Original Research

Medical Complications and Outcomes After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Analysis

Publish date: October 4, 2018

References

1. Fox TJ, Cil A, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):859-863. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.020.

2. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2249-2254. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.

3. Ahmadi S, Lawrence TM, Sahota S, et al. The incidence and risk factors for blood transfusion in revision shoulder arthroplasty: our institution's experience and review of the literature. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(1):43–48. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.03.010.

4. Boyd AD Jr, Aliabadi P, Thornhill TS. Postoperative proximal migration in total shoulder arthroplasty. Incidence and significance. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(1):31-37. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(06)80154-3.

5. Choi T, Horodyski M, Struk AM, Sahajpal DT, Wright TW. Incidence of early radiolucent lines after glenoid component insertion for total shoulder arthroplasty: a radiographic study comparing pressurized and unpressurized cementing techniques. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(3):403-408. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.05.041.

6. Favard L, Katz D, Colmar M, Benkalfate T, Thomazeau H, Emily S. Total shoulder arthroplasty - arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthropathies: results and complications after a minimum follow-up of 8 years according to the type of arthroplasty and etiology. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4 Suppl):S41-S47. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2012.04.003.

7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Introduction to the HCUP national inpatient sample (NIS) 2012. https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/NISIntroduction2012.pdf 2012. Accessed June 9, 2013.

8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUP quality control procedures. https://hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/quality.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2013.

9. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Comparative analysis of HCUP and NHDS inpatient discharge data: technical supplement 13. https://archive.ahrq.gov/research/data/hcup/nhds/niscomp.html. Accessed June 15, 2013.

10. Rajaee SS, Trofa D, Matzkin E, Smith E. National trends in primary total hip arthroplasty in extremely young patients: a focus on bearing surface usage. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1870-1878. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.04.006.

11. Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(7):1614-1620. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01220.

12. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8-27. doi:10.1097/00005650-199801000-00004.

13. Cahill KS, Chi JH, Day A, Claus EB. Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA. 2009;302(1):58-66. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.956.

14. Lin CA, Kuo AC, Takemoto S. Comorbidities and perioperative complications in HIV-positive patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(11):1028-1036. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00269.

15. Rasouli MR, Maltenfort MG, Ross D, Hozack WJ, Memtsoudis SG, Parvizi J. Perioperative morbidity and mortality following bilateral total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):142-148. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.001.

16. Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1138-1144. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa011788.

17. Hu JC, Gold KF, Pashos CL, Mehta SS, Litwin MS. Temporal trends in radical prostatectomy complications from 1991 to 1998. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1443-1448. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000056046.16588.e4.

18. Abdollah F, Sun M, Schmitges J, et al. Surgical caseload is an important determinant of continent urinary diversion rate at radical cystectomy: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(9):2680-2687. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1618-2.

19. Panageas KS, Schrag D, Riedel E, Bach PB, Begg CB. The effect of clustering of outcomes on the association of procedure volume and surgical outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(8):658-665. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-139-8-200310210-00009.

20. Joice GA, Deibert CM, Kates M, Spencer BA, McKiernan JM. "Never events”: centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services complications after radical cystectomy. Urology. 2013;81(3):527-532. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.09.050.

21. Taunton MJ, McIntosh AL, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Total shoulder arthroplasty with a metal-backed, bone-ingrowth glenoid component. Medium to long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(10):2180-2188. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00966.

22. Raiss P, Schmitt M, Bruckner T, et al. Results of cemented total shoulder replacement with a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(23):e1711-e1710. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00580.

23. O'Malley NT, Fleming FJ, Gunzler DD, Messing SP, Kates SL. Factors independently associated with complications and length of stay after hip arthroplasty: analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1832-1837. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.04.025.

24. White CB, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Ninety-day mortality after shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(7):886-888. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00269-9.

25. Singh JA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Ninety day mortality and its predictors after primary shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 4,019 patients from 1976-2008. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:231. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-12-231.

26. Fehringer EV, Mikuls TR, Michaud KD, Henderson WG, O'Dell JR. Shoulder arthroplasties have fewer complications than hip or knee arthroplasties in US veterans. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(3):717-722. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0996-2.

27. Farmer KW, Hammond JW, Queale WS, Keyurapan E, McFarland EG. Shoulder arthroplasty versus hip and knee arthroplasties: a comparison of outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:183-189. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000238839.26423.8d.

28. Farng E, Zingmond D, Krenek L, Soohoo NF. Factors predicting complication rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):557-563. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.005.

DISCUSSION

TSA continues to be associated with high levels of satisfaction;¹ as a result, its incidence is increasing.² As our understanding and efficiency improves nationally, it is imperative that we determine the short-term and longer-term outcomes and complications. In addition, the factors that may affect prognosis must be elucidated to provide a more individualized and effective standard of care. To date, most of the outcome studies of TSA have evaluated long-term outcomes and specific implant-related complications.^1,5,6,21,22 Our intent was to evaluate the complications that occur in the postoperative period and their effect on unique “patient care” outcomes. With knowledge of these complications and the predisposing factors, we can better assess patients, risk-stratify, and provide appropriate guidelines.

We noted that complications occurring after TSA are not uncommon, with >6% of patients suffering a postoperative complication. In this study, the number of complications noted was associated with worse patient outcomes. In addition, we noted that patients undergoing a TSA have a significant burden of comorbidities; however, hematologic and fluid disorders (eg, iron deficiency anemia, pulmonary circulatory disorders, and fluid imbalances) were most important in predicting postoperative complications.

Increased LOS in the hospital after TSA was associated with the occurrence of complications. Of all noted complications, shock and infectious and vascular complications led to the longest hospitalizations. Hospital-acquired pneumonia was the most common infectious etiology, while pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis were the most consistent vascular complications. Although seldom studied in the TSA population, a similar finding has been noted in patients after THA. O’Malley and colleagues,²³ using the American College of Surgeon’s National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, identified independent factors that were associated with complications and average prolonged LOS. They noted that the occurrence of major complications was associated with a prolonged LOS. Some, but not all the major complications, included organ space infection, cardiac events, pneumonia, and venous thromboembolic events.²³ Therefore, attempts to limit the amount of time spent in hospitals and control the associated costs must focus on managing the incidence of complications.

Postoperative mortality after TSA was uncommon, occurring in 0.07% of the patients in this study. The low incidence of mortality noted in this study is probably related to the fact that our data represent mortality, whereas in the hospital and, unlike most mortality studies, it does not account for patient demise that may occur in the months after surgery. Other reports have noted that mortality occurs in <1.5% of these patients.^24-28 Singh and colleagues²⁵ observed in their evaluation of perioperative mortality after TSA a mortality rate of 0.8% with 90 days after 4380 shoulder replacements performed at their institution. Using multivariate analysis, they were able to identify associations between mortality and increasing American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class and Charlson Comorbidity Index. These results in relation to ours would indicate that the majority of patients who die after shoulder arthroplasty do so after initial discharge. Although we could not determine a causal relationship between mortality and patient comorbidities, we noted that certain complications strongly correlated with mortality. In patients who died, there was a relatively high incidence of cardiac (60.5%) and respiratory (43.1%) complications. Similarly, although postoperative shock was almost nonexistent in the patients who survived surgery (0.04%), it was much more common in the patients who suffered mortality (26.6%).

This study is not without limitations. Data were extracted from a national database, therefore precluding the inclusion of specific details of surgery and functional assessment. Inherent to ICD-9 coding, we were unable to assess the exact detail and severity of complications. For instance, we cannot be certain what criteria were used to define “acute renal failure” for each patient. This study is retrospective in nature and therefore adequate randomization and standardization of patients is not possible. Similarly, the nature of the database may not allow for exacting our inclusion and exclusion criteria. However, the large sample size of the patient population lessens the chance of potential biases and type 2 errors. Prior to October 2010, reverse shoulder arthroplasty was coded under the ICD-9procedural code 81.80 as TSA. Therefore, there is some overlap between TSA and reverse shoulder arthroplasty in our data. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty is now coded under ICD-9 procedural code 81.88. It is possible that results may differ if reverse shoulder arthroplasty were excluded from our patient cohort. This can be an area of future research.

CONCLUSION

Although much is known about the long-term hardware and functional complications after TSA, in this study, we have attempted to broaden the understanding of perioperative complications and the associated sequelae. Complications are common after TSA surgery and are related to adverse outcomes. In the setting of healthcare changes, the surgeon and the patient must understand the cause, types, incidence, and outcomes of medical and surgical complications after surgery. This allows for more accurate “standard of care” metrics. Further large-volume multicenter studies are needed to gain further insight into the short- and long-term outcomes of TSA.