagues¹¹ investigated fellowship training among surgeons performing TSA in 2012 and found that only 28% had completed a shoulder and elbow fellowship. In addition to prior analyses2, ¹², Somerson and colleagues confirmed a persistent geographic variation in utilization of TSA.¹¹ In conjunction with the evolution of shoulder arthroplasty, dedicated shoulder and elbow fellowship training has expanded. With a shift toward specialization in care, nearly 90% of orthopedic surgery residents plan to pursue shoulder and elbow fellowships, comprising 4.6% of (42/897) of available positions.¹³  

What remains unknown is the specialization of surgeons performing TSA, the regularity of their arthroplasty volume, and trends in TSA specialization over time. Therefore, this study aims to (a) identify surgeons performing shoulder arthroplasty and cohort changes over time, (b) determine the case profile of surgeons consistently performing shoulder arthroplasty, and (c) establish the characteristics of shoulder arthroplasty surgeons with a specific focus on fellowship training. 

METHODS

Prior to collecting surgeon-specific data, we identified surgeons performing TSA through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ public release of “Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier.”¹⁴ Datasets from 2012, 2013, and 2014 were used to identify all surgeons performing >10 TSAs (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] Code 23472) during at least 1 of those years. This dataset provides the name, identification number, address, and all billing (by volume) for each unique CPT code submitted ≥10 times in a calendar year.

Once the cohort of surgeons had been generated, the number of surgeons consistently performing TSA year-over-year was determined. This allowed for an analysis of the consistency with which surgeons are performing moderate- to high-volume TSA. To form a case profile of surgeons performing TSA and observe how this shifted over time, a count and a description of each CPT code submitted by each surgeon was identified. To maintain patient privacy, only those claims made >10 times are reported for a provider (both physicians and physician-extenders are included in this dataset). First, all CPT codes were reviewed and tagged as surgical or non-surgical events. Then, every procedural CPT code identified was reviewed and categorized based upon anatomic location and procedure (eg, total knee arthroplasty [TKA]). It is important to note that all claims in this dataset are limited to those patients participating in Medicare’s fee-for-service program. 

Specialization was defined as the number of categorized procedures as a percentage of all procedures performed on Medicare patients. The trends for national, regional, and individual specialization of TSA, arthroplasty (major joint), and shoulder procedures were determined.

Continue to: To investigate the characteristics of surgeons...

To investigate the characteristics of surgeons consistently performing TSA, all surgeons performing a minimum of 11 TSA in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in all years between 2012 and 2014 were identified. Such surgeons were defined as consistent TSA surgeons. Investigation of this cohort included a web-based search of their self-reported post-graduate fellowship training and year of graduation from medical school. Using these data, the percentage of surgeons performing TSA who underwent formal shoulder and elbow training was determined. In addition, the impact of fellowship training on shoulder specialization and practice location was determined. Surgeons who had completed multiple fellowships were categorized under all of them. As such, there may be some duplication of surgeons in the comparisons. In addition, other potential characteristics of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons were investigated: number of regional shoulder surgeons, urban area, total number of Medicare beneficiaries, average reimbursement for TSA, ethnicity of Medicare beneficiaries, and percentage of Medicare patients eligible for Medicaid. Geographic regions were defined by the Dartmouth Atlas and assigned by hospital referral region.¹⁵ These defined regions were used to assess the beneficiaries (number and characteristics) that individual surgeons were likely serving. The United States Census Bureau characterization of zip code-based regions as urban areas (population >50,000), urban clusters (2500 to 50,000), and rural region (<2500) was used to categorize practice location.¹⁶ 

Descriptive statistics were used initially to report these findings. To analyze predictors of utilization and specialization, comparative statistics were undertaken. For comparison of binomial variables between groups, a χ2analysis was utilized. For continuous variables, data normality was assessed. A skewness and kurtosis <2 and 12, respectively, was considered to represent parametric data. For parametric data, the mean was reported; conversely, the median is reported for non-parametric data. To assess continuous variables between groups, a t test or a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for parametric and non-parametric distributions, respectively. 

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2014, 1374 surgeons (39 females [2.8%]) performed >10 TSA in Medicare patients in at least 1 year, for a combined total of 71,973 TSAs (Table 1). In 2012, only 834 surgeons (13 females [1.6%]) performed a minimum of 10 TSA in Medicare patients (21,137 arthroplasties; 25.3 per surgeon). This increased to 1078 surgeons (33 females [3.1%]; P = .04) performing 26,865 TSA (24.92 per surgeon) in 2014. Utilization of non-physician assistants in TSA also increased significantly over this period, with 307 assisting in 6885 TSAs (22.4 per provider) in 2012 and 465 assisting 10,433 TSA (22.4 per provider) in 2014. When all procedures were considered, including those performed at outpatient visits, 1319 physicians (95.9% of cohort) were active in 2012—providing either surgical procedures or outpatient consults to the Medicare population. Yet, only 63.2% performed >10 TSA in Medicare patients. The number of active surgeons performing TSA increased to 79.6% (1078/1353) in 2014 (P < .001). 

Table 1. Trends in the Number of Providers Performing TSA between 2012 and 2014*

* Included are the number of arthroplasties and total procedures over time among this cohort. The number of active providers, determined by billing Medicare for office or surgical procedures within that year, is reported.

Abbreviation: TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.  

In addition to TSA, this cohort of surgeons submitted 240 unique CPT codes with case volumes >10 annually over the 3-year study period. Of these, 80.2% (1102/1374) of surgeons performed non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures on Medicare patients, for a combined total of 202,335 procedures over the 3-year study period (Table 2). A significant proportion of these procedures were arthroscopic debridement (60,014 procedures performed by 908 surgeons) and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (47,089 procedures performed by 809 surgeons). Just under half (49.1%; 674/1374) of surgeons performing TSA also performed TKA during this period (77,873 arthroplasties). Fewer surgeons (27.8%; 382/1374) performed total hip arthroplasty during this period (27,322 arthroplasties). Other procedure types that this group of surgeons routinely performed on Medicare patients were repairs of traumatic injuries (29.8%), non-arthroplasty knee surgeries (27.2%), elbow procedures (19.6%), and hand surgery (15.4%). By case load, non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures consisted of 43% of Medicare volume over the study period (Figure 1). Between 2012 and 2014, the average proportion of Medicare cases that were shoulder arthroplasties increased from 13.8% (21,137/152,862) to 16.7% (26,865/160,851; P = .001). Shoulder arthroplasty constituted 100% of the Medicare surgical case volume for 67 (4.9%; 67/1374) of the surgeons.    

Table 2. Case Volumes over Time with All Procedures Categorized by Anatomic Region and Arthroplasty vs Non-arthroplasty*

* Procedures of interest with high case volumes are reported individually.

Only 44.3% (609/1374) of surgeons performed TSA in a minimum of 11 Medicare patients in all 3 years of the study period (consistent providers of TSA), providing a total of 55,538 TSA (77.2%; 55,538/71,973). When fellowship training was evaluated, 191 (31.4%; 191/609) of these surgeons were shoulder and elbow fellowship trained (21,444 TSA; 38.6%; Table 3). More than one-third (36.6%; 223/609) had completed a sports surgery fellowship (18,899 TSA; 34.0%). Surgeons trained in hand surgery (12.5%; 76/609) and adult reconstruction (5.3%; 32/610) also made contributions to meeting the TSA demand with 6971 (12.6%) and 2485 (4.5%) TSA, respectively. One-fifth of this cohort (18.1%; 110/609) had unknown fellowship training: they either reported no fellowship (13.6%; 83/609) or did not specify the type of training (4.4%; 27/609). Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons performed more TSA (median: 89.0 TSA per surgeon between 2012 and 2014) than surgeons without shoulder and elbow fellowship training (median: 67.0 TSA per surgeon; P < 0.001). More than one-third (37%) of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons’ surgical case volume was comprised of TSA, with an additional 35% from non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures (Figure 2). In order for the current supply of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons to meet the Medicare TSA demand, each fellowship graduate would have to perform 140.6 TSA in Medicare patients annually. Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons were more likely to practice in referral regions with an increased Medicare population (P < .001), an increased number of surgeons performing TSA (P < .001), and a higher proportion of Medicaid-eligible patients (P = .01; Table 4). Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons (18.7 years post-medical school graduation) were also earlier in their careers than other consistent TSA surgeons (23.1 years post-graduation; P < .001). 

Table 3. A Representation of Fellowships Among TSA Surgeons and Their Shoulder Arthroplasty Case Load*

* Not all fellowships (eg, oncology) included due to small numbers. Also, many surgeons performed multiple fellowships.

Abbreviations: SA, shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 4. Breakdown of Geographic Characteristics of Orthopedic Surgeons Consistently

Performing TSA between 2012 and 2014 Stratified by Fellowship Training

Abbreviations: HRR, hospital referral region; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Utilization of TSA has continued to rise; however, access to this cost-effective procedure was recently demonstrated to be limited.¹¹ In a separate analysis, we established the continued rise in use of TSA in the Medicare population, coupled with an increase in the number of surgeons routinely performing TSA.² Multiple analyses have demonstrated the importance of high-volume surgeons and hospitals familiar with the intricacies of shoulder arthroplasty concepts in minimizing complications, improving the quality and decreasing the cost of TSA.^6,10,17 Specifically, Singh and colleagues18 demonstrated from a multi-center registry that surgeons and hospitals with greater shoulder arthroplasty volumes had decreased intra-operative blood loss, operative time, and hospital length of stay. As the demand for TSA, both anatomic and reverse, continues to rise, it is imperative that the healthcare delivery system is optimized to provide the best possible care. Before we can determine whether specialized training in shoulder arthroplasty influences surgical outcomes, characteristics and training of surgeons performing TSA should be described. 

The number of surgeons performing >10 TSA in the Medicare population rose significantly between 2012 and 2014 (29.3%). However, the number of TSAs per surgeon over this time period remained consistent (approximately 25 per surgeon). Furthermore, the increase in the number of surgeons performing a reportable volume of TSA by 2014 was from the addition of already active surgeons (ie, the growth in TSA was not from the addition of newly trained arthroplasty surgeons but originated from the existing orthopedic surgeon workforce). In a recently published analysis, Somerson and colleagues, ¹¹ using this same dataset, demonstrated persistent limitations in access to high-volume TSA surgeons. In a more recent analysis, we showed that while still lacking for some patients, access to a high-volume TSA surgeon has improved significantly over the past 3 years, with 96.9% of the United States population residing within 200 kilometers of a high-volume TSA surgeon (>20 Medicare cases).² This analysis validates those findings, with the caveat that the average annual volume per surgeon is not increasing. What remains unknown, due to limitations of this dataset, is how many surgeons are not identified because they are performing ≤10 TSA each year or are performing TSA in non-Medicare patients. 

With the specialization of healthcare delivery, specifically in orthopedics, it is imperative that mechanisms for providing specialty-focused care be established. However, the proportion of their practice that surgeons dedicate to TSA was unknown. This study demonstrates that this proportion is increasing. Including non-arthroplasty procedures, more than half (58%) of the procedures performed by this surgeon cohort were shoulder-specific. Furthermore, this analysis demonstrates that surgeons performing TSA have significant case diversity, including nearly half of the cohort performing TKA. Repeated evidence has demonstrated the effect of case volume on improved outcomes following orthopedic procedures.^8,19–21 The pre-existing location-based model for delivering orthopedic care supports case diversity; however, this model continues to be challenged with high-volume centers of excellence and patient travel.^22–24 Hip and knee arthroplasty experienced a similar surge in demand, with a subsequent shift in care to high-volume surgeons and centers.²⁵ Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons would need to nearly quadruple their current Medicare TSA volume to meet the entire current demand for TSA in the Medicare population (and this does not account for TSA performed by very low-volume surgeons not included in this cohort). With increased utilization of TSA, policymakers and the orthopedic community must determine the structure of delivery (centers of excellence or medium-volume disseminated throughout the country) that is optimal. 

For those surgeons consistently performing TSA over the study period, fellowship training was diverse. While the current focus in orthopedics is on case volume, research in other specialties, namely general surgery, has provided repeated evidence that surgical specialization (more so than high case volume) provides improved outcomes.^26–29Furthermore, Leopold and colleagues³⁰ demonstrated an inverse relationship between competency in performing a procedure and confidence in one’s ability to do so. In their study, educational intervention provided improved competency in the procedure. Less than one-third (29.8%) of TSA in this cohort were performed by a shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeon consistently performing this procedure. Approximately another quarter (26.2%) were performed by consistent TSA surgeons trained in sports surgery. Meanwhile, 34.6% of TSA in this study cohort were performed by a surgeon who did not consistently meet the minimum threshold in all study years (16,435 TSA; 22.8%) or by a surgeon performing TSA without fellowship training (8,489 TSA; 11.8%). There has been a trend toward orthopedic subspecialty training with an increased demand for fellowship-trained surgeons.³¹ Despite this and the complexities of TSA, many continue to be performed by surgeons with an inconsistent volume and those without arthroplasty-specific fellowship training. The available evidence supports a push toward the fellowship-trained, high-volume TSA surgeon in providing reproducible high-quality shoulder arthroplasty care. For now, that surgeon is more likely to be earlier in his/her career and reside in large, referral-based centers surrounded by other surgeons performing TSA.

These findings must be considered in the light of the study limitations. First, this is a large publicly available database. While this type of database provides a unique opportunity to assess the geographic distributions and characteristics of orthopedic surgeons, specifically those performing TSA, it completely prevents any assessment of the relationship between these findings and quality. As such, while the reader may generate hypotheses regarding the implications of our findings on the quality of TSA delivery, the true effects cannot be determined. In the same vein, for the purpose of privacy, surgeons performing ≤10 TSA were not included in this dataset. This limitation prevents the identification of low-volume TSA surgeons. Also, it is likely that the observed increase in surgeons over time is likely a reflection of small increases in volume for surgeons already performing TSA. Lastly, a web-based search was undertaken to identify surgeons’ self-reported fellowship training. The results of this web-based search could not be validated, and it is possible that fellowship training, or the lack thereof, was mischaracterized and simply not obtainable through a web-based search. Furthermore, it is not possible to fully assess the extent of high-quality TSA training in these various fellowships.

CONCLUSION

In just the past decade, the utilization of TSA in the Medicare population has increased significantly. However, this increase was not achieved by the addition of highly specialized, high-volume surgeons but by the addition of many surgeons performing lower numbers of TSA surgeries. Furthermore, for those performing this cost-effective procedure, TSA constitutes a relatively small proportion of the surgeries they perform. Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons currently account for a low percentage of the overall number of surgeons performing TSA. The implications of these findings must be considered and investigated.

Prior reviews have demonstrated a strong link between surgeon and hospital TSA volume and outcomes of the procedure.^8–10 Somerson and colleagues¹¹ investigated fellowship training among surgeons performing TSA in 2012 and found that only 28% had completed a shoulder and elbow fellowship. In addition to prior analyses2, ¹², Somerson and colleagues confirmed a persistent geographic variation in utilization of TSA.¹¹ In conjunction with the evolution of shoulder arthroplasty, dedicated shoulder and elbow fellowship training has expanded. With a shift toward specialization in care, nearly 90% of orthopedic surgery residents plan to pursue shoulder and elbow fellowships, comprising 4.6% of (42/897) of available positions.¹³  

What remains unknown is the specialization of surgeons performing TSA, the regularity of their arthroplasty volume, and trends in TSA specialization over time. Therefore, this study aims to (a) identify surgeons performing shoulder arthroplasty and cohort changes over time, (b) determine the case profile of surgeons consistently performing shoulder arthroplasty, and (c) establish the characteristics of shoulder arthroplasty surgeons with a specific focus on fellowship training. 

METHODS

Prior to collecting surgeon-specific data, we identified surgeons performing TSA through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ public release of “Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier.”¹⁴ Datasets from 2012, 2013, and 2014 were used to identify all surgeons performing >10 TSAs (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] Code 23472) during at least 1 of those years. This dataset provides the name, identification number, address, and all billing (by volume) for each unique CPT code submitted ≥10 times in a calendar year.

Once the cohort of surgeons had been generated, the number of surgeons consistently performing TSA year-over-year was determined. This allowed for an analysis of the consistency with which surgeons are performing moderate- to high-volume TSA. To form a case profile of surgeons performing TSA and observe how this shifted over time, a count and a description of each CPT code submitted by each surgeon was identified. To maintain patient privacy, only those claims made >10 times are reported for a provider (both physicians and physician-extenders are included in this dataset). First, all CPT codes were reviewed and tagged as surgical or non-surgical events. Then, every procedural CPT code identified was reviewed and categorized based upon anatomic location and procedure (eg, total knee arthroplasty [TKA]). It is important to note that all claims in this dataset are limited to those patients participating in Medicare’s fee-for-service program. 

Specialization was defined as the number of categorized procedures as a percentage of all procedures performed on Medicare patients. The trends for national, regional, and individual specialization of TSA, arthroplasty (major joint), and shoulder procedures were determined.

Continue to: To investigate the characteristics of surgeons...

To investigate the characteristics of surgeons consistently performing TSA, all surgeons performing a minimum of 11 TSA in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in all years between 2012 and 2014 were identified. Such surgeons were defined as consistent TSA surgeons. Investigation of this cohort included a web-based search of their self-reported post-graduate fellowship training and year of graduation from medical school. Using these data, the percentage of surgeons performing TSA who underwent formal shoulder and elbow training was determined. In addition, the impact of fellowship training on shoulder specialization and practice location was determined. Surgeons who had completed multiple fellowships were categorized under all of them. As such, there may be some duplication of surgeons in the comparisons. In addition, other potential characteristics of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons were investigated: number of regional shoulder surgeons, urban area, total number of Medicare beneficiaries, average reimbursement for TSA, ethnicity of Medicare beneficiaries, and percentage of Medicare patients eligible for Medicaid. Geographic regions were defined by the Dartmouth Atlas and assigned by hospital referral region.¹⁵ These defined regions were used to assess the beneficiaries (number and characteristics) that individual surgeons were likely serving. The United States Census Bureau characterization of zip code-based regions as urban areas (population >50,000), urban clusters (2500 to 50,000), and rural region (<2500) was used to categorize practice location.¹⁶ 

Descriptive statistics were used initially to report these findings. To analyze predictors of utilization and specialization, comparative statistics were undertaken. For comparison of binomial variables between groups, a χ2analysis was utilized. For continuous variables, data normality was assessed. A skewness and kurtosis <2 and 12, respectively, was considered to represent parametric data. For parametric data, the mean was reported; conversely, the median is reported for non-parametric data. To assess continuous variables between groups, a t test or a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for parametric and non-parametric distributions, respectively. 

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2014, 1374 surgeons (39 females [2.8%]) performed >10 TSA in Medicare patients in at least 1 year, for a combined total of 71,973 TSAs (Table 1). In 2012, only 834 surgeons (13 females [1.6%]) performed a minimum of 10 TSA in Medicare patients (21,137 arthroplasties; 25.3 per surgeon). This increased to 1078 surgeons (33 females [3.1%]; P = .04) performing 26,865 TSA (24.92 per surgeon) in 2014. Utilization of non-physician assistants in TSA also increased significantly over this period, with 307 assisting in 6885 TSAs (22.4 per provider) in 2012 and 465 assisting 10,433 TSA (22.4 per provider) in 2014. When all procedures were considered, including those performed at outpatient visits, 1319 physicians (95.9% of cohort) were active in 2012—providing either surgical procedures or outpatient consults to the Medicare population. Yet, only 63.2% performed >10 TSA in Medicare patients. The number of active surgeons performing TSA increased to 79.6% (1078/1353) in 2014 (P < .001). 

Table 1. Trends in the Number of Providers Performing TSA between 2012 and 2014*

* Included are the number of arthroplasties and total procedures over time among this cohort. The number of active providers, determined by billing Medicare for office or surgical procedures within that year, is reported.

Abbreviation: TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.  

In addition to TSA, this cohort of surgeons submitted 240 unique CPT codes with case volumes >10 annually over the 3-year study period. Of these, 80.2% (1102/1374) of surgeons performed non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures on Medicare patients, for a combined total of 202,335 procedures over the 3-year study period (Table 2). A significant proportion of these procedures were arthroscopic debridement (60,014 procedures performed by 908 surgeons) and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (47,089 procedures performed by 809 surgeons). Just under half (49.1%; 674/1374) of surgeons performing TSA also performed TKA during this period (77,873 arthroplasties). Fewer surgeons (27.8%; 382/1374) performed total hip arthroplasty during this period (27,322 arthroplasties). Other procedure types that this group of surgeons routinely performed on Medicare patients were repairs of traumatic injuries (29.8%), non-arthroplasty knee surgeries (27.2%), elbow procedures (19.6%), and hand surgery (15.4%). By case load, non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures consisted of 43% of Medicare volume over the study period (Figure 1). Between 2012 and 2014, the average proportion of Medicare cases that were shoulder arthroplasties increased from 13.8% (21,137/152,862) to 16.7% (26,865/160,851; P = .001). Shoulder arthroplasty constituted 100% of the Medicare surgical case volume for 67 (4.9%; 67/1374) of the surgeons.    

Table 2. Case Volumes over Time with All Procedures Categorized by Anatomic Region and Arthroplasty vs Non-arthroplasty*

* Procedures of interest with high case volumes are reported individually.

Only 44.3% (609/1374) of surgeons performed TSA in a minimum of 11 Medicare patients in all 3 years of the study period (consistent providers of TSA), providing a total of 55,538 TSA (77.2%; 55,538/71,973). When fellowship training was evaluated, 191 (31.4%; 191/609) of these surgeons were shoulder and elbow fellowship trained (21,444 TSA; 38.6%; Table 3). More than one-third (36.6%; 223/609) had completed a sports surgery fellowship (18,899 TSA; 34.0%). Surgeons trained in hand surgery (12.5%; 76/609) and adult reconstruction (5.3%; 32/610) also made contributions to meeting the TSA demand with 6971 (12.6%) and 2485 (4.5%) TSA, respectively. One-fifth of this cohort (18.1%; 110/609) had unknown fellowship training: they either reported no fellowship (13.6%; 83/609) or did not specify the type of training (4.4%; 27/609). Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons performed more TSA (median: 89.0 TSA per surgeon between 2012 and 2014) than surgeons without shoulder and elbow fellowship training (median: 67.0 TSA per surgeon; P < 0.001). More than one-third (37%) of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons’ surgical case volume was comprised of TSA, with an additional 35% from non-arthroplasty shoulder procedures (Figure 2). In order for the current supply of shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons to meet the Medicare TSA demand, each fellowship graduate would have to perform 140.6 TSA in Medicare patients annually. Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons were more likely to practice in referral regions with an increased Medicare population (P < .001), an increased number of surgeons performing TSA (P < .001), and a higher proportion of Medicaid-eligible patients (P = .01; Table 4). Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons (18.7 years post-medical school graduation) were also earlier in their careers than other consistent TSA surgeons (23.1 years post-graduation; P < .001). 

Table 3. A Representation of Fellowships Among TSA Surgeons and Their Shoulder Arthroplasty Case Load*

* Not all fellowships (eg, oncology) included due to small numbers. Also, many surgeons performed multiple fellowships.

Abbreviations: SA, shoulder arthroplasty; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 4. Breakdown of Geographic Characteristics of Orthopedic Surgeons Consistently

Performing TSA between 2012 and 2014 Stratified by Fellowship Training

Abbreviations: HRR, hospital referral region; TSA, total shoulder arthroplasty.

Continue to: DISCUSSION...

DISCUSSION

Utilization of TSA has continued to rise; however, access to this cost-effective procedure was recently demonstrated to be limited.¹¹ In a separate analysis, we established the continued rise in use of TSA in the Medicare population, coupled with an increase in the number of surgeons routinely performing TSA.² Multiple analyses have demonstrated the importance of high-volume surgeons and hospitals familiar with the intricacies of shoulder arthroplasty concepts in minimizing complications, improving the quality and decreasing the cost of TSA.^6,10,17 Specifically, Singh and colleagues18 demonstrated from a multi-center registry that surgeons and hospitals with greater shoulder arthroplasty volumes had decreased intra-operative blood loss, operative time, and hospital length of stay. As the demand for TSA, both anatomic and reverse, continues to rise, it is imperative that the healthcare delivery system is optimized to provide the best possible care. Before we can determine whether specialized training in shoulder arthroplasty influences surgical outcomes, characteristics and training of surgeons performing TSA should be described. 

The number of surgeons performing >10 TSA in the Medicare population rose significantly between 2012 and 2014 (29.3%). However, the number of TSAs per surgeon over this time period remained consistent (approximately 25 per surgeon). Furthermore, the increase in the number of surgeons performing a reportable volume of TSA by 2014 was from the addition of already active surgeons (ie, the growth in TSA was not from the addition of newly trained arthroplasty surgeons but originated from the existing orthopedic surgeon workforce). In a recently published analysis, Somerson and colleagues, ¹¹ using this same dataset, demonstrated persistent limitations in access to high-volume TSA surgeons. In a more recent analysis, we showed that while still lacking for some patients, access to a high-volume TSA surgeon has improved significantly over the past 3 years, with 96.9% of the United States population residing within 200 kilometers of a high-volume TSA surgeon (>20 Medicare cases).² This analysis validates those findings, with the caveat that the average annual volume per surgeon is not increasing. What remains unknown, due to limitations of this dataset, is how many surgeons are not identified because they are performing ≤10 TSA each year or are performing TSA in non-Medicare patients. 

With the specialization of healthcare delivery, specifically in orthopedics, it is imperative that mechanisms for providing specialty-focused care be established. However, the proportion of their practice that surgeons dedicate to TSA was unknown. This study demonstrates that this proportion is increasing. Including non-arthroplasty procedures, more than half (58%) of the procedures performed by this surgeon cohort were shoulder-specific. Furthermore, this analysis demonstrates that surgeons performing TSA have significant case diversity, including nearly half of the cohort performing TKA. Repeated evidence has demonstrated the effect of case volume on improved outcomes following orthopedic procedures.^8,19–21 The pre-existing location-based model for delivering orthopedic care supports case diversity; however, this model continues to be challenged with high-volume centers of excellence and patient travel.^22–24 Hip and knee arthroplasty experienced a similar surge in demand, with a subsequent shift in care to high-volume surgeons and centers.²⁵ Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons would need to nearly quadruple their current Medicare TSA volume to meet the entire current demand for TSA in the Medicare population (and this does not account for TSA performed by very low-volume surgeons not included in this cohort). With increased utilization of TSA, policymakers and the orthopedic community must determine the structure of delivery (centers of excellence or medium-volume disseminated throughout the country) that is optimal. 

For those surgeons consistently performing TSA over the study period, fellowship training was diverse. While the current focus in orthopedics is on case volume, research in other specialties, namely general surgery, has provided repeated evidence that surgical specialization (more so than high case volume) provides improved outcomes.^26–29Furthermore, Leopold and colleagues³⁰ demonstrated an inverse relationship between competency in performing a procedure and confidence in one’s ability to do so. In their study, educational intervention provided improved competency in the procedure. Less than one-third (29.8%) of TSA in this cohort were performed by a shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeon consistently performing this procedure. Approximately another quarter (26.2%) were performed by consistent TSA surgeons trained in sports surgery. Meanwhile, 34.6% of TSA in this study cohort were performed by a surgeon who did not consistently meet the minimum threshold in all study years (16,435 TSA; 22.8%) or by a surgeon performing TSA without fellowship training (8,489 TSA; 11.8%). There has been a trend toward orthopedic subspecialty training with an increased demand for fellowship-trained surgeons.³¹ Despite this and the complexities of TSA, many continue to be performed by surgeons with an inconsistent volume and those without arthroplasty-specific fellowship training. The available evidence supports a push toward the fellowship-trained, high-volume TSA surgeon in providing reproducible high-quality shoulder arthroplasty care. For now, that surgeon is more likely to be earlier in his/her career and reside in large, referral-based centers surrounded by other surgeons performing TSA.

These findings must be considered in the light of the study limitations. First, this is a large publicly available database. While this type of database provides a unique opportunity to assess the geographic distributions and characteristics of orthopedic surgeons, specifically those performing TSA, it completely prevents any assessment of the relationship between these findings and quality. As such, while the reader may generate hypotheses regarding the implications of our findings on the quality of TSA delivery, the true effects cannot be determined. In the same vein, for the purpose of privacy, surgeons performing ≤10 TSA were not included in this dataset. This limitation prevents the identification of low-volume TSA surgeons. Also, it is likely that the observed increase in surgeons over time is likely a reflection of small increases in volume for surgeons already performing TSA. Lastly, a web-based search was undertaken to identify surgeons’ self-reported fellowship training. The results of this web-based search could not be validated, and it is possible that fellowship training, or the lack thereof, was mischaracterized and simply not obtainable through a web-based search. Furthermore, it is not possible to fully assess the extent of high-quality TSA training in these various fellowships.

CONCLUSION

In just the past decade, the utilization of TSA in the Medicare population has increased significantly. However, this increase was not achieved by the addition of highly specialized, high-volume surgeons but by the addition of many surgeons performing lower numbers of TSA surgeries. Furthermore, for those performing this cost-effective procedure, TSA constitutes a relatively small proportion of the surgeries they perform. Shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained surgeons currently account for a low percentage of the overall number of surgeons performing TSA. The implications of these findings must be considered and investigated.

The dilemma for the treating surgeon is deciding which patients to treat with RCR and who to treat with rTSA. Predicting which surgical procedure will provide a better functional result is difficult and controversial.⁷ The RCR method is a bone-conserving procedure with relatively low surgical risk and allows the option for rTSA to be performed as a salvage surgery should repair fail. It also may be less costly in the appropriate population.⁸ However, large rotator cuff tears in elderly patients have low healing potential, and the prospect of participating in a lengthy rehabilitation after an operation that may not prove successful can be deterring.^9,10 In the elderly population, rTSA may be a reliable option, as tendon healing of the cuff is not necessary to restore function. However, rTSA does not conserve bone, provides a non-anatomic solution, and has had historically high complication rates.^4,5

In an effort to aid in the decision-making process when considering these 2 surgical options, we compared RCR and rTSA performed at a single institution for MCT in patients >65 years. Our aim was to identify preoperative patient variables that influence a surgeon’s decision to proceed with 1 of the 2 procedures. Moreover, we evaluated clinical outcomes in these 2 patient populations. We hypothesized that (1) patients selected for rTSA would have worse preoperative function, less range of motion, more comorbidities, more evidence of radiographic subluxation, and a higher likelihood of having undergone previous RCR than those selected for RCR, and (2) both RCR and rTSA would be successful and result in improved clinical outcomes with high patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PATIENT SELECTION

We performed a retrospective chart review using our practice database of all patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR and rTSA for any indication by the senior author (M.A.F.) between January 2004 and April 2015. A total of 1503 RCRs and 1973 rTSAs were conducted during the study period. Patient medical records were reviewed, and those meeting the following criteria were included in the study: >65 years at the time of surgery, MCT, no preoperative glenohumeral arthritis, minimum follow-up of 12 months, functional deltoid muscle on physical examination, and no prior shoulder surgery except for RCR or diagnostic arthroscopy. A total of 92 patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR and 89 patients who underwent rTSA met the inclusion criteria. For patients with bilateral shoulder surgery, we measured each shoulder independently. Three patients underwent bilateral rTSA, and 3 patients underwent bilateral RCR, leaving 95 shoulders in the RCR group and 92 in the rTSA group. The Western Institutional Review Board determined this study to be exempt from review.

RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION

All patient charts included a radiology report and documented interpretation of the images by the treating surgeon prior to surgery. Radiographs were assessed to assure the absence of preoperative glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The images were also graded based on the Hamada classification.¹¹ Stage 1 is associated with minimal radiographic change with an acromiohumeral interval (AHI) >6 mm; stage 2 is characterized by narrowing of the AHI <6 mm; and Stage 3 is defined by narrowing of the AHI with radiographic changes of the acromion. Stages 4 and higher include arthritic changes to the glenohumeral joint, and they were not included in the study population. The AHI measurements and the presence or absence of glenohumeral subluxation were documented.

Continue to: MASSIVE CUFF TEAR DETERMINATION...

We defined MCT on the basis of previously described criteria of tears involving ≥2 tendons or tears measuring ≥5 cm in greatest dimension.^12,13 Patient charts were screened, and those whose clinical notes or radiology reports indicated an absence of MCT were excluded. Preoperative imaging of the remaining patients was then evaluated by 3 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons to confirm MCT in all patients with a clinically documented MCT, as well as to assess those who had insufficient documentation of tear size in the notes.

Advanced imaging was evaluated for fatty atrophy of the rotator cuff musculature, and Goutallier classification was assigned.^14,15 Length of retraction was measured from the tendon end to the medial aspect of the footprint on coronal imaging, and the subscapularis and teres minor were assessed and documented as torn or intact.^16,17

DATA COLLECTION

We reviewed clinical charts and patient questionnaire forms from both the preoperative and follow-up visits. Clinical data collected included gender, age at surgery, active range of motion (forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation), comorbidities, smoking status, BMI, history of shoulder surgery, and any postoperative complications or need for secondary surgery. All patients completed patient-centered questionnaires regarding shoulder pain and dysfunction at each visit or via telephone communication with clinic staff. Outcome measurements used for analysis included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, simple shoulder test (SST), visual analog score (VAS) pain scale, and patient-reported satisfaction (Graded 1-10; 1 = poor outcome; 4 = satisfactory outcome; 7 = good outcome; 10 = excellent outcome).

DATA ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL METHODS

Statistical tests were selected based on the result of Shapiro–Wilk test for normality. Continuous variables were evaluated with either independent t test or Mann–Whitney U test. Dependent t test was used to evaluate outcome variables. For categorical variables, either Pearson’s χ²or Fisher’s exact test was performed depending on the sample size. Alpha was set at P =.05.

Continue to: RESULTS...

PREOPERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS

Of the 187 shoulders in the study group, 95 had RCR and 92 had rTSA. Demographic information and preoperative variables for both groups are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Patients in the RCR group had greater preoperative forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation and higher preoperative functional scores than those in the rTSA group. Patients in the rTSA group were older and more likely to be female than those in the RCR group. More patients in the rTSA group had undergone prior RCR compared with those in the RCR group. Each of these differences was statistically significant. Subjective pain scores, BMI, and comorbidities were similar between the 2 groups.

Table 1. Patient demographics

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; RCR, rotator cuff repair; rTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 2. Preoperative variables

Abbreviations: AB, abduction; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score; ER, external rotation; FE, forward elevation; IR, internal rotation; preop, preoperative; SST, simple shoulder test.

Radiographically, patients selected to undergo rTSA had a smaller AHI (4.8 vs 8.7, P < .0001) and more evidence of superior subluxation (50.6% vs 14.1%, P < .0001) than those in the RCR group. Average Hamada grade was 1.4 ± 0.7 and 2.2 ± 0.7 for the RCR and rTSA groups, respectively (P < .0001). Average Goutallier grade was similar between the groups (2.2 ± 0.6 for RCR vs 2.2 ± 0.8 for rTSA, P =.227), and 25.5% of the RCR group had Grade 3 or 4 atrophy compared with 28.1% of the rTSA group.

POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES

The average follow-up time was 44 months for RCR and 47 months for rTSA. Patients in the RCR and rTSA groups were highly satisfied with the surgery (8.5 ± 2.6 vs 8.2 ± 2.6, P = .461) and had significantly increased range of motion in all planes and improved functional scores (Table 3). The rTSA group had greater net improvement in forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation than the RCR group. Both groups demonstrated similar improvement in ASES, SST, and VAS pain scores.

Table 3. Postoperative outcomes

Abbreviations: AB, abduction; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score; ER, external rotation; FE, forward elevation; IR, internal rotation; SST, simple shoulder test; VAS – visual analog score.

In the RCR group, 5 patients (5.3%) required reoperation: 3 patients underwent conversion to rTSA, 1 patient underwent biceps tenotomy with subacromial decompression, and 1 patient underwent arthroscopic irrigation and debridement for a postoperative Propionibacterium acnes infection. In the rTSA group, 2 patients (2.2%) required reoperation: 1 patient underwent open reduction internal fixation for a scapula fracture that failed conservative management, and 1 patient had an open irrigation and debridement with polyethylene exchange for an acute postoperative infection of unknown source.

DISCUSSION

Massive, retracted rotator cuff tears are a common and difficult problem.¹ The treatment options are numerous and depend on a variety of preoperative factors including patient-specific characteristics and factors specific to the tear. For certain patients, nonoperative management may be a reasonable first step, as an MCT does not necessarily preclude painless, functional shoulder motion. Elderly, lower demand individuals have been shown to do well with physical rehabilitation.¹⁸ Similarly, for the same category of elderly patients who do not respond to conservative measures, arthroscopic tendon debridement with or without subacromial decompression and/or biceps tenotomy may be effective.^1,19 This technique has been described as “limited goals surgery;” despite some mixed results in the literature, multiple studies have reported symptomatic and functional improvement after simple debridement.^2,19–21The consensus among several authors has been that this procedure continues to play a role for elderly, low-demand patients whose functional goals are limited and whose primary complaint is pain.^1,2,20

For the majority of patients with MCT who desire pain relief and a restoration of shoulder function, RCR remains the gold standard of treatment and should be the primary aim if feasible. Complete RCR has consistently outperformed both partial repair and debridement in multiple studies in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.^10,21,22However, elderly patients with chronic, massive tears, particularly in the setting of muscle atrophy, are at high risk of failure with attempted cuff repair.^9,23 Novel techniques such as superior capsular reconstruction and subacromial balloon spacer implantation may offer a minimally invasive method of re-centering the humeral head and stabilizing the glenohumeral joint; however, these new treatment options lack any long-term data in the literature to support their widespread use.^24–26 Alternatively, rTSA has been shown to be a reliable option to restore shoulder function in the setting of a massive irreparable rotator cuff tear, even in the absence of arthritis.^5,27-31

Continue to: The decision-making process...

The decision-making process for selecting RCR or rTSA in the setting of MCT without arthritis in the older population (age >65 years) remains challenging. We attempted to quantify the data of a high-volume surgeon and identify the differences and similarities between those patients selected for either procedure. At our institution, we generally performed rTSA on patients with low preoperative range of motion, poor function based on SST and ASES scores, small AHI, and strong evidence of superior subluxation. We were also more likely to perform rTSA if the patient had a history of rotator cuff surgery. There was a predilection for older age and female gender in those who underwent rTSA.

For our study, we elected to focus on patients >65 years. In our experience, the choice of which surgical procedure to perform is generally easier in younger patients. Most surgeons appropriately opt for an arthroscopic procedure or tendon transfer to preserve bone and maintain the option of rTSA as a salvage procedure if necessary in the future. Studies have reported that <60 years is a predictor of poor outcome with rTSA, and patients <65 years who undergo rTSA have been shown to have high complication rates.^30-32 Furthermore, the longevity of the implant in young patients is a significant concern, and revision surgery after rTSA is technically demanding and known to result in poor functional outcomes.^32,33

Although the indications for rTSA are expanding, attempts at RCR in the setting of MCT remain largely appropriate. Preserved preoperative anterior elevation >90° has been associated with loss of motion after rTSA and poor satisfaction, and one should exercise caution when considering rTSA in this setting.³ The current study confirmed that even older patients with MCT may be very satisfied with arthroscopic RCR (Figure 1). Both range of motion and function significantly improved, and patients were largely satisfied with the procedure with an average self-reported outcome of good to excellent. At the time of final follow-up for this study, only 3 shoulders in the RCR group had undergone conversion to rTSA. This number may be expected to rise with long follow-up periods, and we feel that prolonging the time before arthroplasty is generally in the best interest of the patient.

Our results were consistent with several reported studies in which RCR has been shown to be successful in the setting of MCT.^34–37 Henry and colleagues³⁶ performed a systematic review that evaluated 954 patients who underwent partial or complete anatomic RCR for MCT. Although the average age was 63 years (range, 37–87), functional outcome scores, VAS pain score, and overall range of motion consistently and significantly improved.

rTSA may be a “more reliable” option than RCR in treating MCT in the older population because it does not rely on tendon healing. However, the relationship between tendon healing and clinical outcomes after RCR is unclear. The aforementioned systematic review reported re-tear rates to be as high as 79%, but several studies have reported high satisfaction even in the setting of retear.³⁶ Yoo and colleagues³⁸ and Chung and colleagues⁹ reported re-tear rates of 45.5% and 39.8%, respectively, but both studies noted that there was no difference in outcome measures between those patients with and without re-tears. In particular, for patients who have had no prior rotator cuff surgery, an attempt at arthroscopic repair may be a prudent option with relatively low risk.

Although certain patients may clinically improve despite suffering a re-tear (or inability to heal in the first place), others continue to experience pain and dysfunction that negatively affect their quality of life.^39–41 These patients are more often appropriate candidates for rTSA. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated a higher re-tear rate in patients with a history of surgery than in those without.^23,31,38,42 Shamsudin and colleagues⁴³ found revision arthroscopic RCR, even in a younger age group with tears of all sizes, to be twice as likely to re-tear. Notably, re-tear after revision repair may be more likely to be symptomatic, as these re-tears are routinely associated with pain, stiffness, and loss of function. Even in the hands of experienced surgeons in a younger population, revision repair has only been able to reverse pseudoparalysis in 43% of patients, leading to only 39% return to sport or full activity.⁴⁴ In examining our data, we were much less likely to perform an RCR in patients who had a history of cuff repair surgery than in those without this history.

Continue to: Overall, those patients selected for rTSA...

Overall, those patients selected for rTSA in our study population performed well postoperatively (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Vast improvements were noted in range of motion, function, and pain scores at final follow up. Moreover, no patients in the study group required revision arthroplasty during the follow-up period. Although the average follow-up period was only 47 months, these results suggested that elderly patients with MCT without arthritis may be particularly ideal candidates for rTSA with regard to implant survival and anticipated revision rate when chosen appropriately.

Several weaknesses were noted within this paper. First, the study was retrospective, precluding randomization of treatment groups and standardization of data collection and follow-up. The outcomes of RCR and rTSA could not be compared directly due to the inherent selection bias. The groups clearly differed in many respects, and these preoperative factors likely played a role in postoperative outcomes. However, the primary goal of this study was not to compare outcomes of the treatment groups but to analyze the patterns of patient selection by an experienced treating surgeon and contribute to published data that each surgery can be successful in this patient population when chosen appropriately.

Second, our data were based on a single surgeon’s decisions, and results may not be generalizable. Furthermore, the senior author has had a longstanding interest in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and has published data illustrating successful outcomes for rTSA in patients with MCT. For this reason, one could presume that there may have been some bias toward treating patients with rTSA. However, we feel that the senior author’s unique and longstanding experience in treating MCT allows for a thorough evaluation and comparison of preoperative variables and outcomes declared within this study. Indeed, many patients included in this study were referred from outside institutions specifically for rTSA but instead were deemed more appropriate candidates for RCR and underwent successful arthroscopic repair, a common scenario which served as an impetus for this study.

CONCLUSION

RCR and rTSA are both viable options for patients >65 years with MCT without arthritis. Treatment must be individualized for each patient with careful consideration of a number of preoperative variables and patient characteristics. At our institution, patients with previous RCR, decreased range of motion, poor function, and strong radiographic evidence of subluxation are more likely to undergo rTSA. When chosen appropriately, both RCR and rTSA can result in improved range of motion, function, and high patient satisfaction in this patient population.

The dilemma for the treating surgeon is deciding which patients to treat with RCR and who to treat with rTSA. Predicting which surgical procedure will provide a better functional result is difficult and controversial.⁷ The RCR method is a bone-conserving procedure with relatively low surgical risk and allows the option for rTSA to be performed as a salvage surgery should repair fail. It also may be less costly in the appropriate population.⁸ However, large rotator cuff tears in elderly patients have low healing potential, and the prospect of participating in a lengthy rehabilitation after an operation that may not prove successful can be deterring.^9,10 In the elderly population, rTSA may be a reliable option, as tendon healing of the cuff is not necessary to restore function. However, rTSA does not conserve bone, provides a non-anatomic solution, and has had historically high complication rates.^4,5

In an effort to aid in the decision-making process when considering these 2 surgical options, we compared RCR and rTSA performed at a single institution for MCT in patients >65 years. Our aim was to identify preoperative patient variables that influence a surgeon’s decision to proceed with 1 of the 2 procedures. Moreover, we evaluated clinical outcomes in these 2 patient populations. We hypothesized that (1) patients selected for rTSA would have worse preoperative function, less range of motion, more comorbidities, more evidence of radiographic subluxation, and a higher likelihood of having undergone previous RCR than those selected for RCR, and (2) both RCR and rTSA would be successful and result in improved clinical outcomes with high patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PATIENT SELECTION

We performed a retrospective chart review using our practice database of all patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR and rTSA for any indication by the senior author (M.A.F.) between January 2004 and April 2015. A total of 1503 RCRs and 1973 rTSAs were conducted during the study period. Patient medical records were reviewed, and those meeting the following criteria were included in the study: >65 years at the time of surgery, MCT, no preoperative glenohumeral arthritis, minimum follow-up of 12 months, functional deltoid muscle on physical examination, and no prior shoulder surgery except for RCR or diagnostic arthroscopy. A total of 92 patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR and 89 patients who underwent rTSA met the inclusion criteria. For patients with bilateral shoulder surgery, we measured each shoulder independently. Three patients underwent bilateral rTSA, and 3 patients underwent bilateral RCR, leaving 95 shoulders in the RCR group and 92 in the rTSA group. The Western Institutional Review Board determined this study to be exempt from review.

RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION

All patient charts included a radiology report and documented interpretation of the images by the treating surgeon prior to surgery. Radiographs were assessed to assure the absence of preoperative glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The images were also graded based on the Hamada classification.¹¹ Stage 1 is associated with minimal radiographic change with an acromiohumeral interval (AHI) >6 mm; stage 2 is characterized by narrowing of the AHI <6 mm; and Stage 3 is defined by narrowing of the AHI with radiographic changes of the acromion. Stages 4 and higher include arthritic changes to the glenohumeral joint, and they were not included in the study population. The AHI measurements and the presence or absence of glenohumeral subluxation were documented.

Continue to: MASSIVE CUFF TEAR DETERMINATION...

We defined MCT on the basis of previously described criteria of tears involving ≥2 tendons or tears measuring ≥5 cm in greatest dimension.^12,13 Patient charts were screened, and those whose clinical notes or radiology reports indicated an absence of MCT were excluded. Preoperative imaging of the remaining patients was then evaluated by 3 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons to confirm MCT in all patients with a clinically documented MCT, as well as to assess those who had insufficient documentation of tear size in the notes.

Advanced imaging was evaluated for fatty atrophy of the rotator cuff musculature, and Goutallier classification was assigned.^14,15 Length of retraction was measured from the tendon end to the medial aspect of the footprint on coronal imaging, and the subscapularis and teres minor were assessed and documented as torn or intact.^16,17

DATA COLLECTION

We reviewed clinical charts and patient questionnaire forms from both the preoperative and follow-up visits. Clinical data collected included gender, age at surgery, active range of motion (forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation), comorbidities, smoking status, BMI, history of shoulder surgery, and any postoperative complications or need for secondary surgery. All patients completed patient-centered questionnaires regarding shoulder pain and dysfunction at each visit or via telephone communication with clinic staff. Outcome measurements used for analysis included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, simple shoulder test (SST), visual analog score (VAS) pain scale, and patient-reported satisfaction (Graded 1-10; 1 = poor outcome; 4 = satisfactory outcome; 7 = good outcome; 10 = excellent outcome).

DATA ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL METHODS

Statistical tests were selected based on the result of Shapiro–Wilk test for normality. Continuous variables were evaluated with either independent t test or Mann–Whitney U test. Dependent t test was used to evaluate outcome variables. For categorical variables, either Pearson’s χ²or Fisher’s exact test was performed depending on the sample size. Alpha was set at P =.05.

Continue to: RESULTS...

PREOPERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS

Of the 187 shoulders in the study group, 95 had RCR and 92 had rTSA. Demographic information and preoperative variables for both groups are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Patients in the RCR group had greater preoperative forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation and higher preoperative functional scores than those in the rTSA group. Patients in the rTSA group were older and more likely to be female than those in the RCR group. More patients in the rTSA group had undergone prior RCR compared with those in the RCR group. Each of these differences was statistically significant. Subjective pain scores, BMI, and comorbidities were similar between the 2 groups.

Table 1. Patient demographics

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; RCR, rotator cuff repair; rTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 2. Preoperative variables

Abbreviations: AB, abduction; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score; ER, external rotation; FE, forward elevation; IR, internal rotation; preop, preoperative; SST, simple shoulder test.

Radiographically, patients selected to undergo rTSA had a smaller AHI (4.8 vs 8.7, P < .0001) and more evidence of superior subluxation (50.6% vs 14.1%, P < .0001) than those in the RCR group. Average Hamada grade was 1.4 ± 0.7 and 2.2 ± 0.7 for the RCR and rTSA groups, respectively (P < .0001). Average Goutallier grade was similar between the groups (2.2 ± 0.6 for RCR vs 2.2 ± 0.8 for rTSA, P =.227), and 25.5% of the RCR group had Grade 3 or 4 atrophy compared with 28.1% of the rTSA group.

POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES

The average follow-up time was 44 months for RCR and 47 months for rTSA. Patients in the RCR and rTSA groups were highly satisfied with the surgery (8.5 ± 2.6 vs 8.2 ± 2.6, P = .461) and had significantly increased range of motion in all planes and improved functional scores (Table 3). The rTSA group had greater net improvement in forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation than the RCR group. Both groups demonstrated similar improvement in ASES, SST, and VAS pain scores.

Table 3. Postoperative outcomes

Abbreviations: AB, abduction; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score; ER, external rotation; FE, forward elevation; IR, internal rotation; SST, simple shoulder test; VAS – visual analog score.

In the RCR group, 5 patients (5.3%) required reoperation: 3 patients underwent conversion to rTSA, 1 patient underwent biceps tenotomy with subacromial decompression, and 1 patient underwent arthroscopic irrigation and debridement for a postoperative Propionibacterium acnes infection. In the rTSA group, 2 patients (2.2%) required reoperation: 1 patient underwent open reduction internal fixation for a scapula fracture that failed conservative management, and 1 patient had an open irrigation and debridement with polyethylene exchange for an acute postoperative infection of unknown source.

DISCUSSION

Massive, retracted rotator cuff tears are a common and difficult problem.¹ The treatment options are numerous and depend on a variety of preoperative factors including patient-specific characteristics and factors specific to the tear. For certain patients, nonoperative management may be a reasonable first step, as an MCT does not necessarily preclude painless, functional shoulder motion. Elderly, lower demand individuals have been shown to do well with physical rehabilitation.¹⁸ Similarly, for the same category of elderly patients who do not respond to conservative measures, arthroscopic tendon debridement with or without subacromial decompression and/or biceps tenotomy may be effective.^1,19 This technique has been described as “limited goals surgery;” despite some mixed results in the literature, multiple studies have reported symptomatic and functional improvement after simple debridement.^2,19–21The consensus among several authors has been that this procedure continues to play a role for elderly, low-demand patients whose functional goals are limited and whose primary complaint is pain.^1,2,20

For the majority of patients with MCT who desire pain relief and a restoration of shoulder function, RCR remains the gold standard of treatment and should be the primary aim if feasible. Complete RCR has consistently outperformed both partial repair and debridement in multiple studies in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.^10,21,22However, elderly patients with chronic, massive tears, particularly in the setting of muscle atrophy, are at high risk of failure with attempted cuff repair.^9,23 Novel techniques such as superior capsular reconstruction and subacromial balloon spacer implantation may offer a minimally invasive method of re-centering the humeral head and stabilizing the glenohumeral joint; however, these new treatment options lack any long-term data in the literature to support their widespread use.^24–26 Alternatively, rTSA has been shown to be a reliable option to restore shoulder function in the setting of a massive irreparable rotator cuff tear, even in the absence of arthritis.^5,27-31

Continue to: The decision-making process...

The decision-making process for selecting RCR or rTSA in the setting of MCT without arthritis in the older population (age >65 years) remains challenging. We attempted to quantify the data of a high-volume surgeon and identify the differences and similarities between those patients selected for either procedure. At our institution, we generally performed rTSA on patients with low preoperative range of motion, poor function based on SST and ASES scores, small AHI, and strong evidence of superior subluxation. We were also more likely to perform rTSA if the patient had a history of rotator cuff surgery. There was a predilection for older age and female gender in those who underwent rTSA.

For our study, we elected to focus on patients >65 years. In our experience, the choice of which surgical procedure to perform is generally easier in younger patients. Most surgeons appropriately opt for an arthroscopic procedure or tendon transfer to preserve bone and maintain the option of rTSA as a salvage procedure if necessary in the future. Studies have reported that <60 years is a predictor of poor outcome with rTSA, and patients <65 years who undergo rTSA have been shown to have high complication rates.^30-32 Furthermore, the longevity of the implant in young patients is a significant concern, and revision surgery after rTSA is technically demanding and known to result in poor functional outcomes.^32,33

Although the indications for rTSA are expanding, attempts at RCR in the setting of MCT remain largely appropriate. Preserved preoperative anterior elevation >90° has been associated with loss of motion after rTSA and poor satisfaction, and one should exercise caution when considering rTSA in this setting.³ The current study confirmed that even older patients with MCT may be very satisfied with arthroscopic RCR (Figure 1). Both range of motion and function significantly improved, and patients were largely satisfied with the procedure with an average self-reported outcome of good to excellent. At the time of final follow-up for this study, only 3 shoulders in the RCR group had undergone conversion to rTSA. This number may be expected to rise with long follow-up periods, and we feel that prolonging the time before arthroplasty is generally in the best interest of the patient.

Our results were consistent with several reported studies in which RCR has been shown to be successful in the setting of MCT.^34–37 Henry and colleagues³⁶ performed a systematic review that evaluated 954 patients who underwent partial or complete anatomic RCR for MCT. Although the average age was 63 years (range, 37–87), functional outcome scores, VAS pain score, and overall range of motion consistently and significantly improved.

rTSA may be a “more reliable” option than RCR in treating MCT in the older population because it does not rely on tendon healing. However, the relationship between tendon healing and clinical outcomes after RCR is unclear. The aforementioned systematic review reported re-tear rates to be as high as 79%, but several studies have reported high satisfaction even in the setting of retear.³⁶ Yoo and colleagues³⁸ and Chung and colleagues⁹ reported re-tear rates of 45.5% and 39.8%, respectively, but both studies noted that there was no difference in outcome measures between those patients with and without re-tears. In particular, for patients who have had no prior rotator cuff surgery, an attempt at arthroscopic repair may be a prudent option with relatively low risk.

Although certain patients may clinically improve despite suffering a re-tear (or inability to heal in the first place), others continue to experience pain and dysfunction that negatively affect their quality of life.^39–41 These patients are more often appropriate candidates for rTSA. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated a higher re-tear rate in patients with a history of surgery than in those without.^23,31,38,42 Shamsudin and colleagues⁴³ found revision arthroscopic RCR, even in a younger age group with tears of all sizes, to be twice as likely to re-tear. Notably, re-tear after revision repair may be more likely to be symptomatic, as these re-tears are routinely associated with pain, stiffness, and loss of function. Even in the hands of experienced surgeons in a younger population, revision repair has only been able to reverse pseudoparalysis in 43% of patients, leading to only 39% return to sport or full activity.⁴⁴ In examining our data, we were much less likely to perform an RCR in patients who had a history of cuff repair surgery than in those without this history.

Continue to: Overall, those patients selected for rTSA...

Overall, those patients selected for rTSA in our study population performed well postoperatively (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Vast improvements were noted in range of motion, function, and pain scores at final follow up. Moreover, no patients in the study group required revision arthroplasty during the follow-up period. Although the average follow-up period was only 47 months, these results suggested that elderly patients with MCT without arthritis may be particularly ideal candidates for rTSA with regard to implant survival and anticipated revision rate when chosen appropriately.

Several weaknesses were noted within this paper. First, the study was retrospective, precluding randomization of treatment groups and standardization of data collection and follow-up. The outcomes of RCR and rTSA could not be compared directly due to the inherent selection bias. The groups clearly differed in many respects, and these preoperative factors likely played a role in postoperative outcomes. However, the primary goal of this study was not to compare outcomes of the treatment groups but to analyze the patterns of patient selection by an experienced treating surgeon and contribute to published data that each surgery can be successful in this patient population when chosen appropriately.

Second, our data were based on a single surgeon’s decisions, and results may not be generalizable. Furthermore, the senior author has had a longstanding interest in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and has published data illustrating successful outcomes for rTSA in patients with MCT. For this reason, one could presume that there may have been some bias toward treating patients with rTSA. However, we feel that the senior author’s unique and longstanding experience in treating MCT allows for a thorough evaluation and comparison of preoperative variables and outcomes declared within this study. Indeed, many patients included in this study were referred from outside institutions specifically for rTSA but instead were deemed more appropriate candidates for RCR and underwent successful arthroscopic repair, a common scenario which served as an impetus for this study.

CONCLUSION

RCR and rTSA are both viable options for patients >65 years with MCT without arthritis. Treatment must be individualized for each patient with careful consideration of a number of preoperative variables and patient characteristics. At our institution, patients with previous RCR, decreased range of motion, poor function, and strong radiographic evidence of subluxation are more likely to undergo rTSA. When chosen appropriately, both RCR and rTSA can result in improved range of motion, function, and high patient satisfaction in this patient population.

The dilemma for the treating surgeon is deciding which patients to treat with RCR and who to treat with rTSA. Predicting which surgical procedure will provide a better functional result is difficult and controversial.⁷ The RCR method is a bone-conserving procedure with relatively low surgical risk and allows the option for rTSA to be performed as a salvage surgery should repair fail. It also may be less costly in the appropriate population.⁸ However, large rotator cuff tears in elderly patients have low healing potential, and the prospect of participating in a lengthy rehabilitation after an operation that may not prove successful can be deterring.^9,10 In the elderly population, rTSA may be a reliable option, as tendon healing of the cuff is not necessary to restore function. However, rTSA does not conserve bone, provides a non-anatomic solution, and has had historically high complication rates.^4,5

In an effort to aid in the decision-making process when considering these 2 surgical options, we compared RCR and rTSA performed at a single institution for MCT in patients >65 years. Our aim was to identify preoperative patient variables that influence a surgeon’s decision to proceed with 1 of the 2 procedures. Moreover, we evaluated clinical outcomes in these 2 patient populations. We hypothesized that (1) patients selected for rTSA would have worse preoperative function, less range of motion, more comorbidities, more evidence of radiographic subluxation, and a higher likelihood of having undergone previous RCR than those selected for RCR, and (2) both RCR and rTSA would be successful and result in improved clinical outcomes with high patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PATIENT SELECTION

We performed a retrospective chart review using our practice database of all patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR and rTSA for any indication by the senior author (M.A.F.) between January 2004 and April 2015. A total of 1503 RCRs and 1973 rTSAs were conducted during the study period. Patient medical records were reviewed, and those meeting the following criteria were included in the study: >65 years at the time of surgery, MCT, no preoperative glenohumeral arthritis, minimum follow-up of 12 months, functional deltoid muscle on physical examination, and no prior shoulder surgery except for RCR or diagnostic arthroscopy. A total of 92 patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR and 89 patients who underwent rTSA met the inclusion criteria. For patients with bilateral shoulder surgery, we measured each shoulder independently. Three patients underwent bilateral rTSA, and 3 patients underwent bilateral RCR, leaving 95 shoulders in the RCR group and 92 in the rTSA group. The Western Institutional Review Board determined this study to be exempt from review.

RADIOGRAPHIC EVALUATION

All patient charts included a radiology report and documented interpretation of the images by the treating surgeon prior to surgery. Radiographs were assessed to assure the absence of preoperative glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The images were also graded based on the Hamada classification.¹¹ Stage 1 is associated with minimal radiographic change with an acromiohumeral interval (AHI) >6 mm; stage 2 is characterized by narrowing of the AHI <6 mm; and Stage 3 is defined by narrowing of the AHI with radiographic changes of the acromion. Stages 4 and higher include arthritic changes to the glenohumeral joint, and they were not included in the study population. The AHI measurements and the presence or absence of glenohumeral subluxation were documented.

Continue to: MASSIVE CUFF TEAR DETERMINATION...

We defined MCT on the basis of previously described criteria of tears involving ≥2 tendons or tears measuring ≥5 cm in greatest dimension.^12,13 Patient charts were screened, and those whose clinical notes or radiology reports indicated an absence of MCT were excluded. Preoperative imaging of the remaining patients was then evaluated by 3 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons to confirm MCT in all patients with a clinically documented MCT, as well as to assess those who had insufficient documentation of tear size in the notes.

Advanced imaging was evaluated for fatty atrophy of the rotator cuff musculature, and Goutallier classification was assigned.^14,15 Length of retraction was measured from the tendon end to the medial aspect of the footprint on coronal imaging, and the subscapularis and teres minor were assessed and documented as torn or intact.^16,17

DATA COLLECTION

We reviewed clinical charts and patient questionnaire forms from both the preoperative and follow-up visits. Clinical data collected included gender, age at surgery, active range of motion (forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation), comorbidities, smoking status, BMI, history of shoulder surgery, and any postoperative complications or need for secondary surgery. All patients completed patient-centered questionnaires regarding shoulder pain and dysfunction at each visit or via telephone communication with clinic staff. Outcome measurements used for analysis included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, simple shoulder test (SST), visual analog score (VAS) pain scale, and patient-reported satisfaction (Graded 1-10; 1 = poor outcome; 4 = satisfactory outcome; 7 = good outcome; 10 = excellent outcome).

DATA ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL METHODS

Statistical tests were selected based on the result of Shapiro–Wilk test for normality. Continuous variables were evaluated with either independent t test or Mann–Whitney U test. Dependent t test was used to evaluate outcome variables. For categorical variables, either Pearson’s χ²or Fisher’s exact test was performed depending on the sample size. Alpha was set at P =.05.

Continue to: RESULTS...

PREOPERATIVE CHARACTERISTICS

Of the 187 shoulders in the study group, 95 had RCR and 92 had rTSA. Demographic information and preoperative variables for both groups are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. Patients in the RCR group had greater preoperative forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation and higher preoperative functional scores than those in the rTSA group. Patients in the rTSA group were older and more likely to be female than those in the RCR group. More patients in the rTSA group had undergone prior RCR compared with those in the RCR group. Each of these differences was statistically significant. Subjective pain scores, BMI, and comorbidities were similar between the 2 groups.

Table 1. Patient demographics

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; RCR, rotator cuff repair; rTSA, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Table 2. Preoperative variables

Abbreviations: AB, abduction; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score; ER, external rotation; FE, forward elevation; IR, internal rotation; preop, preoperative; SST, simple shoulder test.

Radiographically, patients selected to undergo rTSA had a smaller AHI (4.8 vs 8.7, P < .0001) and more evidence of superior subluxation (50.6% vs 14.1%, P < .0001) than those in the RCR group. Average Hamada grade was 1.4 ± 0.7 and 2.2 ± 0.7 for the RCR and rTSA groups, respectively (P < .0001). Average Goutallier grade was similar between the groups (2.2 ± 0.6 for RCR vs 2.2 ± 0.8 for rTSA, P =.227), and 25.5% of the RCR group had Grade 3 or 4 atrophy compared with 28.1% of the rTSA group.

POSTOPERATIVE OUTCOMES

The average follow-up time was 44 months for RCR and 47 months for rTSA. Patients in the RCR and rTSA groups were highly satisfied with the surgery (8.5 ± 2.6 vs 8.2 ± 2.6, P = .461) and had significantly increased range of motion in all planes and improved functional scores (Table 3). The rTSA group had greater net improvement in forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation than the RCR group. Both groups demonstrated similar improvement in ASES, SST, and VAS pain scores.

Table 3. Postoperative outcomes

Abbreviations: AB, abduction; ASES, American Shoulder and Elbow Society score; ER, external rotation; FE, forward elevation; IR, internal rotation; SST, simple shoulder test; VAS – visual analog score.

In the RCR group, 5 patients (5.3%) required reoperation: 3 patients underwent conversion to rTSA, 1 patient underwent biceps tenotomy with subacromial decompression, and 1 patient underwent arthroscopic irrigation and debridement for a postoperative Propionibacterium acnes infection. In the rTSA group, 2 patients (2.2%) required reoperation: 1 patient underwent open reduction internal fixation for a scapula fracture that failed conservative management, and 1 patient had an open irrigation and debridement with polyethylene exchange for an acute postoperative infection of unknown source.

DISCUSSION

Massive, retracted rotator cuff tears are a common and difficult problem.¹ The treatment options are numerous and depend on a variety of preoperative factors including patient-specific characteristics and factors specific to the tear. For certain patients, nonoperative management may be a reasonable first step, as an MCT does not necessarily preclude painless, functional shoulder motion. Elderly, lower demand individuals have been shown to do well with physical rehabilitation.¹⁸ Similarly, for the same category of elderly patients who do not respond to conservative measures, arthroscopic tendon debridement with or without subacromial decompression and/or biceps tenotomy may be effective.^1,19 This technique has been described as “limited goals surgery;” despite some mixed results in the literature, multiple studies have reported symptomatic and functional improvement after simple debridement.^2,19–21The consensus among several authors has been that this procedure continues to play a role for elderly, low-demand patients whose functional goals are limited and whose primary complaint is pain.^1,2,20

For the majority of patients with MCT who desire pain relief and a restoration of shoulder function, RCR remains the gold standard of treatment and should be the primary aim if feasible. Complete RCR has consistently outperformed both partial repair and debridement in multiple studies in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.^10,21,22However, elderly patients with chronic, massive tears, particularly in the setting of muscle atrophy, are at high risk of failure with attempted cuff repair.^9,23 Novel techniques such as superior capsular reconstruction and subacromial balloon spacer implantation may offer a minimally invasive method of re-centering the humeral head and stabilizing the glenohumeral joint; however, these new treatment options lack any long-term data in the literature to support their widespread use.^24–26 Alternatively, rTSA has been shown to be a reliable option to restore shoulder function in the setting of a massive irreparable rotator cuff tear, even in the absence of arthritis.^5,27-31

Continue to: The decision-making process...

The decision-making process for selecting RCR or rTSA in the setting of MCT without arthritis in the older population (age >65 years) remains challenging. We attempted to quantify the data of a high-volume surgeon and identify the differences and similarities between those patients selected for either procedure. At our institution, we generally performed rTSA on patients with low preoperative range of motion, poor function based on SST and ASES scores, small AHI, and strong evidence of superior subluxation. We were also more likely to perform rTSA if the patient had a history of rotator cuff surgery. There was a predilection for older age and female gender in those who underwent rTSA.

For our study, we elected to focus on patients >65 years. In our experience, the choice of which surgical procedure to perform is generally easier in younger patients. Most surgeons appropriately opt for an arthroscopic procedure or tendon transfer to preserve bone and maintain the option of rTSA as a salvage procedure if necessary in the future. Studies have reported that <60 years is a predictor of poor outcome with rTSA, and patients <65 years who undergo rTSA have been shown to have high complication rates.^30-32 Furthermore, the longevity of the implant in young patients is a significant concern, and revision surgery after rTSA is technically demanding and known to result in poor functional outcomes.^32,33

Although the indications for rTSA are expanding, attempts at RCR in the setting of MCT remain largely appropriate. Preserved preoperative anterior elevation >90° has been associated with loss of motion after rTSA and poor satisfaction, and one should exercise caution when considering rTSA in this setting.³ The current study confirmed that even older patients with MCT may be very satisfied with arthroscopic RCR (Figure 1). Both range of motion and function significantly improved, and patients were largely satisfied with the procedure with an average self-reported outcome of good to excellent. At the time of final follow-up for this study, only 3 shoulders in the RCR group had undergone conversion to rTSA. This number may be expected to rise with long follow-up periods, and we feel that prolonging the time before arthroplasty is generally in the best interest of the patient.

Our results were consistent with several reported studies in which RCR has been shown to be successful in the setting of MCT.^34–37 Henry and colleagues³⁶ performed a systematic review that evaluated 954 patients who underwent partial or complete anatomic RCR for MCT. Although the average age was 63 years (range, 37–87), functional outcome scores, VAS pain score, and overall range of motion consistently and significantly improved.

rTSA may be a “more reliable” option than RCR in treating MCT in the older population because it does not rely on tendon healing. However, the relationship between tendon healing and clinical outcomes after RCR is unclear. The aforementioned systematic review reported re-tear rates to be as high as 79%, but several studies have reported high satisfaction even in the setting of retear.³⁶ Yoo and colleagues³⁸ and Chung and colleagues⁹ reported re-tear rates of 45.5% and 39.8%, respectively, but both studies noted that there was no difference in outcome measures between those patients with and without re-tears. In particular, for patients who have had no prior rotator cuff surgery, an attempt at arthroscopic repair may be a prudent option with relatively low risk.

Although certain patients may clinically improve despite suffering a re-tear (or inability to heal in the first place), others continue to experience pain and dysfunction that negatively affect their quality of life.^39–41 These patients are more often appropriate candidates for rTSA. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated a higher re-tear rate in patients with a history of surgery than in those without.^23,31,38,42 Shamsudin and colleagues⁴³ found revision arthroscopic RCR, even in a younger age group with tears of all sizes, to be twice as likely to re-tear. Notably, re-tear after revision repair may be more likely to be symptomatic, as these re-tears are routinely associated with pain, stiffness, and loss of function. Even in the hands of experienced surgeons in a younger population, revision repair has only been able to reverse pseudoparalysis in 43% of patients, leading to only 39% return to sport or full activity.⁴⁴ In examining our data, we were much less likely to perform an RCR in patients who had a history of cuff repair surgery than in those without this history.

Continue to: Overall, those patients selected for rTSA...

Overall, those patients selected for rTSA in our study population performed well postoperatively (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Vast improvements were noted in range of motion, function, and pain scores at final follow up. Moreover, no patients in the study group required revision arthroplasty during the follow-up period. Although the average follow-up period was only 47 months, these results suggested that elderly patients with MCT without arthritis may be particularly ideal candidates for rTSA with regard to implant survival and anticipated revision rate when chosen appropriately.

Several weaknesses were noted within this paper. First, the study was retrospective, precluding randomization of treatment groups and standardization of data collection and follow-up. The outcomes of RCR and rTSA could not be compared directly due to the inherent selection bias. The groups clearly differed in many respects, and these preoperative factors likely played a role in postoperative outcomes. However, the primary goal of this study was not to compare outcomes of the treatment groups but to analyze the patterns of patient selection by an experienced treating surgeon and contribute to published data that each surgery can be successful in this patient population when chosen appropriately.

Second, our data were based on a single surgeon’s decisions, and results may not be generalizable. Furthermore, the senior author has had a longstanding interest in reverse shoulder arthroplasty and has published data illustrating successful outcomes for rTSA in patients with MCT. For this reason, one could presume that there may have been some bias toward treating patients with rTSA. However, we feel that the senior author’s unique and longstanding experience in treating MCT allows for a thorough evaluation and comparison of preoperative variables and outcomes declared within this study. Indeed, many patients included in this study were referred from outside institutions specifically for rTSA but instead were deemed more appropriate candidates for RCR and underwent successful arthroscopic repair, a common scenario which served as an impetus for this study.

CONCLUSION

RCR and rTSA are both viable options for patients >65 years with MCT without arthritis. Treatment must be individualized for each patient with careful consideration of a number of preoperative variables and patient characteristics. At our institution, patients with previous RCR, decreased range of motion, poor function, and strong radiographic evidence of subluxation are more likely to undergo rTSA. When chosen appropriately, both RCR and rTSA can result in improved range of motion, function, and high patient satisfaction in this patient population.