Serious adverse events, readmission, and mortality after shoulder replacement due to fracture, osteoarthritis, and other indications: a population-based comparison with the general population
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44796Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Glenohumeral osteoarthritis, Mortality, Proximal humerus fractures, ReadmissionAbstract
Background and purpose: Patients treated with shoulder arthroplasty may risk serious adverse events (SAEs), readmission, and death; however, the literature is inconsistent. Therefore, we aimed to compare the incidence rates of SAEs, readmissions, and mortality at 30 and 90 days following shoulder replacement with those of a matched cohort.
Methods: Danish databases were used to include patients treated with a primary shoulder replacement due to fracture, osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, and other (2006–2021). The shoulder patients were compared (1:10) to a matched cohort from the general population. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated and adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidity.
Results: The 30-day IR of SAEs was 73.5 for shoulder patients and 14.8 for the matched cohort. The IRR of SAEs was higher for all patient groups compared with the matched cohort and varied between indications for surgery (IRR 3.1–5.9) and remained higher at 90 days (IRR 1.6–3.5). The IR of readmission was 234 per 100,000 person-days at 30 days. The 30-day IR of mortality was 20.2 per 100,000 person-days for shoulder patients and 9.4 per 100,000 person-days for the matched cohort. Compared with the matched cohort the 30-day IRR of mortality was 2.0, with fracture patients having the highest risk of mortality (IRR of 3.5).
Conclusion: At 30 and 90 days after surgery, shoulder patients, regardless of surgical indications, had higher rates of SAEs than the matched cohort. The mortality rate was higher for shoulder patients and highest for fracture patients. This information should be included in the shared decision-making process before undergoing shoulder replacement.
Downloads
References
Lübbeke A, Rees J L, Barea C, Combescure C, Carr A J, Silman A J. International variation in shoulder arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2017; 88(6): 592-9. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1368884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1368884
Montori V M, Ruissen M M, Hargraves I G, Brito J P, Kunneman M. Shared decision-making as a method of care. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28(4): 213-17. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112068
Stubenrouch F E, Cohen E S, Bossuyt P M M, Koelemay M J W, van der Vet P C R, Ubbink D T. Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials. BJS Open 2020; 4(2): 171-81. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.50240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50240
Amundsen A, Rasmussen J V, Olsen B S, Brorson S. Mortality after shoulder arthroplasty: 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality after shoulder replacement—5853 primary operations reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25(5): 756-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.020
King H, Ricketts D, Roper T, Phadnis J. Medical complications following shoulder arthroplasty: a review of the evidence. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2022; 104(7): 490-8. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2021.0221%M34982604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2021.0221
Fox H M, Best M J, Mikula J D, Aziz K T, Srikumaran U. Short-term complications and readmission following total shoulder arthroplasty: a national database study. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2021; 9(3): 323-9. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2020.48852.2426.
Craig R S, Lane J C E, Carr A J, Furniss D, Collins G S, Rees J L. Serious adverse events and lifetime risk of reoperation after elective shoulder replacement: population based cohort study using hospital episode statistics for England. BMJ 2019; 364: l298. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l298
Jensen A R, Tangtiphaiboontana J, Marigi E, Mallett K E, Sperling J W, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis is associated with excellent outcomes and low revision rates in the elderly. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2021; 30(7s): S131-s9. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.11.030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.11.030
Burnett R A, Goltz D E, Levin J M, Wickman J R, Howell C B, Nicholson G P, et al. Characteristics and risk factors for 90-day readmission following shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022; 31(2): 324-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.07.017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2021.07.017
Harris A B, Best M J, Weiner S, Gupta H O, Jenkins S G, Srikumaran U. Hospital readmission rates following outpatient versus inpatient shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2021; 44(2): e173-e7. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20200925-03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20200925-03
Rasmussen J V, El-Galaly A, Thillemann T M, Jensen S L. High completeness and accurate reporting of key variables make data from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry a valuable source of information. Clin Epidemiol 2021; 13: 141-8. doi: 10.2147/clep.S291972. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S291972
Schmidt M, Schmidt S A, Sandegaard J L, Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Sørensen H T. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 2015; 7: 449-90. doi: 10.2147/clep.S91125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S91125
Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Sørensen H T. The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 2014; 29(8): 541-9. doi: 10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3
Knapp B M, Botros M, Sing D C, Curry E J, Eichinger J K, Li X. Sex differences in complications and readmission rates following shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. JSES Int 2020; 4(1): 95-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2019.11.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2019.11.007
Young B L, Menendez M E, Baker D K, Ponce B A. Factors associated with in-hospital pulmonary embolism after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24(10): e271-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.04.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2015.04.002
Lu Y, Oeding J F, Parkes C, Patel H, Berlinberg E, Forsythe B, et al. Incidence and 30- and 90-day readmission rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty in the United States: an analysis using the National Readmissions Database. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2023; 32(6): 1174-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.12.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.12.003
Vesterager J D, Madsen M, Hjelholt T J, Kristensen P K, Pedersen A B. Prediction ability of Charlson, Elixhauser, and Rx-Risk comorbidity indices for mortality in patients with hip fracture: a Danish population-based cohort study from 2014–2018. Clin Epidemiol 2022; 14: 275-87. doi: 10.2147/clep.S346745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S346745
Kristensen P K, Thillemann T M, Søballe K, Johnsen S P. Can improved quality of care explain the success of orthogeriatric units? A population-based cohort study. Age Ageing 2016; 45(1): 66-71. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afv155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv155
Sørensen S T, Kristensen F P, Troelsen F S, Schmidt M, Sørensen H T. Health registries as research tools: a review of methodological key issues. Dan Med J 2023; 70(4): A12220796. PMID: 36999820. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61409/A12220796
Thygesen S K, Christiansen C F, Christensen S, Lash T L, Sørensen H T. The predictive value of ICD-10 diagnostic coding used to assess Charlson comorbidity index conditions in the population-based Danish National Registry of Patients. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 83. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-83
Henriksen D P, Nielsen S L, Laursen C B, Hallas J, Pedersen C, Lassen A T. How well do discharge diagnoses identify hospitalised patients with community-acquired infections? A validation study. PLoS One 2014; 9(3): e92891. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092891. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092891
Holland-Bill L, Xu H, Sørensen H T, Acquavella J, Sværke C, Gammelager H, et al. Positive predictive value of primary inpatient discharge diagnoses of infection among cancer patients in the Danish National Registry of Patients. Ann Epidemiol 2014; 24(8): 593-7.e18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.05.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.05.011
Søgaard K K, Thomsen R W, Schønheyder H C, Søgaard M. Positive predictive values of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision diagnoses of Gram-negative septicemia/sepsis and urosepsis for presence of Gram-negative bacteremia. Clin Epidemiol 2015; 7: 195-9. doi: 10.2147/clep.S75262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S75262
Sundbøll J, Adelborg K, Munch T, Frøslev T, Sørensen H T, Bøtker H E, et al. Positive predictive value of cardiovascular diagnoses in the Danish National Patient Registry: a validation study. BMJ Open 2016; 6(11): e012832. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012832
Wildenschild C, Mehnert F, Thomsen R W, Iversen H K, Vestergaard K, Ingeman A, et al. Registration of acute stroke: validity in the Danish Stroke Registry and the Danish National Registry of Patients. Clin Epidemiol 2014; 6: 27-36. doi: 10.2147/clep.S50449. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S50449
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Josefine Meyer Larsen, Martin Gade Stisen, Pia Kjær Kristensen, Antti P Launonen, Theis Muncholm Thillemann, Inger Mechlenburg
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
