BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the factors affecting the prognosis for improvement in function and comfort with time after shoulder arthroplasty is important to clinical decision-making. This study sought to identify some of these factors in 176 consecutive patients undergoing the ream-and-run procedure. METHODS: The time course for improvement in patient function and comfort was determined for the entire group as well as for subsets by sex, age, diagnosis, preoperative function, and surgery date. Patients having repeat surgery were analyzed in detail. RESULTS: Shoulder comfort and function increased progressively after the ream-and-run procedure, reaching a steady state by approximately twenty months. The shoulders in 124 patients with at least two years of follow-up were improved by a minimal clinically important difference. The shoulders in sixteen patients with at least two years of follow-up were not improved by the minimal clinically important difference. Twenty-two patients had repeat procedures, but only seven had revision to a total shoulder arthroplasty. Fourteen patients did not have either a known revision arthroplasty or two years of follow-up. The best prognosis was for male patients over the age of sixty years, with primary osteoarthritis, no prior surgical procedures, a preoperative score on the simple shoulder test of ≥5 points, and surgery after 2004. Repeat surgical procedures were more common in patients who had a greater number of surgical procedures before the ream-and-run surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study is unique in that it characterizes the factors affecting the time course for improvement in shoulder comfort and function after a ream-and-run procedure. Improvement occurs after this procedure for at least 1.5 years. This procedure appears to be best suited for an older male patient with reasonable preoperative shoulder function without prior shoulder surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of the factors affecting the prognosis for improvement in function and comfort with time after shoulder arthroplasty is important to clinical decision-making. This study sought to identify some of these factors in 176 consecutive patients undergoing the ream-and-run procedure. METHODS: The time course for improvement in patient function and comfort was determined for the entire group as well as for subsets by sex, age, diagnosis, preoperative function, and surgery date. Patients having repeat surgery were analyzed in detail. RESULTS: Shoulder comfort and function increased progressively after the ream-and-run procedure, reaching a steady state by approximately twenty months. The shoulders in 124 patients with at least two years of follow-up were improved by a minimal clinically important difference. The shoulders in sixteen patients with at least two years of follow-up were not improved by the minimal clinically important difference. Twenty-two patients had repeat procedures, but only seven had revision to a total shoulder arthroplasty. Fourteen patients did not have either a known revision arthroplasty or two years of follow-up. The best prognosis was for male patients over the age of sixty years, with primary osteoarthritis, no prior surgical procedures, a preoperative score on the simple shoulder test of ≥5 points, and surgery after 2004. Repeat surgical procedures were more common in patients who had a greater number of surgical procedures before the ream-and-run surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study is unique in that it characterizes the factors affecting the time course for improvement in shoulder comfort and function after a ream-and-run procedure. Improvement occurs after this procedure for at least 1.5 years. This procedure appears to be best suited for an older male patient with reasonable preoperative shoulder function without prior shoulder surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Frederick A Matsen; Joseph P Iannotti; R Sean Churchill; Lieven De Wilde; T Bradley Edwards; Matthew C Evans; Edward V Fehringer; Gordon I Groh; James D Kelly; Christopher M Kilian; Giovanni Merolla; Tom R Norris; Giuseppe Porcellini; Edwin E Spencer; Anne Vidil; Michael A Wirth; Stacy M Russ; Moni Neradilek; Jeremy S Somerson Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Jeremy S Somerson; Patrick Sander; Kamal Bohsali; Ryan Tibbetts; Charles A Rockwood; Michael A Wirth Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Frederick A Matsen; Stacy M Russ; Phuong T Vu; Jason E Hsu; Robert M Lucas; Bryan A Comstock Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Suneel B Bhat; Mark Lazarus; Charles Getz; Gerald R Williams; Surena Namdari Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 4.176