Background: Aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening can lead to the failure of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Estimates of the prevalence of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening after RTSA are required to guide clinical decisions, but published results are variable and lack precision. The goal of this meta-analysis was to determine a precise estimate of the prevalence of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening after RTSA and to explore variation in the prevalence according to different variables, such as the type of procedure (primary or revision), preoperative diagnosis, the center of rotation of the glenoid component (medialized or lateralized), study size, the definition of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening, and the duration of follow-up. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases for English-language articles describing the outcomes after RTSA with a minimum 12-month follow-up in which radiographic findings of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening were reported. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and meta-regression was used to explore the influence of variables on heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: One hundred and three studies (covering 6,583 RTSAs) performed from 1991 to 2015 met our inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of radiographic aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening for all RTSAs was 1.16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80% to 1.69%). The prevalence of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening was lower among primary RTSAs (0.90%; 95% CI, 0.54% to 1.49%) than among revision RTSAs (3.64%; 95% CI, 1.91% to 6.84%). The pooled prevalence of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening by diagnosis was 2.69% for osteoarthritis with bone loss, 1.71% for cuff tear arthropathy, 1.20% for rheumatoid arthritis, 1.08% for sequelae of fracture, 0.94% for irreparable massive cuff tear, and 0.25% for acute proximal humeral fracture. The prevalence of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening was not significantly different for prostheses with a medialized center of rotation (1.15%) versus a lateralized center of rotation (1.84%). Conclusions: To our knowledge, the present study represents the first meta-analysis investigating only aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening after RTSA. Multiple variables were found to be associated with the prevalence of aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening. The rates reported here are lower than those reported previously because of the inclusion of more recent evidence and more studies that evaluated aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

When performing diagnostic and surgical arthroscopic procedures on the shoulder, the importance of patient positioning cannot be understated. The optimum patient positioning for shoulder arthroscopy should enhance intraoperative joint visualization and surgical accessibility while minimizing potential perioperative risk to the patient. Most shoulder arthroscopy procedures can be reliably performed with the patient either in the lateral decubitus (LD) or beach chair (BC) position. Although patient positioning for shoulder arthroscopy has been subject of controversy, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest superiority of one position versus another. Each position offers advantages and disadvantages and surgeon's experience and training are pivotal on selecting one position versus another. Regardless of the position, a proper positioning of the patient should provide adequate access to the joint while minimizing complications. The purpose of this review is to summarize setup and technical aspects, the advantages and disadvantages, and the possible complications of the LD and BC positions in shoulder arthroscopy.

Background: Continuous passive motion (CPM) has been used for decades, but we are not aware of any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CPM has been compared with physical therapy (PT) for rehabilitation following release of elbow contracture. Methods: In this single-blinded, single-center RCT, we randomly assigned patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture to a rehabilitation protocol involving either CPM or PT. The primary outcomes were the rate of recovery and the arc of elbow motion (range of motion) at 1 year. The rate of recovery was evaluated by measuring range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months. The secondary outcomes included other range-of-motion-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), flexion strength and endurance, grip strength, and forearm circumference at multiple time points. Results: A total of 24 patients were assigned to receive CPM, and 27 were assigned to receive PT. At 1 year, CPM was superior to PT with regard to the range of motion, with an estimated treatment difference of 9° (95% confidence interval [CI], 3° to 16°; p = 0.007). Similarly, the use of CPM led to a greater range of motion at 6 weeks and 3 months than PT. The percentage of lost motion recovered at 1 year was higher in the CPM group (51%) than in the PT group (36%) (p = 0.01). The probability of restoring a functional range of motion at 1 year was 62% higher in the CPM group than in the PT group (risk ratio for functional range of motion, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.61; p = 0.04). PROM scores were similar in the 2 groups at all time points, except for a difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) elbow function subscale, in favor of CPM, at 6 weeks. The use of CPM decreased swelling and reduced the loss of flexion strength, flexion endurance, and grip strength on day 3, with no between-group differences thereafter. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing arthroscopic release of elbow contracture, those who received CPM obtained a faster recovery and a greater range of motion at 1 year, with a higher chance of restoration of functional elbow motion than those who underwent routine PT. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

It has been suggested that, during primary shoulder arthroplasty, surgeons should identify the axillary nerve through direct visualization, palpation, or the "tug test" to prevent iatrogenic nerve injury. Our goal was to document the rate of isolated axillary nerve injury (IANI) in patients who had undergone primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) without routine identification of the axillary nerve. Data on 869 cases of primary shoulder arthroplasty (338 TSAs and 531 RTSAs) performed by 1 surgeon between 2003 and 2017 were reviewed. Neither the tug test nor identification of the axillary nerve through palpation or visualization was used in any case. The primary outcome was new IANI documented within 3 months after arthroplasty. The frequency of IANI was summarized using point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Six cases met the criteria for IANI. The overall incidence of IANI was 0.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.4%). The incidence of IANI was 0.3% (95% CI, 0%-1.6%) after TSA and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.3%-2.1%) after RTSA. All IANIs were cases of neurapraxia, and all patients had experienced complete neurologic recovery at last follow-up. Complete, permanent IANI resulting from direct surgical trauma during primary shoulder arthroplasty can be avoided without using the tug test or routine identification of the nerve. A low incidence of partial temporary IANI can be expected, which may be related to indirect traction injuries.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become a highly successful treatment option for various shoulder conditions, leading to a significant increase in its utilization since its approval in 2003. However, postoperative complications, including scapular notching, prosthetic instability, and component loosening, remain a concern. These complications can often be attributed to technical errors during component implantation, emphasizing the importance of proper preoperative planning and accurate positioning of prosthetic components. Improper baseplate and glenosphere positioning in RSA have been linked to impingement, reduced range of motion, and increased scapular notching. Additionally, the relationship between component positioning and intrinsic stability of RSA has been established, with glenoid component retroversion exceeding 10° posing a risk to implant stability. Adequate initial glenoid baseplate fixation, achieved through optimal seating and the use of appropriate screws, is crucial for long-term success and prevention of early failure. Factors such as lateralization and distalization also influence outcomes and complications in RSA, yet standardized guidelines for preoperative planning in these parameters are still lacking. Despite the impact of component position on outcomes, glenoid component implantation remains challenging, with position errors being common even among experienced surgeons. Challenges arise due to factors such as deformity, bone defects, limited exposure, and the absence of reliable bony landmarks intraoperatively. With the evolving understanding of RSA biomechanics and the significance of implant configuration and positioning, advancements in preoperative planning and surgical aids have emerged. This review article explores the current evidence on preoperative planning techniques in RSA, including plain radiographs, three-dimensional imaging, computer planning software, intraoperative navigation, and augmented reality (AR), highlighting their potential benefits and advancements in improving implant position accuracy.

We previously reported on 40 patients (42 shoulders) with glenoid bone loss who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid reaming and without bone-grafting. The purpose of this study was to report the updated results in 29 patients (31 shoulders) from the original cohort who were available after a minimum 5-year follow-up. Since the last report, 1 additional patient had a baseplate failure. The cumulative incidence of baseplate failure requiring revision, accounting for the competing risk of death, was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2% to 12%) at 2 years and 5.2% (95% CI, 0.9% to 16%) at 5 and 10 years. Patients who did not have an implant failure had a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement compared with their preoperative scores on a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Simple Shoulder Test, and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Scapular notching occurred in 6 shoulders (19%). For the studied indication, reaming the glenoid flat produced excellent prosthetic survival with clinical results maintained at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.