The relationship of shoulder elevation strength to patient-reported outcome after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 2406-2416
Author(s):  
John R. Tuttle ◽  
Joseph L. Fava ◽  
T. Bradley Edwards ◽  
Tom R. Norris ◽  
Armodios M. Hatzidakis ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. 175857322096731
Author(s):  
Mohammad Ghoraishian ◽  
Brian W Hill ◽  
Thema Nicholson ◽  
Matthew L Ramsey ◽  
Gerald R Williams ◽  
...  

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate and risk factors for stiffness after reverse shoulder arthroplasty and the ramifications on the patient-reported outcomes. Method A consecutive series of patients who underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty were prospectively followed for one year. Passive range of motion was measured preoperatively and at regular intervals postoperatively. Patients with passive forward elevation of less than 100° or passive external rotation of less than 30° were defined as stiff. Radiographic parameters and postoperative patient-reported outcome scores were collected. Results Seventy-six patients were available for review. The prevalence of postoperative stiffness following reverse shoulder arthroplasty was 47% at three months, 31% at six months, and 25% at one year. Preoperative shoulder stiffness was associated with three-month postoperative stiffness only. In patients with one-year stiffness, smaller ( p = 0.03) and less lateralized glenospheres ( p = 0.024) were more common. Stiffness was not associated with one-year patient-reported outcome scores. Conclusion Stiffness is common after reverse shoulder arthroplasty and often improves at one-year after surgery. Implant design and selection may be important determinants of passive range of motion. While stiffness does not appear to influence patient-reported outcome scores, one of four patients will potentially have stiffness one year following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Level of evidence: Level III; retrospective study.


Hand ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 707-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kurowicki ◽  
Jacob J. Triplet ◽  
Samuel Rosas ◽  
Derek D. Berglund ◽  
Brandon Horn ◽  
...  

Background: In the setting of bilateral shoulder arthroplasty (BSA), differences in functional outcomes and motion between anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of treatment for various combinations of TSA procedures. Methods: A review of prospectively collected data from an institutional shoulder surgery repository was performed for patients who underwent any combination of bilateral TSA or RSA surgery. Based on the combination of shoulder arthroplasty, patients were divided into the following subgroups: bilateral TSA (TSA/TSA), bilateral RSA (RSA/RSA), or unilateral TSA with contralateral RSA (TSA/RSA). A total of 73 patients (146 shoulders), with a minimum of 2-year follow-up, who underwent any combination of bilateral TSA or RSA from 2007 to 2014 were included. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures and measured motion were evaluated between the 3 groups. Results: There were 47 TSA/TSA, 17 RSA/RSA, and 9 TSA/RSA patients with a mean age of 72 years and mean follow-up of 51 months. Preoperatively, TSA/TSA had significantly higher Simple Shoulder Test scores, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) function, active elevation, and active external rotation compared with RSA/RSA. Postoperative scores were significantly superior in TSA/TSA compared with other combinations of shoulder arthroplasty except VAS pain and function. Change in pre- to postoperative (effectiveness of treatment) internal rotation was superior in the TSA/TSA group compared with RSA/RSA and TSA/RSA; however, no other differences were observed. Conclusions: Bilateral TSA patients have higher preoperative function and motion. Although some postoperative outcomes differ among combinations of BSA, the overall effectiveness of treatment for patients undergoing BSA is similar between various combinations of arthroplasty.


2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3-6) ◽  
pp. 138-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason D. Woollard ◽  
James E. Bost ◽  
Sara R. Piva ◽  
G. Kelley Fitzgerald ◽  
Mark W. Rodosky ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document