Background: Muscular forces drive proximal humeral fracture deformity, yet it is unknown if arm position can help mitigate such forces. Our hypothesis was that glenohumeral abduction and humeral internal rotation decrease the pull of the supraspinatus and subscapularis muscles, minimizing varus fracture deformity. Methods: A medial wedge osteotomy was performed in eight cadaveric shoulders to simulate a two-part fracture. The specimens were tested on a custom shoulder testing system. Humeral head varus was measured following physiologic muscle loading at neutral and 20° humeral internal rotation at both 0° and 20° glenohumeral abduction. Results: There was a significant decrease in varus deformity caused by the subscapularis (p<0.05) at 20° abduction. Significantly increasing humeral internal rotation decreased varus deformity caused by the subscapularis (p<0.05) at both abduction angles and that caused by the supraspinatus (p<0.05) and infraspinatus (p<0.05) at 0° abduction only. Conclusions Postoperative shoulder abduction and internal rotation can be protective against varus failure following proximal humeral fracture fixation as these positions decrease tension on the supraspinatus and subscapularis muscles. Use of a resting sling that places the shoulder in this position should be considered.

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.

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER). Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications. Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was –14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was –11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone. Conclusions Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss.Level of evidence: IV.

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER). Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications. Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was –14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was –11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone. Conclusions Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss.Level of evidence: IV.

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER). Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications. Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was –14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was –11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone. Conclusions Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss.Level of evidence: IV.

Background: To compare clinical outcomes following lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) versus RSA with latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) in patients with poor preoperative active external rotation (ER). Methods: We performed a systematic review per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of RSA with LDT or lateralized RSA alone performed in patients with preoperative ER ≤0°. Our primary outcomes were active ER, active forward elevation (FE), Constant score, and the incidence of complications. Results: We included 12 RSA with LDT studies with 188 shoulders and 4 lateralized RSA without transfer studies with 250 shoulders. Mean preoperative ER in RSA with LDT was –14°, while mean preoperative ER in lateralized RSA alone was –11°. Lateralized RSA alone was associated with superior postoperative ER (28° vs. 22°, P=0.010) and Constant score (69 vs. 65, P=0.014), but similar postoperative FE (P=0.590). Pre- to postoperative improvement in ER and FE was similar between cohorts. RSA with LDT had a higher incidence of nerve-related complications (2.1% vs. 0%) and dislocation (2.8% vs. 0.8%) compared to lateralized RSA alone. Conclusions Both RSA with LDT and lateralized RSA are reliable options to restore ER in patients with significantly limited preoperative ER. Our analysis suggests that lateralized RSA alone is superior to RSA with LDT in patients with either a medialized or lateralized implant design and confers a lower risk of complications, particularly nerve injury and dislocation. However, the addition of an LDT may still be indicated in certain patient populations with very severe ER loss.Level of evidence: IV.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected all Canadian families, with some impacted differently than others. Our study aims to: (1) determine the prevalence and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among Canadian families, (2) identify predictors of infection susceptibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2, and (3) identify health and psychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study builds upon the CHILD Cohort Study, an ongoing multi-ethnic general population prospective cohort consisting of 3,454 Canadian families with children born in Vancouver, Edmonton, Manitoba, and Toronto between 2009 and 2012. During the pandemic, CHILD households were invited to participate in the CHILD COVID-19 Add-On Study involving: (1) brief biweekly surveys about COVID-19 symptoms and testing; (2) quarterly questionnaires assessing COVID-19 exposure and testing, vaccination status, physical and mental health, and pandemic-driven life changes; and (3) in-home biological sampling kits to collect blood and stool. In total, 1,462 households (5,378 participants) consented to the CHILD COVID-19 Add-On Study: 2,803 children (mean±standard deviation [SD], 9.0±2.7 years; range, 0-17 years) and 2,576 adults (mean±SD, 43.0±6.5 years; range, 18-85 years). We will leverage the wealth of pre-pandemic CHILD data to identify risk and resilience factors for susceptibility and severity to the direct and indirect pandemic effects. Our short-term findings will inform key stakeholders and knowledge users to shape current and future pandemic responses. Additionally, this study provides a unique resource to study the long-term impacts of the pandemic as the CHILD Cohort Study continues.