Comparison of Lateralized RTSA With and Without Subscapularis Repair
Primary Purpose
Arthritis Shoulder
Status
Recruiting
Phase
Early Phase 1
Locations
Canada
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
RTSA with subscapularis repair
RTSA without subscapularis repair
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Arthritis Shoulder focused on measuring reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, subscapularis, repair
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Clinical diagnosis of glenohumeral arthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, or massive irreparable rotator cuff tear with surgeon-patient decision to undergo RTSA
- First RTSA implantation
- Absence of neoplastic diseases at the treated site
- Fatty infiltration of the subscapularis is low-grade (i.e. Goutallier < Grade 3) based on pre-operative CT performed as standard of care in the patient group
Exclusion Criteria:
- Previous shoulder arthroplasty (hemi-, total shoulder, or RTSA)
- Avascular necrosis
- Post-infectious arthritis
- Proximal humerus fracture
- Inflammatory arthritis
- Inability to communicate in English
- Unable to return for study visits to 24-months post-operative (e.g. unable to arrange transportation to study appointments, plans to relocate, etc.)
Intra-operative Exclusions:
- Subscapularis with fatty infiltration (Goutallier ≥ 3)
- Subscapularis that is deemed to be irreparable. An irreparable tendon is defined as one that is not of sufficient quality or does not allow adequate excursion to reach the repair site
- Any anatomical or patient characteristic that warrants a non-lateralized implant
Sites / Locations
- Pan Am ClinicRecruiting
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Active Comparator
Arm Label
RTSA with subscapularis repair
RTSA without subscapularis repair
Arm Description
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
ASES Score
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
Secondary Outcome Measures
Constant Score
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Constant Score
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Constant Score
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Constant Score
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Constant Score
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
SANE Score
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
SANE Score
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
SANE Score
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
SANE Score
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
SANE Score
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
EQ5D-3L
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
EQ5D-3L
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
EQ5D-3L
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
EQ5D-3L
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
EQ5D-3L
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
Range of Motion
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Range of Motion
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Range of Motion
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Range of Motion
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Range of Motion
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Isometric Strength
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Isometric Strength
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Isometric Strength
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Isometric Strength
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Isometric Strength
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
ASES Score
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
ASES Score
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
ASES Score
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
ASES Score
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT04728282
First Posted
January 22, 2021
Last Updated
March 27, 2023
Sponsor
Panam Clinic
Collaborators
University of Manitoba
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT04728282
Brief Title
Comparison of Lateralized RTSA With and Without Subscapularis Repair
Official Title
Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Lateralized Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (RTSA) With and Without Subscapularis Repair
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
March 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Recruiting
Study Start Date
November 1, 2021 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
May 1, 2026 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
May 1, 2027 (Anticipated)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Panam Clinic
Collaborators
University of Manitoba
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled trial is to compare patient-reported, clinical, and functional outcomes in patients undergoing RTSA with and without subscapularis repair after placement of a modern "lateralized" implant over the course of 24-months postoperative.
Detailed Description
The main objective of this study is to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and clinical and functional outcomes between RTSA with and without subscapularis repair. The specific aims for this study are:
Specific Aim 1:
To determine if there is a difference in PROM scores between RTSA with and without subscapularis repair during the 24-month postoperative period.
Specific Aim 2:
To determine if there is a difference between the two surgical approaches with respect to shoulder function, specifically range of motion and strength, during the 24-month postoperative period.
Specific Aim 3:
To determine if there is a difference in shoulder dislocation rates between RTSA with and without subscapularis repair during the 24-month postoperative period.
Specific Aim 4:
To determine if there is a difference in surgical complications, re-operation or revision rates between RTSA with and without subscapularis repair during the 24-month postoperative period.
Specific Aim 5:
To quantify the operative times for RTSA with and without subscapularis repair, and determine if there is a difference between the two approaches.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Arthritis Shoulder
Keywords
reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, subscapularis, repair
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Early Phase 1
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Model Description
This is a double-blinded randomized clinical trial comparing two groups, RTSA with and RTSA without subscapularis repair. Eighty-four participants will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio in blocks of 12. All participants will be recruited from the patient populations of six fellowship trained upper extremity orthopaedic surgeons at initial consult. Patients will be randomized intraoperatively using a telephone/web-based system.
Masking
ParticipantInvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Masking Description
Patients will be blinded to their group allocation. This is possible because the incision and rehabilitation processes are consistent between groups. It is not possible for the treating surgeon to be blinded to group allocation, therefore a research team member (athletic or physical therapist) will remain blinded to group allocation and conduct all study related assessments as well as administer the patient-reported questionnaires. This will be maintained by the participant not removing their shirt during the study assessment. Patients will not be informed of which procedure they will undergo until the study is complete.
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
84 (Anticipated)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
RTSA with subscapularis repair
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Title
RTSA without subscapularis repair
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
RTSA with subscapularis repair
Intervention Description
Lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with repair of subscapularis
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
RTSA without subscapularis repair
Intervention Description
Lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty without repair of subscapularis
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
ASES Score
Description
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
Time Frame
24 months post-operative
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Constant Score
Description
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Time Frame
baseline pre-operative
Title
Constant Score
Description
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Time Frame
3 months post-operative
Title
Constant Score
Description
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Time Frame
6 months post-operative
Title
Constant Score
Description
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Time Frame
12 months post-operative
Title
Constant Score
Description
The Constant Score is validated and reliable PROM/clinical tool used to evaluate overall shoulder function based on pain, activities of daily living, and the clinical evaluation of ROM and strength (Constant & Murley, 1987). This score is widely reported in European-based literature. Minimum value is 0 and maximum value is 100, with higher scores being a better outcome.
Time Frame
24 months post-operative
Title
SANE Score
Description
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
Time Frame
baseline pre-operative
Title
SANE Score
Description
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
Time Frame
3 months post-operative
Title
SANE Score
Description
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
Time Frame
6 months post-operative
Title
SANE Score
Description
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
Time Frame
12 months post-operative
Title
SANE Score
Description
The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is a single question that asks patients to rate their affected shoulder as a percentage of normal to provide a simple and efficient measure of patient outcome (Gowd et al., 2019). Patients will be asked the following question: "How would you rate your affected shoulder today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?"
Time Frame
24 months post-operative
Title
EQ5D-3L
Description
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
Time Frame
baseline, pre-operative
Title
EQ5D-3L
Description
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
Time Frame
3 months, post-operative
Title
EQ5D-3L
Description
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
Time Frame
6 months, post-operative
Title
EQ5D-3L
Description
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
Time Frame
12 months, post-operative
Title
EQ5D-3L
Description
The EQ-5D is valid, reliable, responsive PROM used to document overall wellness based on 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression (Herdman et al., 2011). A single value is calculated (the value index), which indicates how good or bad a patient's health state is relative to a specified population. There are two components, VAS for general health, with 0 minimum and 100 maximum, with higher scores being more positive. The second component is a 25 point scale with minimum 5 and maximum 25 wit h lower scores more positive.
Time Frame
24 months, post-operative
Title
Range of Motion
Description
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Time Frame
baseline, pre-surgery
Title
Range of Motion
Description
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Time Frame
3 months, post-operative
Title
Range of Motion
Description
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Time Frame
6 months, post-operative
Title
Range of Motion
Description
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Time Frame
12 months, post-operative
Title
Range of Motion
Description
For both shoulders, forward flexion and external rotation at 0 and 90 degrees abduction will be measured with a goniometer and reported in degrees.
Time Frame
24 months, post-operative
Title
Isometric Strength
Description
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Time Frame
baseline, pre-surgery
Title
Isometric Strength
Description
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Time Frame
3 months, post-operative
Title
Isometric Strength
Description
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Time Frame
6 months, post-operative
Title
Isometric Strength
Description
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Time Frame
12 months, post-operative
Title
Isometric Strength
Description
Measured using a hand-held dynamometer, in flexion, abduction, and external rotation
Time Frame
24 months, post-operative
Title
ASES Score
Description
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
Time Frame
baseline, pre-operative
Title
ASES Score
Description
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
Time Frame
3 months, post-operative
Title
ASES Score
Description
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
Time Frame
6 months, post-operative
Title
ASES Score
Description
The ASES is a patient-reported upper extremity-specific functional assessment tool and is scored out of a maximum 100 points, where 100 represents maximum function and no pain (Richards et al., 1994). It has a pain component measured on a visual analog scale as well as ten Likert-scale questions on function (e.g., put on a coat, sleep on affected side). The ASES is reliable and is validated for this population and is one of the most commonly used shoulder outcomes in North America.
Time Frame
12 months, post-operative
10. Eligibility
Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
Clinical diagnosis of glenohumeral arthritis, rotator cuff arthropathy, or massive irreparable rotator cuff tear with surgeon-patient decision to undergo RTSA
First RTSA implantation
Absence of neoplastic diseases at the treated site
Fatty infiltration of the subscapularis is low-grade (i.e. Goutallier < Grade 3) based on pre-operative CT performed as standard of care in the patient group
Exclusion Criteria:
Previous shoulder arthroplasty (hemi-, total shoulder, or RTSA)
Avascular necrosis
Post-infectious arthritis
Proximal humerus fracture
Inflammatory arthritis
Inability to communicate in English
Unable to return for study visits to 24-months post-operative (e.g. unable to arrange transportation to study appointments, plans to relocate, etc.)
Intra-operative Exclusions:
Subscapularis with fatty infiltration (Goutallier ≥ 3)
Subscapularis that is deemed to be irreparable. An irreparable tendon is defined as one that is not of sufficient quality or does not allow adequate excursion to reach the repair site
Any anatomical or patient characteristic that warrants a non-lateralized implant
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Sheila McRae, PhD
Phone
204-925-7469
Email
smcrae@panamclinic.com
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Derek McLennan, BSc
Phone
204-927-2828
Email
dmclennan@panamclinic.com
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Jarret Woodmass, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Pan Am Clinic
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Pan Am Clinic
City
Winnipeg
State/Province
Manitoba
ZIP/Postal Code
R3M 3E4
Country
Canada
Individual Site Status
Recruiting
Facility Contact:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Sheila McRae, PhD
Phone
204-925-7469
Email
smcrae@panamclinic.com
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Learn more about this trial
Comparison of Lateralized RTSA With and Without Subscapularis Repair
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs