Restoration of external (ER) and internal rotation (IR) after Grammont-style reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is often unreliable. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of RSA medio-lateral offset and subscapularis repair on axial rotation after RSA. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating axial rotation (ER, IR, or both) after RSA with a defined implant design. Medio-lateral implant classification was adopted from Werthel et al. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. Results: Thirty-two studies reporting 2,233 RSAs were included (mean patient age, 72.5 years; follow-up, 43 months; 64% female). The subscapularis was repaired in 91% (n=2,032) of shoulders and did not differ based on global implant lateralization (91% for both, P=0.602). On meta-analysis, globally lateralized implants achieved greater postoperative ER (40° [36°–44°] vs. 27° [22°–32°], P<0.001) and postoperative improvement in ER (20° [15°–26°] vs. 10° [5°–15°], P<0.001). Lateralized implants with subscapularis repair or medialized implants without subscapularis repair had significantly greater postoperative ER and postoperative improvement in ER compared to globally medialized implants with subscapularis repair (P<0.001 for both). Mean postoperative IR was reported in 56% (n=18) of studies and achieved the minimum necessary IR in 51% of lateralized (n=325, 5 cohorts) versus 36% (n=177, 5 cohorts) of medialized implants. Conclusions: Lateralized RSA produces superior axial rotation compared to medialized RSA. Lateralized RSA with subscapularis repair and medialized RSA without subscapularis repair provide greater axial rotation compared to medialized RSA with subscapularis repair. Level of evidence: 2A.

Objective: We performed a meta-analysis of epidemiological results for the association between occupational exposure as a firefighter and cancer as part of the broader evidence synthesis work of the IARC Monographs program. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify cohort studies of firefighters followed for cancer incidence and mortality. Studies were evaluated for the influence of key biases on results. Random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate the association between ever-employment and duration of employment as a firefighter and risk of 12 selected cancers. The impact of bias was explored in sensitivity analyses. Results: Among the 16 included cancer incidence studies, the estimated meta-rate ratio, 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity statistic (I2) for ever-employment as a career firefighter compared mostly to general populations were 1.58 (1.14–2.20, 8%) for mesothelioma, 1.16 (1.08–1.26, 0%) for bladder cancer, 1.21 (1.12–1.32, 81%) for prostate cancer, 1.37 (1.03–1.82, 56%) for testicular cancer, 1.19 (1.07–1.32, 37%) for colon cancer, 1.36 (1.15–1.62, 83%) for melanoma, 1.12 (1.01–1.25, 0%) for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 1.28 (1.02–1.61, 40%) for thyroid cancer, and 1.09 (0.92–1.29, 55%) for kidney cancer. Ever-employment as a firefighter was not positively associated with lung, nervous system, or stomach cancer. Results for mesothelioma and bladder cancer exhibited low heterogeneity and were largely robust across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions There is epidemiological evidence to support a causal relationship between occupational exposure as a firefighter and certain cancers. Challenges persist in the body of evidence related to the quality of exposure assessment, confounding, and medical surveillance bias.