A Comparison of Complications and Survivorship after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Proximal Humerus Fracture compared with Cuff Tear Arthropathy

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Johns Hopkins Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Charter Drive, Columbia, USA

2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington DC, USA

3 Massachusetts General Hospital, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Boston, MA, USA

4 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Abstract

Objectives: Traditionally used to treat rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), reverse total shoulder 
arthroplasty (RTSA) is becoming increasingly utilized for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures 
(PHF). The purpose of this study was to use a matched cohort analysis to assess differences in 90 -day 
complications as well as 2-year and 5-year implant survival between patients undergoing RTSA for CTA 
and patients undergoing RTSA for PHF.
Methods: Patients with at least a 5-year follow-up who underwent primary RTSA for either PHF or CTA were 
identified in a national database (PearlDiver Technologies) using current procedural terminology (CPT) and 
international classification of diseases (ICD) 9 and 10 codes. Patients with a surgical indication of PHF were matched 
with patients with a surgical indication of CTA based on age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, smoking status, and 
obesity (body mass index (BMI)>30). All-cause revision at the 2-year and 5-year postoperative time intervals were 
assessed. Reimbursements for the surgical care episode up to the 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year postoperative 
intervals were also assessed. Bivariate analysis was performed with a significance set at P<0.05.
Results: In total, 802 PHF patients were matched with 802 CTA patients. Compared to CTA patients, PHF patients 
undergoing RTSA were significantly at increased risk of atrial fibrillation, anemia, and heart failure within 90 days of 
surgery. Notably, there was no significant difference in all-cause revision surgery at 2-year and 5-year postoperative 
intervals or hospital reimbursements at the 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year postoperative intervals. 
Conclusion: Preoperative indication appears to be an important driver of healthcare utilization for RTSA, as PHF 
patients undergoing RTSA have a higher risk of short-term postoperative complications compared to CTA patients. 
However, there is no difference in hospital reimbursement for the two indications of RTSA, suggesting that current 
payment modalities may not appropriately adjust for risk based on the surgical indication.
 Level of evidence: III

Keywords

References

  1. Novikov D, Cizmic Z, Feng JE, Iorio R, Meftah M. The Historical Development of Value-Based Care: How We Got Here. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(22):e144. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00571.
  2. Schairer WW, Lane JM, Halsey DA, Iorio R, Padgett DE, McLawhorn AS. The Frank Stinchfield Award: Total Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture Is Not a Typical DRG 470: A Propensity-matched Cohort Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(2):353-360. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4868-2.
  3. Aiello FA, Roddy SP. Inpatient coding and the diagnosis-related group. J Vasc Surg. 2017; 66(5):1621-1623. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.08.030.
  4. Malik AT, Li M, Khan SN, Alexander JH, Li D, Scharschmidt TJ. Are current DRG-based bundled payment models for revision total joint arthroplasty risk-adjusting adequately? Bone Joint J. 2020; 102-B (7):959-964. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2019-1641.R1.
  5. McLean AS, Price N, Graves S, Hatton A, Taylor FJ. Nationwide trends in management of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of 77,966 cases from 2008 to 2017. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(11):2072-2078. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.03.034.
  6. Padilla JA, Gabor JA, Kalkut GE, et al. Comparison of Payment Margins Between the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative and the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model Shows a Marked Reduction for a Successful Program. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019; 101(21):1948-1954. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00238.
  7. Lung BE, Kanjiya S, Bisogno M, Komatsu DE, Wang ED. Preoperative indications for total shoulder arthroplasty predict adverse postoperative complications. JSES Open Access. 2019 J;3(2):99-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.03.003.
  8. Liao JM, Wong SL, Chu D. Going Beyond One Size Fits All in Surgical Bundled Payments. JAMA Surg. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1948.
  9. Best MJ, Aziz KT, Wilckens JH, McFarland EG, Srikumaran U. Increasing Incidence of Primary Reverse and Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30(5):1159-1166. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.010.
  10. Dillon MT, Prentice HA, Burfeind WE, Chan PH, Navarro RA. The increasing role of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2019; 50(3):676-680. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.034.
  11. Hasty EK, Jernigan EW 3rd, Soo A, Varkey DT, Kamath GV. Trends in Surgical Management and Costs for Operative Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly. Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):e641-e647. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20170411-03.
  12. McLean AS, Price N, Graves S, Hatton A, Taylor FJ. Nationwide trends in management of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of 77,966 cases from 2008 to 2017. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(11):2072-2078. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.03.034.
  13. Garcia GH, Taylor SA, DePalma BJ, et al. Patient Activity Levels After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: What Are Patients Doing? Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43(11):2816-2821. doi: 10.1177/0363546515597673.
  14. De Martino I, Gulotta LV. The Effect of Obesity in Shoulder Arthroplasty Outcomes and Complications. Orthop Clin North Am. 2018; 49(3):353-360. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2018.02.010.
  15. Crespo AM, Luthringer TA, Frost A, et al. Does reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture portend poorer outcomes than for elective indications? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30(1):40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.053.
  16. Desai AA, Bolus R, Nissenson A, et al. Is there "cherry picking" in the ESRD Program? Perceptions from a Dialysis Provider Survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 4(4):772-777. doi: 10.2215/CJN.05661108.

17. Liu JN, Agarwalla A, Gowd AK, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture: a more complex episode of care than for cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(11):2139-2146. doi: 

  1. Novikov D, Cizmic Z, Feng JE, Iorio R, Meftah M. The Historical Development of Value-Based Care: How We Got Here. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(22):e144. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00571.
  2. Schairer WW, Lane JM, Halsey DA, Iorio R, Padgett DE, McLawhorn AS. The Frank Stinchfield Award: Total Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture Is Not a Typical DRG 470: A Propensity-matched Cohort Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(2):353-360. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4868-2.
  3. Aiello FA, Roddy SP. Inpatient coding and the diagnosis-related group. J Vasc Surg. 2017; 66(5):1621-1623. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.08.030.
  4. Malik AT, Li M, Khan SN, Alexander JH, Li D, Scharschmidt TJ. Are current DRG-based bundled payment models for revision total joint arthroplasty risk-adjusting adequately? Bone Joint J. 2020; 102-B (7):959-964. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2019-1641.R1.
  5. McLean AS, Price N, Graves S, Hatton A, Taylor FJ. Nationwide trends in management of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of 77,966 cases from 2008 to 2017. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(11):2072-2078. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.03.034.
  6. Padilla JA, Gabor JA, Kalkut GE, et al. Comparison of Payment Margins Between the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative and the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model Shows a Marked Reduction for a Successful Program. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019; 101(21):1948-1954. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00238.
  7. Lung BE, Kanjiya S, Bisogno M, Komatsu DE, Wang ED. Preoperative indications for total shoulder arthroplasty predict adverse postoperative complications. JSES Open Access. 2019 J;3(2):99-107. doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.03.003.
  8. Liao JM, Wong SL, Chu D. Going Beyond One Size Fits All in Surgical Bundled Payments. JAMA Surg. 2020. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.1948.
  9. Best MJ, Aziz KT, Wilckens JH, McFarland EG, Srikumaran U. Increasing Incidence of Primary Reverse and Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30(5):1159-1166. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.08.010.
  10. Dillon MT, Prentice HA, Burfeind WE, Chan PH, Navarro RA. The increasing role of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2019; 50(3):676-680. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.034.
  11. Hasty EK, Jernigan EW 3rd, Soo A, Varkey DT, Kamath GV. Trends in Surgical Management and Costs for Operative Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly. Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):e641-e647. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20170411-03.
  12. McLean AS, Price N, Graves S, Hatton A, Taylor FJ. Nationwide trends in management of proximal humeral fractures: an analysis of 77,966 cases from 2008 to 2017. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(11):2072-2078. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.03.034.
  13. Garcia GH, Taylor SA, DePalma BJ, et al. Patient Activity Levels After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: What Are Patients Doing? Am J Sports Med. 2015; 43(11):2816-2821. doi: 10.1177/0363546515597673.
  14. De Martino I, Gulotta LV. The Effect of Obesity in Shoulder Arthroplasty Outcomes and Complications. Orthop Clin North Am. 2018; 49(3):353-360. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2018.02.010.
  15. Crespo AM, Luthringer TA, Frost A, et al. Does reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture portend poorer outcomes than for elective indications? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021; 30(1):40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.053.
  16. Desai AA, Bolus R, Nissenson A, et al. Is there "cherry picking" in the ESRD Program? Perceptions from a Dialysis Provider Survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 4(4):772-777. doi: 10.2215/CJN.05661108.
  17. Liu JN, Agarwalla A, Gowd AK, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture: a more complex episode of care than for cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(11):2139-2146. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.03.032.
  18. Burkhart KJ, Dietz SO, Bastian L, Thelen U, Hoffmann R, Müller LP. The treatment of proximal humeral fracture in adults. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013; 110(35-36):591-597. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0591.
  19. Cappellari A, Trovarelli G, Andriolo M, Berizzi A, Ruggieri P. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus complex fractures in elderly: A single institution experience. Injury. 2022; 53 Suppl 1:S2-S7. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.07.056.
  20. Grassi FA, Alberio R, Ratti C, et al. Shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures in the elderly: The path from Neer to Grammont. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2020; 12(Suppl 1):8659. doi: 10.4081/or.2020.8659.
  21. Mechlenburg I, Rasmussen S, Unbehaun D, Amundsen A, Rasmussen JV. Patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for failed nonoperative treatment of proximal humerus fracture have low implant survival and low patient-reported outcomes: 837 cases from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop. 2020; 91(3):319-325. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1730660
  22. Sibia US, Turcotte JJ, Klune JR, Gibson GR. Are we ready for bundled payments for major bowel surgery? Surg Endosc. 2020; 34(11):4950-4956. doi:10.1007/s00464-019-07287-8.
  23. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. MS-DRG Classifications and Software. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/MS-DRG-Classifications-and-Software. Accessed October 13, 2020.
  24. Haddad DN, Shipe ME, Absi TS, et al. Preparing for Bundled Payments: Impact of Complications Post-Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on Costs. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021; 111(4):1258-1263 .doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.06.105.
  25. Humbyrd CJ, Wu SS, Trujillo AJ, Socal MP, Anderson GF. Patient Selection after Mandatory Bundled Payments for Hip and Knee Replacement: Limited Evidence of Lemon-Dropping or Cherry-Picking. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020; 102(4):325- 331. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00756.
  26. Gosfield AG. No need for cherry-picking and lemon-dropping with good bundled payment agreements. MGMA Connex. 2014; 14(2):20-23.
  27. Hatta T, Werthel JD, Wagner ER, et al. Effect of smoking on complications following primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 26(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.011.
  28. Han RJ, Sing DC, Feeley BT, Ma CB, Zhang AL. Proximal humerus fragility fractures: recent trends in nonoperative and operative treatment in the Medicare population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016; 25(2):256-261. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.07.015.
  29. Vora M, Sing DC, Curry EJ, Kamal RN, Li X. National Trends in the Surgical Treatment of Chronic Rotator Cuff Tear in Patients Without Arthritis. Orthopedics. 2020; 43(5):e409-e414. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20200619-09.
  30. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative: General Information. Available at: https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/bundled-payments. Accessed October 13, 2020.
  31. Humbyrd CJ. The Ethics of Bundled Payments in Total Joint Replacement: "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping.". J Clin Ethics. 2018; 29(1):62-8.
The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 11, Issue 3
March 2023
Pages 166-172

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 13 January 2022
  • Revise Date: 27 August 2022
  • Accept Date: 28 August 2022
  • First Publish Date: 01 March 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics