Christian Gerhardt

Background and Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of early functional rehabilitation on clinical outcomes and tuberosity healing in older patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. We hypothesized that early functional rehabilitation would not compromise tuberosity healing and would result in comparable or improved outcomes versus postoperative immobilization. Methods: This retrospective matched-pair analysis included patients aged 70 years or older who underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures, with 12 to 24 months of follow-up. Group allocation was time-based: earlier patients received immobilization and later patients underwent early rehabilitation. Matching was based on sex, age, body mass index, fracture classification (Neer), and glenosphere size. Outcomes included patient-reported scores, range of motion, and radiographic assessment of tuberosity healing using standardized imaging. Results: Forty patients (20 per group) with a mean age of 80.7 years and a mean follow-up of 16.1 months were included. The early rehabilitation group demonstrated significantly higher Constant scores (p = 0.044), age- and sex-adjusted Constant scores (p = 0.033), and greater active external rotation (p = 0.002). Anatomical tuberosity healing was seen in 28 of 40 patients (70%). Greater tuberosity healing occurred in 75% and lesser tuberosity healing in 85% of patients with available axial imaging. One deep infection occurred in the early rehabilitation group and was successfully managed. Conclusions: Early functional rehabilitation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in older adults with proximal humerus fractures improved functional outcomes without compromising tuberosity healing.

Background: Patients suffering from osteoarthritis particularly complain about pain during day and night as well as loss of function. This consequently leads to impaired quality of life and therefore psychological stress. The surgical therapy of choice is joint replacement. Regarding the outcome after operation, expectations might differ between the patient and the surgeon. This can lead to dissatisfaction on both sides. This study aimed to document patients’ expectations of a planned shoulder joint replacement. The results were compared with assessments made by shoulder surgeons. Methods: In total, 50 patients scheduled for operative shoulder joint replacement were included in this study, as well as 10 shoulder surgeons. Patients were requested to fill out questionnaires preoperatively to provide sociodemographic data, PROMS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measures) with regard to the pathology and their expectations about surgery in terms of pain relief, gain of range of motion, strength as well as the impact on activities of daily and professional life and sports. In addition, surgeons were asked what they thought their patients expect. Results: The most important goal to achieve for patients was to relieve daytime pain, followed by improvement of self-care and the ability to reach above shoulder level. The most important factors for patients to achieve after operation were ‘pain relief’ in first place, ‘movement’ in second and ‘strength’ in third. This also applied to shoulder surgeons, who ranked ‘pain relief’ first, followed by ‘movement’ and ‘strength’. When patients where asked what is most important when it comes to choosing their surgeon, 68% voted for ‘surgical skills’, 28% for ‘age/experience’, followed by ‘empathy’, ‘sympathy’ and ‘appearance’. For surgeons, ‘age/experience’ obtained rank one, ‘surgical skills’ was ranked second, followed by ‘sympathy’, ‘empathy’ and ‘appearance’. Surgeons significantly underrated the factor ‘empathy’ in favor of ‘sympathy’. Conclusions: This study shows that patients’ expectations for shoulder joint replacement and surgeons’ assessments do not differ significantly. Relief from pain and better shoulder movement were crucial for patients to achieve after operation, which was in line with surgeons’ expectations. The most important factor for choosing the surgeon was ‘surgical skills’ for patients, while surgeons thought they would care more about ‘age and experience’. This underlines that patients’ expectations should be taken into account within the preoperative medical interview. This might allow an optimization of compliance of the patients and lead to a better satisfaction on both sides.

Objective: Functional posterior shoulder instability (FPSI) (type B1) is a severe type of instability, mainly in teenagers and young adults, that leads to loss of function, pain, and stigmatization among peers. An experimental nonsurgical treatment protocol based on neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) showed very promising early results in the treatment of FPSI. The hypothesis of this study was that NMES-enhanced physical therapy leads to better outcomes than physical therapy alone as the current gold standard of treatment in patients with FPSI. Methods: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, patients with FPSI were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either 6 weeks of physical therapy or 6 weeks of physical therapy with simultaneous motion-triggered NMES. Baseline scores as well as outcome scores at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after the intervention were obtained. The predefined primary outcome of this trial was the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) at the 3-month time point. Results: Forty-nine patients were randomized and eligible for the trial. The group that received physical therapy with simultaneous motion-triggered NMES showed a significantly better main outcome measurement in terms of the 3-month WOSI score (64% [SD = 16%] vs 51% [SD = 24%]). Two-thirds of the patients from the physical therapist group crossed over to the group that received physical therapy with simultaneous motion-triggered NMES due to dissatisfaction after the 3-month follow-up and showed a significant increase in their WOSI score from 49% [SD = 8%] to 67% [SD = 24%]. The frequency of instability episodes showed a significant improvement in the group that received physical therapy with simultaneous motion-triggered NMES at the 3-month follow-up and beyond, while in the physical therapist group, no significant difference was observed. Conclusion: The current study shows that NMES-enhanced physical therapy led to statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in outcomes in the treatment of FPSI compared to conventional physical therapy alone—from which even patients with prior unsatisfactory results after conventional physical therapy can benefit. Impact: Based on the results of this study, NMES-enhanced physical therapy is an effective new treatment option for FPSI, a severe type of shoulder instability. NMES-enhanced physical therapy should be preferred over conventional physical therapy for the treatment of patients with FPSI.

Purpose: The primary goal of shoulder stabilization procedures is to re-establish stability and many surgeons measure the success after shoulder stabilization surgery only by the absence of re-dislocation. However, patients might also suffer from pain, loss of range of motion and strength as well as anxiety and stigmatization and therefore have other expectations from a stabilization surgery than just a stable shoulder. Purpose of this study was to analyze if surgeons know what their patients typically expect from a shoulder stabilization surgery. Furthermore, the aim was to analyze the influence of various factors on patients’ expectations. Materials and Methods: 204 patients with a diagnosis of shoulder instability scheduled for surgical treatment were included in this prospective multicentric study. Preoperatively, objective and subjective scores were obtained and patients were asked about their postoperative expectations. Additionally, 25 surgeons were interviewed with regard to what they think their patients expect from the surgery using standardized questions. Results: With regard to postoperative expectations surveyed by the Hospital for Special Surgery questionnaire (HSS), the most important goal to achieve for the patients was ‘stopping the shoulder from dislocation’, followed by ‘to improve the ability to exercise or participate in sports’ and ‘being the shoulder to be back the way it was before the issue started’. The ranking of factors for patients was ‘stability’ as the most important to achieve, followed by ‘movement’, ‘strength’, ‘pain’ and ‘cosmetics’. For surgeons, the order was ‘stability’ (p = 0.004 **), ‘movement’ (p = 0.225), ‘pain’ (p = 0.509), ‘strength’ (p = 0.007 **) and ‘cosmetics’ (p = 0.181). There was a significant difference between patients and surgeons with regard to gaining stability at the cost of movement (p = 0.001 **). Conclusion: Patients and surgeons expectations regarding outcome after surgical shoulder stabilization procedures are quite similar with limited topics of disagreement. Generally, surgeons tend to overrate the importance of stability at the costs of other factors.