Upload
maximillian-waters
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Functional Outcome After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty:
Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD
Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service
Hospital for Special Surgery
Can Perioperative Factors be Predictive?
I Lawrence V. Gulotta am a consultant for Biomet, Inc,
Level of Evidence: IV
BackgroundTSA has excellent clinical track record
• JSES 2002 (Norris et al)– Multicenter study– 95% good/excellent results– Hemi/TSA
• JSES 2005 (Thornhill)– Survivorship 85% @ 20 years– DASH/survivorship
• JBJS 2003 (Iannotti et al)– Glenoid bone erosion &
humeral head subluxation worse outcome– Hemi/TSA
Background
Most studies combine TSA’s and Hemi’s, or use non-validated outcomes scores.
Purpose
• To determine if perioperative patient and radiographic factors can predict functional outcomes for patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty?
Methods
Inclusion•Prospective registry data •1°TSA for OA •Baseline & 2 year data
Exclusion•Patients not captured•Dx other than OA•Revision case
Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry
• Prospective data collection– 2007 - present (ongoing)– 22 surgeons
• Enrollment– All patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty at HSS
• Data
DemographicsMedical HIstoryASES Score
Details of ProcedureComplications
ComplicationsASESSatisfaction
ComplicationsASESSatisfaction
Baseline Intra-Op 2 Year 5 Year
Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry
1190 Patients Enrolled
Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry
Patient Factors
•Gender•Age•Diagnosis•Side•ASA status•Heart disease•Lung disease•Diabetes•Cuff status
*whether or not they underwent reoperation
Preoperative X-rays
Glenoid bone loss•<5mm•5-10mm•>10mm
Humeral Head Sblx•> 25% considered abnormal
JBJS 2003;85:21-258
Postoperative X-rays
Glenoid Version– Gerber’s α angle
Humeral head height– Tuberosity in relation to
head
JSES 2003;12:493-6Eur J Rad 2008;68:159-69
> 10 degrees considered poor >10mm considered “overstuffed”
Functional Outcome
Defined by American Shoulder Elbow Surgeon Assessment Form (ASES)
– Primary PRO at baseline & 2-year f/u– 50 points as cut-off (poor)
Michener et al– Valid, responsive, reliable, & internally consistent– MCID ~ 6.4 points– MDC ~ 9.4 points– Minimal (66), moderate (45), & maximal (40.7) limitation
JSES 2002;11:587-94Arthritis Care and Research 2009;61:623-32
Statistical Methods
•Univariate analysis of potential risk factors and outcome of interest
•Multivariate logistic regression analysis– Control confounding effects– Adjust for other risk factors in model
•p < 0.05 = significant
•Crude OR for each factor– Independent association btwn risk factor and outcome
Results
Patients Characteristics
• 189 shoulders– 214 Eligible (88% f/u rate)
• Average age 66 yo (40-85)• 52.4% male; 47.6% female
– 12.6% w/ heart disease– 5.4% w/ lung disease– 6% w/ diabetes– 2.7% w/ cuff tear
Results
Measurement Total N Percentage
Glenoid Erosion
< 5mm 126 69%
5-10mm 43 24%
>10mm 12 7%
HH Sblx
Yes 20 11%
no 163 89%
Preoperative Measurements
Results
Measurement Average Range
Prosthesis Height 4.8 mm -3 to 12 mm
Glenoid Version -6.9° -20 to 2°
Postoperative Measurements
Results
Overall ASES Scores
Mean SD
Baseline 35.72 17.32
2-year 85.51 13.68
Change 49.79
p-value (w/in group) <0.0001
Five patients needed repeat surgery (4%) Eight patients failed to reach ASES of 50
96% Good Functional Result
Results
Good vs Poor ASES Scores
> 50 (181) < 50 (8)
Mean SD Mean SD p-value
Baseline 38.92 16.44 24.50 15.02 0.016
2-year 87.51 12.77 28.46 12.90 <0.001
Change 48.59 20 3.96 14.17 <0.001
p-value (w/in group)
<0.0001 0.573
Why did these patients do so poorly?
Analysis Crude 95% CI 95% CI Adjusted 95% CI 95% CI
Variable OR Lower Upper OR Lower Upper p-value
Age at surgery 1.09 0.99 1.20 1.11 0.96 1.29 0.050
Female sex 3.46 0.68 17.62 --- --- --- ---
Non-OA diagnosis 3.86 0.40 37.35 --- --- --- ---
Bilateral 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- ---
*Repeat surgery on the joint replaced* 4.17 0.44 39.44 --- --- --- ---
Cuff Repair Performed 10.50 0.85 130.16 --- --- --- ---
Heart disease 5.11 0.79 33.11 --- --- --- ---
Lung Disease 7.00 1.22 40.30 13.71 1.28 147.26 0.031
Diabetes 12.60 2.55 62.25 11.97 1.01 142.42 0.049
*PRE Glenoid erosion* 0.44 0.07 3.03 --- --- --- ---
*PRE HH subluxation (+)* 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- --- --- ---POST Abnormal humeral head height (outside 2-5mm) 0.20 0.02 1.84 --- --- --- ---
*POST Overstuffed HH height (>10mm)* 1.07 0.11 10.52 --- --- --- ---
POST Abnormal glenoid version 1.27 0.20 7.96 --- --- --- ---
*POST Glenoid version <-10 deg* 0.87 0.07 10.01 --- --- --- ---
What happened to those 8 patients?
Chart review and personal contact• 2 subscapularis ruptures
– x1 attempted repair (failed)– x1 w/ noncompliance (subjectively ok)
• 2 w/ significant cervical radiculopathy
• 1 w/ global cuff weakness
• 1 w/ significant preop AVN
• 2 w/ apparent good subjective result
*preop ASES avg 25
Reoperations: 5 total
• 3 subscapularis repairs– 3 to 5 months postop– avg age 72 years (63-84)– NONE HEALED– 2 went on to have poor result– 1 went on to have good result
• 2 biceps tenodeses• No Early Loosening• No Posterior Instability
Conclusions•TSA offers excellent short term functional results
•Significant gains in ASES (~50 points)
•Predictors for poor result– Age, Diabetes, and lung disease -> Patient Expectations– Very low preop ASES score
•Subscapularis rupture: #1 reoperation- LTO?, Subscap Sparing TSA?, Primary RSA?- Subscap repair often not successful -> RSA
•Address the biceps: #2 reoperation
Strengths• Prospective• Registry data• Multiple surgeons• Patient & surgical factors assessed• TSA only (hemi’s excluded)• Validated Outcome
Weaknesses• Short-term
Special Thanks• Fellow
– Brian Grawe, MD• Stats
– Joe Nguyen– Emily Lai
• Research Coordinator– Sherrie Vassallo
• RA– Greg Mahony
• Contributing Surgeons– Drs. Craig, Dines, Warren, and shoulder registry group
Thank You