Prevalence of Appropriate Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in a Large Multicenter US Cohort Using a RAND/UCLA Algorithm.

backgroundGiven the high variability in patient presentation, notable challenges exist in determining patient candidacy for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). The purpose of this study was to use a modified version of prior scenario-based appropriateness use criteria to evaluate the prevalence of inappropriate, appropriate, and inconclusive aTSA.

methodsPatients undergoing primary aTSA were evaluated for preoperative outcome scores and baseline demographic information from a multicenter database. Using a validated appropriateness use criteria algorithm, these patients were grouped "inappropriate," "inconclusive," or "appropriate."

resultsSeven hundred seventy-four patients who underwent aTSA were included. "Appropriate" patients comprised 23.9% of the cohort, while 17.8% were "inappropriate," and 58.3% were "inconclusive." Compared with the inconclusive and inappropriate groups, the "appropriate" patients were found to have markedly worse preoperative pain and functional outcomes scores. No notable difference was observed between the number of patients who received intra-articular injections, number of injections received, and analgesic use across the groups.

conclusionsThe large proportion of "inconclusive" patients suggests a lack of consensus regarding aTSA versus reverse TSA candidacy and may be secondary to factors such as worse glenoid morphology and/or prior rotator cuff repair, which are subjects of current debate in determining appropriateness for reverse TSA versus aTSA. Although no definitive conclusions can be made regarding if this algorithm ultimately improves patient outcomes, this study seeks to only help streamline patient evaluation based on American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons high-volume surgeons' opinion and highlight the large variation in the indications for aTSA in real-world surgical cases.