Search

Background Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are increasingly common procedures employed to treat arthritic conditions. Although TSA is a widely accepted procedure for glenohumeral arthritis with intact rotator cuff, concerns about RTSA persist because of variable complication rates and outcomes. Methods This is a prospective, case-control study comparing outcomes and complications after TSA and RTSA. The study included 47 patients undergoing TSA for glenohumeral arthritis and 53 patients undergoing RTSA for rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Average clinical follow-up was more than 2 years in both groups. Major complications included infection, periprosthetic fracture, instability, glenoid loosening, and need for revision surgery. Patient outcome measures included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, pain visual analog scale score, and goniometer-measured range of motion. Plain radiographs were reviewed to assess for degree of glenoid lucency in TSA and scapular notching in RTSA. Results At 2 years, there were no differences in rate of major complications (TSA, 15%; RTSA, 13%; P = .808) or revision surgeries (TSA, 11%; RTSA, 9%). Outcomes assessed by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and visual analog scale were also similar between the 2 groups. TSA patients had greater external rotation than RTSA patients did (53° vs 38°; P = .001). Otherwise, forward flexion, abduction, and internal rotation were comparable in range of motion. Conclusions TSA and RTSA have similar complication rates, need for revision, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion at 2 years of follow-up. The use of side-by-side cohorts in this study allows standardized comparison between these 2 shoulder arthroplasty procedures.

Background Recent studies report high hardware removal rates after plate fixation of midshaft clavicular fractures. Precontoured clavicle plates may decrease hardware-related complications while improving healing rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods Using a private-payer national database, we identified 7826 patients who underwent clavicle open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in 2007 to 2011. Database patients were tracked for 2 years to assess hardware removal and revision fixation. In addition, we retrospectively identified 73 patients who underwent plate fixation of midshaft clavicular fractures at our institution. These patients completed the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) assessment, the EQ-5D (EuroQol, Rotterdam, The Netherlands) quality of life assessment, and a hardware-related outcomes survey. Results Among 7826 database patients, 994 (12.7%) underwent hardware removal and 78 (1%) required revision ORIF. The annual incidence of clavicle ORIF increased 61.5% between 2007 and 2011. In our institutional cohort, 56 patients (77%) were fixed with precontoured plates and 17 (23%) with standard plates. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, 11 patients (15%) underwent hardware removal and 1 patient (1.4%) experienced nonunion. Patients reported excellent outcomes, with average DASH of 4.0 ± 8.9 and EQ-5D of 0.89 ± 0.19. There were no differences in PROs, hardware removal, or union rate between plate types, although our study was underpowered for these outcomes. Patients who underwent hardware removal reported lower DASH, EQ-5D, satisfaction, and shoulder function compared with patients with hardware retained. Women were more likely to undergo hardware removal in the institutional ( P = .009) and the database ( P Conclusion Displaced midshaft clavicle fractures have high union rates with precontoured plate fixation. Women are 4 times more likely than men to have hardware removed. Patients undergoing clavicle hardware removal report worse long-term outcomes than patients with hardware retained.