Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for malignant tumors of proximal humerus

Induced membrane technique for malignant bone tumours of the humerus

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to report on mid- to long-term results following large humeral tumoral resection and reconstruction with the induced-membrane technique in skeletally immature patients suffering from primary malignant bone tumours.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis identified all children who underwent the two stages of a humeral reconstruction using the induced-membrane technique for primary malignant humerus tumours between 2002 and 2020. Functional assessment was conducted by an independent observer using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system for the upper limb. Radiological assessment was performed by two independent observers and the healing index was calculated (i.e., months/cm).

RESULTS

Eight adolescents (5 osteosarcomas and 3 Ewing sarcoma), with a mean age of 14.2 years (SD = 2.7), were included. The mean length of the bone resection was 17.4 cm (SD = 3.8), and the mean delay of the resection and reconstruction stages was 9.4 months (SD = 4). The mean follow-up was 6.6 years (SD = 4.3). The mean MSTS score was 77.4% and the global average healing index was 1.04 months/cm (SD = 2.2). Four complications (i.e., prominence device, fracture, aseptic pseudarthrosis, radial palsy) and one local recurrence were observed in four patients, requiring four unplanned surgical procedures in three patients. One patient died fourteen years after the initial treatment due to a lung recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The induced-membrane technique is an effective and safe alternative for reconstructing large humeral bone defects after tumour resection in adolescents. Although this is a two-stage technique, it gives good functional results comparable to other strategies found in the literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Malawer type I/V proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several reconstruction methods exist for Malawer type I/V proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection; however, no consensus has been reached regarding the preferred methods.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on various types of proximal humerus oncologic reconstruction methods. We collected data on postoperative functional outcomes assessed based on Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, 5-year reconstruction survival rates, and complications. We calculated each reconstruction's weighted mean based on the sample size and standard errors. Complications were categorized based on the Henderson classification. Based on these integrated data, our primary objective is to propose an optimal strategy for proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection.

RESULTS

We examined various reconstruction techniques, including modular prosthesis (752 patients in 21 articles), osteoarticular allograft (142 patients in 6 articles), allograft prosthesis composites (APCs) (236 patients in 12 articles), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (141 patients in 10 articles), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (33 patients in 4 articles), claviculo-pro-humero (CPH) technique (51 patients in 6 articles), and cement spacer (207 patients in 4 articles). Weighted mean MSTS scores were: modular prosthesis (73.8%), osteoarticular allograft (74.4%), APCs (79.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (77.0%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (76.1%), CPH technique (75.1%), and cement spacer (69.1%). Weighted 5-year reconstruction survival rates were modular prosthesis (85.4%), osteoarticular allograft (67.6%), APCs (85.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (84.1%), and cement spacer (88.0%). Reconstruction survival data was unavailable for composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty and CPH technique. Major complications included shoulder joint instability: modular prosthesis (26.2%), osteoarticular allograft (41.5%), APCs (33.9%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (17%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (6.1%), CPH technique (2.0%), and cement spacer (8.7%). Aseptic loosening of the prosthesis occurred: modular prosthesis (3.9%) and reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (5.7%). Allograft fracture was observed in 54.9% of patients with osteoarticular allograft.

CONCLUSION

The complication profiles differed among reconstruction methods. Weighted mean MSTS scores exceeded 70% in all methods except cement spacer, and the 5-year reconstruction survival rate surpassed 80% for all methods except osteoarticular allograft. Proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection should consider potential complications and patients' individual factors.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty megaprosthesis for surgical management of severe proximal humeral bone loss

BACKGROUND

Shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of severe proximal humerus bone loss can be challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of a modular segmental megaprosthesis when implanted in a reverse configuration for complex primary arthroplasty, reconstruction at the time of oncologic resection, and revision shoulder arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Joint Registry Database was queried to identify all shoulder arthroplasties performed at a single institution using the Comprehensive Segmental Revision System reverse shoulder arthroplasty (SRS-RSA; Zimmer Biomet). A retrospective review of electronic medical records and radiographs was performed to record demographic data, indication, outcomes, complications, and revision surgery.

RESULTS

Between February 2012 and October 2022, a total of 76 consecutive SRS-RSAs were implanted. An analysis of patients with minimum 12-month follow-up yielded 53 patients with a mean follow-up of 4.1 ± 2.43 years. Surgical complication rate in this cohort was observed in 41.5% (22 of 53) of cases. Overall, the revision rate at final follow-up was 26.4% (14 of 53), with a significant difference between the primary and revision cohorts. The number of prior surgeries was a significant risk factor for revision surgery, with a hazard ratio of 1.789 (95% confidence interval 1.314-2.436, P < .001). When analyzing aseptic humeral loosening rates across study cohorts, a significant difference was found between the primary arthroplasty (0%, n = 0) and the revision arthroplasty cohorts (22.2%, n = 6) (P = .04).

DISCUSSION

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a modular segmental megaprosthesis remains a reasonable salvage option for shoulder reconstruction in the setting of proximal humeral bone loss. Because of the substantial bone loss and soft tissue deficiencies typically present in these cases, surgeons should educate patients on the relatively high complication rate, particularly when used in the setting of a previous failed arthroplasty.

Poor clinical outcomes and high rates of dislocation after modular reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral oncologic resection

PURPOSE

The shoulder is the most common site for upper extremity tumors. The aim of the study was to analyze the outcomes and the complications of modular reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after proximal humerus resection.

METHODS

We retrospectively included 15 consecutive patients who underwent a modular MUTARS™ RSA reconstruction after proximal humerus tumour resection between 2017 and 2020. The mean age was 52 years. Their clinical outcomes were assessed using the Constant-Murley score and the MSTS shoulder. Radiological outcomes were assessed based on the presence of loosening, osteolysis, and scapular notching. Complications such as dislocation, oncological recurrence, and infection were assessed. Mean follow-up time was 32.9 months (24 to 45).

RESULTS

The mean adjusted Constant score was 50.7% (min 22, max 81), and the mean MSTS score was 15.6 (min 4, max 26). We had no loosening, osteolysis, or scapular notching on the radiographs at last follow-up. We had a high complication rate of 53%: one infection, one oncological recurrence, and six dislocations (40%), of which five were re-operated.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the MUTARS™ Implantcast™ modular RSA has poor functional results and a high rate of dislocation in the case of large proximal humerus resections below the distal insertion of the deltoid.

Proximal Humerus Reconstruction for Bone Sarcomas: A Critical Analysis

» The proximal humerus is a common location for primary bone tumors, and the goal of surgical care is to obtain a negative margin resection and subsequent reconstruction of the proximal humerus to allow for shoulder function.» The current evidence supports the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty over hemiarthroplasty when reconstructing the proximal humerus after resection of a bone sarcoma if the axillary nerve can be preserved.» There is a lack of high-quality data comparing allograft prosthetic composite (APC) with endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus.» Reverse APC should be performed using an allograft with donor rotator cuff to allow for soft-tissue repair of the donor and host rotator cuff, leading to improvements in shoulder motion compared with an endoprosthesis.

Endoprosthetic Reconstruction of the Proximal Humerus with an Inverse Tumor Prosthesis

Reconstructing the proximal humerus after tumor removal is challenging due to muscle and bone loss. The current methods often result in poor shoulder function. This study assessed the long-term functional and oncological outcomes of using an inverse proximal humerus prosthesis in 46 patients with bone tumors. The results showed a mean range of motion of 62° in anteversion, 28° in retroversion, and 55° in abduction. Notably, 23 patients achieved over 90° of shoulder abduction, with an average of 140°. The median Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score was 25. Complications included infection in two radiotherapy patients and single dislocations in seven patients. One patient with recurrent dislocations needed revision surgery. In conclusion, the use of the inverse proximal humerus prosthesis in bone tumor treatment yields excellent shoulder function and high patient satisfaction. This approach is especially beneficial for those with metastatic disease.

Outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients under 55 years old: Results from the New Zealand joint registry

Background

The appropriate age at which to perform reverse shoulder arthroplasty is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty between younger and older patients.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty between January 2000 and December 2019 were identified from New Zealand Joint Registry records. Patients were stratified into two cohorts according to age at the time of surgery: < 55 years and ≥ 55 years. These two groups were then compared with regard to baseline characteristics, indications for surgery, revision rates, and patient-reported outcomes using the Oxford Shoulder Score and American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES).

Results

A total of 5518 primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty cases were identified, with 75 patients < 55 years at the time of surgery (range: 34-54 years). The mean duration of follow-up was 2.36 years (range: 0.11-13.37 years) in the younger cohort and 3.10 years (range: 0.01-16.22 years) in the older patient cohort. Indications for surgery differed significantly between the two groups, with younger patients having higher rates of inflammatory arthritis (p < 0.001), posttraumatic arthritis (p < 0.001), and avascular necrosis (p = 0.049). The younger cohort had an inferior 6-month postoperative Oxford Shoulder Score compared to the older cohort (mean: 28.5 [younger cohort] vs. 35.7 [older cohort]; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in revision rate between the younger and older patient cohorts during the study period (1.56 [<55 years] vs. 0.74 [≥55 years] revisions per 100 component-years; p = 0.332).

Conclusion

Our early results suggest that younger patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty demonstrate high implant retention rates, comparable to older patients. Longer-term patient-reported outcomes in younger patients are required to guide appropriate patient selection for reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

Complex Functional Posttraumatic Shoulder Reconstruction Using Shoulder Arthroplasty and a Pedicled Innervated Latissimus Dorsi Flap-A Case Report and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The shoulder joint is one of the most freely movable joints in the human body and has therefore high importance for upper limb functionality. Several techniques have been developed to replace the glenohumeral joint including humeral hemiarthroplasty, anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, depending on the underlying pathology. For the soft tissue reconstruction, the innervated latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap is a reliable solution flap in shoulder and arm reconstruction.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present the case of a 16-year-old male patient with a complete destruction of the shoulder joint and soft tissues after ballistic trauma. We performed the reconstruction of the shoulder joint using a humeral hemiarthroplasty with a mesh fixation to the remaining glenoid. The soft tissue coverage and the restoration of the deltoid muscle function were insured with a pedicled innervated latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap. One year postoperatively, the patient showed a good function of the shoulder joint with an excellent aesthetical result and no pain.

CONCLUSION

The pedicled latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap can safely restore the shoulder function, while the humeral hemiarthroplasty with mesh fixation can be a reliable solution for the reconstruction of a completely destructed shoulder joint.

Management of Proximal Humeral Oncologic Lesions

The proximal humerus is a common location for primary tumors, benign lesions, and metastatic disease. Advances in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy have allowed for limb-salvage surgery in most of the cases. There are numerous of options for surgical management of proximal humerus lesions and the decision to pursue one over another depends on factors such as age, comorbidities, pathology, location within the proximal humerus, planned resection margins/size of defect, and bone quality. Long-term outcomes for these techniques tend to be retrospective comparative studies, with recent studies highlighting the improved outcomes of reverse total shoulders.

Does reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) have surgical benefits over hemiarthroplasty with APC in patients with tumors of the proximal humerus?

Background

The research on surgical outcomes of hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using allograft-prosthesis composites for the proximal humeral oncologic condition is still scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to compare surgical outcomes of shoulder joint reconstruction with hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using allograft-prosthesis composites for tumors of the proximal humerus.

Methods

Eleven patients underwent hemiarthroplasty or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using allograft-prosthesis composites for tumors of the proximal humerus between July 2011 and April 2018 were reviewed. Radiographic analysis for bone union of allograft-host bone junction, implant loosening, stress shielding and shoulder dislocation or subluxation was performed. Functional outcomes were evaluated using visual analog scales for pain, range of motion, Simple Shoulder Test score and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score. Furthermore, oncologic outcome and complications were also assessed, respectively.

Results

There were five patients with hemiarthroplasty (mean age, 23.2 years) and six patients with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (mean age, 46.8 years, P = 0.05). Radiographically, there were no events associated with implant loosening, stress shielding and shoulder dislocation or subluxation in the two groups. There were no differences in functional outcomes between the two groups. There was no local recurrence in entire cohort. In the hemiarthroplasty group, one patient was required revision surgery to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at postoperative 6 years due to rotator cuff dysfunction. In the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty group, one patient showed the fracture occurred at allograft-host bone junction at postoperative 6 months.

Conclusions

Surgical outcomes of hemiarthroplasty with allograft-prosthesis composites were not inferior to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty when applied in properly selected patients. The authors recommended that hemiarthroplasty with allograft-prosthesis composites could be used for young age patients without glenoid metastasis involvement, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with allograft-prosthesis composites could be used for patients with old age or metastatic bone tumors.

Anatomical and reverse megaprosthesis in proximal humerus reconstructions after oncologic resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Anatomic (AN) Endoprosthesis (EPR) reconstructions of the shoulder after intra-articular proximal humerus (Malawer type 1) resections are characterized by early recovery and low complications rate. However, shoulder instability and limited mobility can occur. Reverse shoulder (RS) EPR has been introduced to improve functional outcome. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate shoulder reconstructions with AN or RS EPR after Malawer type 1 resection, comparing complications and functional results.

METHODS

Through an electronic systematic search of PubMed, articles concerning EPR after shoulder Malawer type 1 resections were reviewed. Complications rate, range of motion (ROM) and functional outcome (Musculoskeletal Society Tumor Society-MSTS score) of AN and RS EPR were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. A similar complication rate was observed between AN and RS EPR rate (26.4% and 22.4%, respectively, p = 0.37). Soft tissue failure was the most frequent complication and cause of revision in both groups. Mean post-operative flexion and abduction ROM and MSTS scores were significantly higher in RS EPR, particularly among patients with preserved deltoid function (p = 0.013, p = 0.025 and p = 0.005, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomic and reverse shoulder EPR represent safe and effective implants for shoulder reconstruction, with similar implant stability and complication rates. RS EPR significantly improves post-operative ROM and functional outcomes, especially when at least a partial function of the abductor apparatus is preserved.

Early functional and therapeutic effect of reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis reconstruction after proximal humerus tumour resection

Introduction

Reconstruction of proximal humeral tumours after resection is still controversial. And there are few articles describing oncology patients' postoperative function after reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis reconstruction. We investigated the functional results of patients who underwent reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis, including those who did not preserve the deltoid ending point.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively evaluated 16 patients with proximal humerus tumours who had undergone reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis. All patients underwent type Malawer I proximal humeral resection surgery and standard reverse tumour shoulder arthroplasty with a modular reverse shoulder prosthesis. We sutured the severed end of the deltoid to the brachialis muscle using the artificial patch for patients who had their deltoid ending point resected. Patients are rehabilitated and followed up according to our instructions.

Result

All patients were followed up for a mean of 27.4 months (13–59), and their mean age was 45.9 years (15–74). The mean length of the humeral resection was 11.6 cm (5–15). The mean shoulder mobility was 122° (82°–180°) in forward flexion; 39° (31°–45°) in posterior extension; 102° (65°–172°) in abduction; 43° (30°–60°) in external rotation; 83° (61°–90°) in internal rotation, and a mean MSTS score of 77.9% (63.3%–93.3%). The mean DASH score was 20.8 (2.5–35.8). The mean VAS score was 0.9. For patients who had their deltoid ending point resected, the mean length of the humeral resection was 14.0 cm; the mean shoulder mobility was 109° in forward flexion; 37.8° in posterior extension; 102.0° in abduction; 38.3° in external rotation; 86.3° in internal rotation, and the mean MSTS score was 78.8%; the mean DASH score was 21.6; the mean VAS score was 1.0.

Conclusion

Patients who underwent reverse tumour shoulder arthroplasty can achieve good early postoperative function, survival rate and low complication rate. In addition, patients who had their deltoid ending point removed also obtained good function after particular reconstruction.

Efficacy and safety of a 3D-printed arthrodesis prosthesis for reconstruction after resection of the proximal humerus: preliminary outcomes with a minimum 2-year follow-up

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a three-dimensional (3D)-printed arthrodesis prosthesis for reconstruction of the proximal humeral defect after tumor resection.

Methods

A novel proximal humeral prosthesis was designed to restore bone continuity and shoulder arthrodesis and was fabricated via 3D printing technology. Ten patients with primary malignancies in the proximal humerus underwent intra-articular resection and replacement with this prosthesis from 2017 to 2019. Baseline and operative data, oncological and prosthetic survival, and functional status were summarized.

Results

This cohort consisted of 9 males and 1 female with a mean age of 32.1 ± 16.1 years. Diagnoses included 5 cases of osteosarcoma, 3 cases of chondrosarcoma and 1 each case of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and malignant myoepithelioma. The mean operative duration, intraoperative hemorrhage and postoperative length of hospitalization were 151.5 ± 61.0 min, 410.0 ± 353.4 ml and 5.3 ± 1.9 d, respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 29.3 ± 6.4 months, with a minimum of 24 months for the surviving patients. Two patients experienced local recurrence, and four patients developed distant metastases. Detachment of the taper occurred in two patients. One was managed conservatively, and the other received amputation due to concurrent tumor recurrence. The mean MSTS-93 and ASES scores and ranges of forwards flexion and abduction were 24.9 ± 3.1, 79.4 ± 8.3, 71.3 ± 19.4°, and 61.3 ± 16.4°, respectively. The functional outcomes were independent of the preservation of the axillary nerve. Histological study of the glenoid component showed evidence of bone ingrowth at the bone-prosthesis porous interface.

Conclusion

Application of the 3D-printed arthrodesis prosthesis might be a safe and efficacious method for functional reconstruction in patients who underwent resection of the proximal humerus, especially for those without preservation of the axillary nerve.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05581-6.

Reconstruction by allograft-prosthetic composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty after proximal humerus tumor resection: Clinical and radiographic assessment at a minimum 2years' follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an option to conserve limb function after resection of proximal humerus malignancy. An allograft-composite RSA is an alternative to a tumor prosthesis, and can restore proximal humeral bone stock. The aim of the present study was to assess medium-term radiographic and clinical results for such composite implants.

METHODS

Patients with malignant proximal humerus tumor treated by resection and reconstruction by composite RSA were retrospectively analyzed at a minimum 24months' follow-up. Clinical assessment used Constant score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) and ADLER score. Standard radiographic work-up assessed allograft absorption and screened for implant loosening.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were included, with a mean age of 51years (range: 19-87years) and mean 30months' follow-up (range: 24-84months). Mean tumor resection was 10cm (range: 6-17cm). Etiologies comprised chondrosarcoma (n=6), osteosarcoma (n=2), B-cell lymphoma (n=1) and single metastasis (n=2). Bony increased-offset allograft was associated to humerus reconstruction in 8 cases, and latissimus dorsi tendon transfer in 5 cases. Mean Constant score was 49 points, SSV 52%, and ADLER score 20 points. Increased glenoid implant offset associated to tendon transfer significantly improved anterior elevation and external rotation. Radiographic allograft consolidation to the native humerus was acquired in 73% of cases, while osteolysis in the epiphyseal-metaphyseal zone was found in 64%. There were no cases of humeral implant loosening. Glenoid allograft absorption was systematic (8/8 cases), without inducing loosening of the implant baseplate.

CONCLUSION

Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty is functionally effective after massive resection. However, allograft absorption is a drawback, casting doubt on continued use on the glenoid side.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Outcomes of modular endoprosthesis reconstruction versus cement spacer reconstruction following resection of proximal humeral tumors

BACKGROUND

There is no agreement about the best reconstructive option following resection of proximal humerus tumors. The purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcomes of endoprosthesis reconstruction versus nail cement spacer reconstruction after wide resection of proximal humeral tumors.

METHODS

This retrospective comparative study included 58 patients with proximal humerus tumors who had undergone tumor resection and reconstruction with modular endoprosthesis (humeral hemiarthroplasties) or cement spacer. Medical records were reviewed for the epidemiological, clinical, radiological, and operative data. Lung metastasis, local recurrence, and complication were also reviewed. The functional outcome was evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring (MSTS) system.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients with a mean age of 33.4 ± 17.5 years underwent reconstruction by modular endoprosthesis, and 39 patients with a mean age of 24.6 ± 14.3 years underwent reconstruction by cement spacer. The mean MSTS score was 24.8 ± 1.1 in the endoprosthesis group and 23.9 ± 1.4 in the spacer group, P = 0.018. Complications were reported in 5 (26.3%) patients in the endoprosthesis group and 11 (28.2%) patients in the spacer group, P = 0.879. There were no statistically significant differences in the functional outcomes in both patient groups with or without axillary or deltoid resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Both endoprostheses and cement spacers are durable reconstructions with almost equal functional outcomes with no added advantage of the expensive endoprosthesis.

Improved Clinical Outcomes After Lateralized Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has emerged as an attempt to improve on some of the drawbacks of conventional RSA, such as glenoid notching and decrease in ROM. Although this new design is being used in clinical practice, the evidence is mostly limited to case series and has not been systematically reviewed.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) How much did patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and ROM improve among patients who receive a lateralized RSA implant? (2) What proportion of shoulders experience complications, revision surgery, or scapular notching?

METHODS

The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from database inception to January 31, 2020. We included clinical studies that reported the PROMs and/or ROM of patients with insufficient rotator cuffs undergoing RSA with a lateralized implant. All other types of studies and those including patients with fractures, instability or escape, infection, rheumatologic disease, neurologic disease, or revision surgeries as an indication for RSA were excluded. PROMs and ROM were collected and are reported as mean values and ranges. Complications, revision surgery, and scapular notching are presented as proportions. The percentage of the mean change relative to the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated using the anchor-based value for each outcome. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. The initial search yielded 678 studies; 61 full-text articles were analyzed according to our eligibility criteria. After a detailed analysis, we included nine studies that evaluated 1670 patients (68% of whom [1130] were women) with a mean age of 71.8 ± 0.6 years. The mean follow-up period was 41.1 ± 5.6 months. The mean MINORS score was 12 ± 4.

RESULTS

Active ROM improved for forward flexion (mean change 47° to 82°; MCID 12°), abduction (mean change 43° to 80°; MCID 7°), external rotation (mean change 8° to 39°; MCID 3°), and internal rotation (mean change -2 to 1 points). PROM scores also improved, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (mean change 20 to 50; MCID 20.9 points), Constant score (mean change 28 to 40; MCID 5.7 points), Simple Shoulder Test score (mean change 3 to 7; MCID 2.4 points), and VAS score (mean change -1.8 to -4.9; MCID -1.6 points). The proportion of shoulders with complications ranged from 0% (0 of 44) to 21% (30 of 140), and the proportion of shoulders with scapular notching ranged from 0% (0 of 76) to 29% (41 of 140). The proportion of patients undergoing revision ranged from 0% (0 of 44) to 13% (10 of 76) at short-term follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Lateralized RSA is a reasonable alternative to medialized implants for patients with rotator cuff insufficiency because it might reduce the likelihood of scapular notching without apparently compromising PROMs or ROM. More studies are required to determine whether there is a direct correlation between the amount of lateralization and PROMs or ROM.

Prospective multicentre mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes of 159 reverse total shoulder replacements and assessment of the influence of post-operative complications

BACKGROUND

The aim of our prospective multicentre study is to evaluate the five-year follow-up outcomes of primary reverse shoulder replacement utilizing two different designs of glenoid baseplates.

METHODS

There were 159 reverse shoulder replacements (91 cemented and 68 uncemented stems, 67 Trabecular Metal baseplates and 92 Anatomical Shoulder baseplates in 152 patients (99 women) with a mean age of 74.5 (58-90) years. The principal diagnosis was rotator cuff arthropathy in 108 shoulders.

RESULTS

Clinical and functional results improved significantly overall; the adjusted Constant Murley score improved from 28.2 ± 13.3 pre-operatively to 75.5 ± 22.8 (p < 0.0001) and the mean Subjective Shoulder Value improved from 27.5 ± 20 to 73.8 ± 21.3 points (p < 0.0001). Radiologically, there was good bony stability in 88% and 86% of cemented and uncemented stems without significant impact on the Constant Murley score and Subjective Shoulder Value at one, two and five years post-surgery. There were no significant clinical differences between Trabecular Metal and Anatomical Shoulder baseplates at five years. There were four cases of intraoperative shaft fractures that were managed with cables. Although the Trabecular Metal baseplates showed better integration radiologically, there was no significant difference in the mean of Constant Murley, Subjective Shoulder Value and the range of motion depending on the grade of inferior scapular notching at one-, two- and five-year intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty restores the function in shoulder with significant improvements in function and moderate complications with minor differences between both designs of baseplates that were not reflected clinically.

Reverse shoulder megaprosthesis replacement for aggressive aneurysm bone cyst of proximal humerus: Case report and literature review

INTRODUCTION

and importance: Wide resection in the surgical treatment of aneurysms bone cysts is often performed in cases where the tumor is large, recurrent, growing, and intensely invasive. Reshaping the defect after tumor removal is a necessary issue to restore shape and maintain function for the patient.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 26-year-old male patient, diagnosed with an aneurysm bone cyst in the proximal humerus, underwent surgery for curettage and bone grafting twice. After surgery, there was still pain in the shoulder area, the tumor progressed aggressively with limited shoulder movement. Based on the imaging re-evaluation, it was shown that the tumor increased rapidly in size, invaded the soft tissue, and completely changed the normal structure of the shoulder joint, and the proximal humerus. We used a reverse shoulder joint with an additional module to restore the bone defect of the tumor and the function of the shoulder joint. Follows-up showed that patient no longer pain in shoulder area, shoulder joint function recovery is progressing well, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score is 25 & 28, shoulder joint function score according to ASES scale: 80 & 93.33 respectively at 3 months and 6 months after surgery.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Aggresive aneurysm bone cyst of proximal humerus is not common and still a challenge to the treatment. Due to the bone and joint destruction, the indication of tumor resection and reconstruct the joint and bone loss is required. Among several solution, reverse shoulder megaprosthesis is a newest one can favor the purpose of our treatment. Up to now, this solution is mainly used to preserving for malignant bone tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor wide resection with modular reverse shoulder replacement with the modular segment is a reasonable intervention option in cases of large aneurysm bone cysts, with rapid recurrence, aggressive progression, and soft tissue invasion.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for oncologic reconstruction of the proximal humerus: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been growing interest in the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for reconstruction of the proximal humerus after oncologic resection. However, the indications and outcomes of oncologic rTSA remain unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that reported outcomes of patients who underwent rTSA for oncologic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. Extracted data included demographic characteristics, indications, operative techniques, outcomes, and complications. Weighted means were calculated according to sample size.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included, containing 194 patients who underwent rTSA for oncologic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. The mean patient age was 48 years, and 52% of patients were male. Primary malignancies were present in 55% of patients; metastatic disease, 30%; and benign tumors, 9%. The mean humeral resection length was 12 cm. The mean postoperative Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 78%; Constant score, 60; and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, 77%. The mean complication rate was 28%, with shoulder instability accounting for 63% of complications. Revisions were performed in 16% of patients, and the mean implant survival rate was 89% at a mean follow-up across studies of 53 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the existing literature is of poor study quality, with a high level of heterogeneity and risk of bias, rTSA appears to be a suitable option in appropriately selected patients undergoing oncologic resection and reconstruction of the proximal humerus. The most common complication is instability. Higher-quality evidence is needed to help guide decision making on appropriate implant utilization for patients undergoing oncologic resection of the proximal humerus.

Do reverse total shoulder replacements have better clinical and functional outcomes than hemiarthroplasty for patients undergoing proximal humeral tumor resection using devitalized autograft composite reconstruction: a case-control study

Objective

To compare the efficacy and prognosis of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with shoulder hemiarthroplasty (SHA) using devitalized autograft or allograft composite reconstruction after proximal humeral tumor resection.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent SHA (32) and rTSA (20) for tumor resections of the proximal humerus from January 2014 to July 2020. The clinical results included duration of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, bone union, visual analog scale (VAS) score, shoulder range of motion (ROM), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, recurrence, and overall survival.

Results

Fifty-two patients were followed up for a mean of 30 months. Thirty-two patients were SHA with allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstructions, while other 20 were rTSA with devitalized autograft-prosthetic composite reconstructions. At the end of the follow-up, 2 recurrence, 3 postoperative infections, and 4 subluxations occurred among the SHA patients. Two patients in the rTSA group had postoperative anterior dislocation and underwent revision surgery with surgical mesh, and 2 (2/20) had grade II scapular notching. The mean VAS score of the shoulder was 1.5 ± 0.8 in the rTSA group and 2.3 ± 1.2 in the SHA group (p < 0.05). The mean active forward flexion of the shoulder joint was 50.6 ± 6.0 in the SHA group and 100 ± 7.6 in the rTSA group (p < 0.05). The ASES shoulder score was 78 ± 3.0 in the rTSA group and 52 ± 5.6 in the SHA group (p < 0.05). The overall 3-year survival rate of all patients was 60.0%, and patients in the rTSA group showed better survival in terms of the mean 3-year OS than patients in the SHA group (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

rTSA with devitalized autograft-prosthetic composite can offer a reasonable reconstruction of the shoulder joint after Malawer type I tumor resection. Compared with patients who underwent SHA, patients who underwent rTSA present good outcomes, a better range of motion, better bone union, and no increase in instability rate in the mid-term.

Osteolysis at the insertion of L'Episcopo tendon transfer: Incidence and clinical impact

INTRODUCTION

During a L'Episcopo transfer procedure, the tendons of the latissimus dorsi and teres major are reinserted on the posterolateral side of the humeral shaft to restore active external rotation. The aim of this study was to monitor the radiological changes at the insertion point of this transfer and to evaluate its impact on the clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective, single-center study, 13 patients (mean age 56 years; 19-84) were reviewed after a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The L'Episcopo transfer was done either alone (n=2) or in combination with reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n=11). The same transfer technique was used in both instances, with reattachment by transosseous sutures. The clinical assessment consisted of the Constant score (CS), the Activities of Daily Living Requiring Active External Rotation (ADLER) score and the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). Radiographs were used to look for signs of osteolysis of the cortical bone in the tendon transfer areas and classified as grade 1 (minor erosion), grade 2 (moderate erosion) and grade 3 (major erosion).

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 37 months (24-72), the mean CS was 60 points (32-75), the ADLER was 21 points (15-30) and the SSV was 77% (10-95). In the radiographic analysis, 10/13 patients had osteolysis visible in the transfer area: 2 were grade 1 (15%), 1 was grade 2 (8%), 7 were grade 3 (54%). There was no statistical correlation between the presence of osteolysis and the clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, external rotation with elbow at side and forward flexion were better in the patients who had osteolysis≥grade 2.

CONCLUSION

The L'Episcopo transfer is associated with frequent osteolysis of the humeral cortex where the transfer is attached, even though the transfer appears effective. Long-term follow-up will be needed to evaluate the impact of this osteolysis on the stability of any shoulder arthroplasty implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study.

Proximal Humerus Reconstruction after Tumor Resection: An Overview of Surgical Management

Proximal humerus is one of the anatomical sites that are most frequently involved by bone and soft tissue malignant tumors. Alone or in association with adjuvant treatments, surgery represents the main therapeutic option to treat and eradicate these diseases. Once the first-line option, in the last decades, amputation lost its role as treatment of choice for the large majority of cases in favor of the modern limb sparing surgery that promises to preserve anatomy and-as much as possible-upper limb functionality. Currently, the main approaches used to replace proximal humerus after a wide resection in oncologic surgery can be summarized in biological reconstructions (allografts and autografts), prosthetic reconstructions (anatomic endoprostheses, total reverse shoulder prostheses), and graft-prosthetic composite reconstructions. The purpose of this overview is to present nowadays surgical options for proximal humerus reconstruction in oncological patients, with their respective advantages and disadvantages.

Reverse Allograft-Prosthesis Composite with Pectoralis Major Transfer After Shoulder Osteosarcoma: A Case Report

CASE REPORT

We present a case of a 30-year-old man with proximal humerus osteosarcoma and periarticular soft-tissue involvement. Severe humeral and glenoid bone loss was observed, with nonfunctional deltoid after limb-sparing resection and a failed attempt of stabilization. The shoulder was reconstructed using a reverse allograft-prosthesis composite, with deltoid reconstruction by pectoralis major transfer.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that this reconstruction technique has been reported in an oncological patient. Favorable clinical and radiological results were achieved at the 24-month follow-up.

Management of Metastatic Disease of the Upper Extremity

Metastatic disease is the most common pathologic cause of bone destruction, and the upper extremity is frequently involved. This location presents many surgical challenges, but there have been several recent implant and technique-related advances that have improved outcomes. Patients can be treated nonsurgically, with radiation or with surgery, depending on patient characteristics, signs/symptoms, primary diagnosis, location, and extent of bone destruction. Most locations in the upper extremity besides the humerus can be treated nonsurgically or with radiation. This is also true of the humerus, but when surgery is indicated, plate fixation is acceptable when adequate proximal and distal cortical bone is present for screw purchase. Intramedullary nailing is used frequently in metastatic humeral disease as well, especially in the diaphysis. When extensive destruction or disease progression precludes internal fixation, a resection with endoprosthetic reconstruction can be considered. Oncologic hemiarthroplasty endoprosthetics still have a role, but reverse shoulder designs are beginning to show improved function. Humeral prosthesis designs are continuing to improve, and are becoming more modular, with custom implants still playing a role in certain challenging scenarios.

Reverse shoulder-allograft prosthesis composite, with or without tendon transfer, for the treatment of severe proximal humeral bone loss

BACKGROUND

The treatment of severe proximal humeral bone loss (PHBL) secondary to tumor resection or failed arthroplasty is challenging. We evaluated the outcomes and complications of reconstruction with reverse shoulder-allograft prosthesis composite (RS-APC), performed with or without tendon transfer.

METHODS

An RS-APC procedure was performed in 25 consecutive patients with severe PHBL (>4 cm): 12 after failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty, 5 after failed hemiarthroplasty for fracture, 6 after failed mega-tumor prosthesis placement, and 2 after tumor resection. The median length of humeral bone loss or resection was 8 cm (range, 5-23 cm). Humeral bone graft fixation was obtained with a long monobloc reverse stem and a "mirror step-cut osteotomy," without plate fixation. Nine infected shoulders underwent a 2-stage operation with a temporary cement spacer. In addition, 9 patients (36%) underwent an associated L'Episcopo procedure. The median follow-up duration was 4 years (range, 2-11 years).

RESULTS

Overall, 76% of patients (19 of 25) were satisfied. In 8 patients (32%), a reoperation was needed. At last follow-up, we observed incorporation at the allograft-host junction in 96% of the cases (24/25); partial graft resorption occurred in 3 cases and severe in 1. The median adjusted Constant score was 53% (range 18-105); Subjective Shoulder Value, 50% (range 10%-95%). Additional tendon transfers significantly improved active external rotation (20° vs. 0°, P < .001) and forward elevation (140° vs. 90°, P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Shoulder reconstruction with RS-APC provides acceptable shoulder function and high rates of graft survival and healing. (2) Additional L'Episcopo tendon transfer (when technically possible) improves active shoulder motion. (3) The use of a long monobloc (cemented or uncemented) humeral reverse stem with mirror step-cut osteotomy provides a high rate of graft-host healing, as well as a limited rate of graft resorption, and precludes the need for additional plate fixation. (4) Although rewarding, this reconstructive surgery is complex with a high risk of complications and reoperations. The main advantages of using an allograft with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (compared with other reconstruction options) are that this type of reconstruction (1) allows restoration of the bone stock, thus improving prosthesis fixation and stability, and (2) gives the possibility to perform a tendon transfer by fixing the tendons on the bone graft to improve shoulder motion.

Proximal Humerus Tumors: Higher-than-Expected Risk of Revision With Constrained Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The treatment of proximal humerus tumors with endoprostheses is associated with a high risk of implant-related surgical complications. Because of extensive soft-tissue resection and muscular detachment during surgery, instability is the most common serious complication. A reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with a highly constrained design is one option to mitigate instability, but few studies have reported the results of this prosthesis for proximal humerus tumor resections.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the short-term functional results of the constrained reverse total shoulder prosthesis in terms of Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), DASH, and Constant-Murley scores and ROM values? (2) What is the frequency of revision, using a competing-risks estimator to assess implant survival, and what were the causes of the revisions that occurred? (3) What proportion of patients experienced dislocations at short-term follow-up?

METHODS

Between January 2014 and June 2017, we treated 55 patients with proximal humeral resections and reconstructions for malignant tumors. Of those, 33% (18) of patients were treated with the constrained, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty implant under study here. During that period, no other constrained reverse total shoulder implant was used; however, 13% (seven) of patients were treated with conventional (unconstrained) reverse total shoulder implants, 27% (15) had hemiarthroplasties, 15% (eight) of patients had biologic reconstructions with auto- or allografts and 13% (seven) underwent amputation. During the period in question, our general indications for use of the constrained device under study here were resection of the deltoid muscle/axillary nerve or the deltoid insertion on the humerus due to tumor invasion, or extensive rotator cuff and surrounding soft tissue resection that might result in shoulder instability. During this period, these indications were adhered to consistently. Four of 18 patients treated with the study implant died (three died with the implant intact) and none were lost to follow-up before 2 years, leaving 14 patients (seven women and seven men) for study at a median (range) follow-up of 35 months (25 to 65). Two authors evaluated the clinical and functional status of each patient with ROM (flexion, extension, internal and external rotation, abduction, and adduction) and MSTS, (range 0% to 100%), Constant-Murley (range 0% to 100%), and DASH (range 0 points to 100 points) scores. For the MSTS and Constant-Murley scores, higher percentage scores mean better functional outcome; and for the DASH score, a higher score means more severe disability. Radiographs were obtained at each visit and were used to look for signs of loosening, which we defined as progressive radiolucencies between visits, prosthetic component migration, and fragmentation/fracture of the cement. The Sirveaux classification was used to determine scapular notching. A competing risks analysis with 95% confidence intervals was performed to estimate the cumulative incidence of revision surgery, which we defined as any reoperation in which the implant was removed or changed for any reason, with patient mortality as a competing event.

RESULTS

At the most recent follow-up, the median (range) MSTS score was 78% (50 to 90), the DASH score was 20 (8 to 65), and the Constant-Murley score was 53% (26 to 83). The median ROM was 75° in forward flexion (40 to 160), 78° in abduction (30 to 150), 35° in internal rotation (10 to 80), and 33° in external rotation (0 to 55). Postoperatively, two of 14 patients underwent or were supposed to undergo revision surgery, and the cumulative incidence of revision surgery was 18% for both 30 and 48 months (95% CI 2 to 45). During the study period, no patients reported instability, and no dislocations occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are concerning because the revision risk with this constrained reverse total shoulder implant was higher than has been reported by others for other proximal humerus prostheses. The highly constrained design that helps prevent instability might also transmit increased stresses to the humeral component-bone interface, therefore making it susceptible to loosening. We believe that any other implant with a similar degree of constraint will have the same problem, and changing the indications for patient selection may not solve this issue. These theories need to be tested biomechanically, but our desire is to warn surgeons that while trying to prevent instability, one might trade one complication (instability) for another: aseptic loosening.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Allograft-Composite Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Malignant Tumor of the Proximal Humerus

Composite-allograft reverse shoulder arthroplasties are a surgical alternative in malignant tumor reconstructions following segmental bone resection of the proximal humerus. They allow reinsertion of the rotator cuff tendons and reliable restoration of humeral height, increasing prosthetic stability and mobility. Preoperative local tumor extension assessment must be thorough and a strict surgical technique must be followed to obtain satisfactory functional results. The indications for this procedure include a strictly intraosseous tumor of the proximal humerus corresponding to an S3-S4 A resection following criteria provided by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society as described by Enneking and colleagues in 1990. Certain conditions must question the procedure such as extended S3-S4-S5 bone resections, partial sacrifice of the deltoid muscle, preoperative deltoid impairment, and glenohumeral arthrectomy. Here, we report technical details and indications of composite-allograft reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the context of tumor segmental resection of the proximal humerus, especially in the humeral preparation.

Assessment of surgeon variability in preoperative planning of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a quantitative comparison of 49 cases planned by 9 surgeons

BACKGROUND

Preoperative planning software is gaining utility in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), particularly when addressing pathologic glenoid wear. The purpose of this study was to quantify inter- and intrasurgeon variability in preoperative planning a series of RTSA cases to identify differences in how surgeons consider optimal implant placement. This may help identify opportunities to establish consensus when correlating plan differences with clinical data.

METHODS

A total of 49 computed tomography scans from actual RTSA cases were planned for RTSA by 9 fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons using the same platform (Exactech GPS, Exactech Inc., Gainesville, FL, USA). Each case was planned a second time 6-12 weeks later. Variability within and between surgeons was measured for implant selection, version correction, inclination correction, and implant face position. Interclass correlation coefficients, and Pearson and Light's kappa coefficient were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There was considerable variation in the frequency of augmented baseplate selection between surgeons and between rounds for the same surgeon. Thresholds for augment use also varied between surgeons. Interclass correlation coefficients for intersurgeon variability ranged from 0.43 for version, 0.42 for inclination, and 0.25 for baseplate type. Pearson coefficients for intrasurgeon variability were 0.34 for version and 0.30 for inclination. Light's kappa coefficient for baseplate type was 0.61.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates substantial variability both between surgeons and between rounds for individual surgeons when planning RTSA. Although average differences between plans were relatively small, there were large differences in specific cases suggesting little consensus on optimal planning parameters and opportunities to establish guidelines based on glenoid pathoanatomy. The correlation of preoperative planning with clinical outcomes will help to establish such guidelines.

Retrospective, multicenter, observational study of 112 surgically treated cases of humerus metastasis

INTRODUCTION

The humerus is the second most common site for metastasis in the peripheral skeleton. These humeral metastases (HM) occur in the midshaft in 42% to 61% of cases and theproximal humerus in 32% to 45% of cases. They are often secondary to primary breast (17-31%), kidney (13-15%) or lung (11-24%) cancer. The optimal surgical treatment between intramedullary (IM) procedures, fixation or arthroplasty is still being debated.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that fixation and/or arthroplasty are safe and effective options for controlling pain and improving the patients' function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2004 and 2016, 11 French hospitals included 112 continuous cases of HM in 54 men (49%) and 57 women (51%). The average age was 63.7±13.4 years (30-94). The HM occurred in the context of primary breast (30%), lung (23%) or kidney (21%) cancers. The HM was proximal in 35% of cases, midshaft in 59% and distal in 7% of cases. Surgery was required in 69% of patients because of a pathological fracture. The surgical procedure consisted of bundle pinning, plate fixation, arthroplasty or locked IM nailing in 6%, 11%, 14% and 69% of patients, respectively.

RESULTS

Seven patients (6%) had to be reoperated due to surgical site complications including two infections and four fractures (periprosthetic or away from implant). Twelve patients (11%) experienced a general complication. The overall survival was 16.7 months, which was negatively and significantly impacted by the occurrence of a fracture, a diaphyseal location and the type of primary cancer. At the final assessment, 75% had normal or subnormal function and more than 90% were pain-free or had less pain. The final function was not related to the occurrence of a fracture or etiology of the metastasis. In epiphyseal and metaphyseal HM, there was a trend to better function after shoulder arthroplasty than after plate fixation or IM nailing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our initial hypothesis was confirmed. Our findings were consistent with those of other published studies. Based on our findings, we recommend using static locked IM nailing with cementoplasty for mid-shaft lesions and modular arthroplasty for destructive epiphyseal or metaphyso-epiphyseal lesions. The criteria for assessing humeral fracture risk should be updated to allow the introduction of a preventative procedure, which contributes to better survival.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Long term outcomes of total humeral replacement for oncological reconstructions: A single institution experience

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on long-term survivorship and outcomes for total humerus replacements (THR) with only two series reporting 10-year survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A review of 769 consecutive, prospectively collected endoprosthetic reconstructions for oncological diagnoses at a single-center between 1980 and 2019 was performed. Patients with THRs were isolated and analyzed for outcomes, complications, and modes of failure.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients with 20 THR implants were identified. The median follow-up for surviving patients was 148 months (interquartile range [IQR] = 74-194) and 60 months (IQR = 17-155 months) for all patients. Two prostheses required revision for failure, both for symptomatic shoulder dislocation. There were three local recurrences. Revision-free survival at 5, 10, and 15 years was 100%, 86% and 86%, respectively. There were no cases of ulnar component failure, radial nerve palsy, or periprosthetic infection.

CONCLUSIONS

THR prosthesis survivorship is comparable to the previous series, with a longer follow-up than has previously been reported. Symptomatic shoulder instability was common (25%), and was the only cause of revision. Reverse total shoulder could be an important way to address this in the future. Local recurrence rates were high, as has been reported elsewhere for THR.

Successful treatment of a dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma of the proximal humerus with a hemicortical articular surface sparing allograft: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas are rare and highly malignant tumors that require wide surgical resection. Survival is extremely poor without adequate surgical margins. We present a case of articular sparing surgery of the shoulder for dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma with excellent functional outcomes and no evidence of disease after fifty-six months.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 29-year-old male was found to have a non-metastatic right proximal humerus dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. He underwent resection with clear one centimeter margins sparing the medial cortex and the articular surface. Reconstruction of the bone was accomplished using a hemicortical allograft. A dermal allograft was used to help reconstruct the rotator cuff to the allograft bone. At fifty-six months after surgery he has excellent functional range of motion. His current MSTS, Quick Dash, and Constant Shoulder scores are 29, 2.3, and 80, respectively. He has remained free of disease, is back to work without restrictions and is active in outdoor activities.

DISCUSSION

Dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma has high recurrence and poor survival rates. Adequate surgical resection is vital for its treatment. Previously described reconstructive techniques have consisted of articular replacement with a prosthesis, allograft, or allograft-prosthetic composites. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an articular sparing reconstruction for dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma with fifty-six month survival and functional outcomes. When possible, sparing the articular surface can provide good functional outcomes that improve over time.

CONCLUSION

If adequate surgical margins can be obtained, an articular surface sparing reconstruction of the shoulder can provide effective functional outcomes and an alternative to joint replacement.

Catastrophic Failure of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty from a Broken Screw: A Case Report

CASE

A 63-year-old woman presented with pain and limited range of motion 2 years after undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). She underwent revision RSA for catastrophic implant failure caused by central screw breakage, subsequent polyethylene wear, and glenosphere loosening, and achieved excellent outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This is a unique case of a salvage procedure with satisfactory outcomes for a rare complication of RSA. It demonstrates the importance of clinical vigilance notwithstanding the absence of radiographic abnormalities in long-term monitoring of patient implant failure.

The Personalized Shoulder Reconstruction Assisted by 3D Printing Technology After Resection of the Proximal Humerus Tumours

Background

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) may be a promising alternative for proximal humerus tumours because of good postoperative shoulder function. However, the conventional reverse shoulder prosthesis can not meet individual needs and RSA has been associated with a relatively high complication rate. Therefore, implant design and surgical reconstruction technique warrant further study.

Methods

Between September 2015 and May 2018, 7 patients were treated via RSA after en-bloc resection of the proximal humerus tumours. A 3D-printed guiding baseplate was used to assist the implant of the 3D-printed glenoid prosthesis; a personalized humerus prosthesis was used to reconstruct the proximal humerus. The functional outcomes were assessed by range of motion (ROM) of the shoulder joint, Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) functional score, and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). We also analyzed tumour recurrence, metastases, and complications associated with the reconstruction procedure.

Results

All patients were observed for 14 to 36 months, with an average of 23.6 months. At the final follow-up, the mean MSTS score was 85.7% (range, 73.3–93.3%), and the mean TESS score was 90.0% (range, 84.1–95.9%). No instability, infection, scapular notching, loosening or fracture were observed in this series. One patient with GCT suffered from pulmonary metastasis, while one with osteosarcoma died because of pulmonary metastasis.

Conclusion

The 3D-printed guiding baseplate facilitated the accurate implantation of the glenoid prosthesis. The RSA based on a 3D-printed glenoid prosthesis and a personalized custom-made humerus prosthesis significantly improved the shoulder function and decreased the complication rate. Further studies of a larger scale with longer follow-up are required to validate this technology.

Humeral Stem Loosening Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Aseptic stem loosening following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an uncommon complication. The timing and the factors contributing to aseptic stem loosening remain poorly understood.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review that identified 75 articles; 65 of the included articles were case series (Level-IV evidence), 8 were cohort studies (7 Level III, 1 Level II), and 2 were prospective randomized controlled trials (Level I). A meta-analysis of 1,660 cemented and 805 uncemented RSA stems was performed. We compared the rates of aseptic stem loosening, humeral radiolucent lines, and revision for stem loosening (1) between cemented and uncemented stems in cohorts with short and long mean follow-up periods (<5 and ≥5 years) as well as in all cohorts combined, and (2) among different etiological subgroups.

RESULTS

Aseptic stem loosening occurred more commonly in the cohort with long compared with short follow-up time (2% versus 0.8%, p = 0.01). When comparing cemented with uncemented stems, there was no significant difference in the rates of aseptic stem loosening or revision for stem loosening in either the short or long-term follow-up groups. Humeral radiolucent lines were more common with cemented compared with uncemented stems (15.9% versus 9.5%, p = 0.002). Analyzed by etiology, the highest rate of aseptic stem loosening occurred in the tumor subgroup (10.8%), followed by RSA as a revision procedure after a failed arthroplasty (3.7%). No stems in the acute fracture or fracture sequelae subgroups developed aseptic stem loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

Aseptic stem loosening occurred more commonly in cohorts with longer follow-up. There were no differences in the rates of aseptic stem loosening or revision for stem loosening between cemented and uncemented stems. Patients treated with RSA following excision of proximal humeral tumors and RSA as a revision procedure after a failed arthroplasty were at greater risk of aseptic stem loosening.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides stability and better function than hemiarthroplasty following resection of proximal humerus tumors

BACKGROUND

Tumors may necessitate resection of a substantial portion of the proximal humerus and surrounding soft tissues, making reconstruction challenging. We evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing treatment of tumors of the proximal humerus with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) or shoulder hemiarthroplasty.

METHODS

Patients who underwent rTSA (n = 10) or shoulder hemiarthroplasty (n = 37) for tumors of the proximal humerus in 2009 to 2017 were reviewed. Of these patients, 27 had died, leaving 20 for review. The mean follow-up period of the survivors was 27.1 months. They were evaluated clinically and contacted to determine the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and visual analog scale score.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 13 hemiarthroplasty patients (34%). Tumor recurrence occurred in 3 hemiarthroplasty patients (7.9%), whereas in the rTSA group, 1 patient (10%) had a postoperative complication, with no recurrences. One hemiarthroplasty patient required revision surgery with rTSA to improve shoulder function. Six dislocations and two subluxations occurred in the hemiarthroplasty group, whereas no subluxations occurred in the rTSA group (P = .14). Mean range of motion was 85° of forward flexion for rTSA patients (n = 10) compared with 28° for hemiarthroplasty patients (P < .001). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 63 for hemiarthroplasty patients (n = 5) and 59 for rTSA patients (n = 4). The mean Simple Shoulder Test scores were 3.8 and 2.4, respectively. The mean visual analog scale pain scores were 2.4 and 2.5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty can reproducibly reconstruct the shoulder in patients requiring oncologic proximal humerus resection. Patients have good outcomes, better range of motion, and no increase in instability rates compared with hemiarthroplasty.

What Is the Survival and Function of Modular Reverse Total Shoulder Prostheses in Patients Undergoing Tumor Resections in Whom an Innervated Deltoid Muscle Can Be Preserved?

BACKGROUND

After proximal humerus resection for bone tumors, restoring anatomy and shoulder function remains demanding because muscles and bone are removed to obtain tumor-free surgical margins. Current modes of reconstruction such as anatomic modular prostheses, osteoarticular allografts, or allograft-prosthetic composites and arthrodeses are associated with relatively poor shoulder function related to loss of the deltoid and rotator cuff muscles. Newer prosthetic designs like the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are felt to be useful in other reconstructions where rotator cuff function is compromised, so it seemed logical that it might help in tumor reconstructions as well in patients where the deltoid muscle and its innervation can be preserved.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In patients with a tumor of the proximal humerus that can be resected with preservation of the deltoid muscle, (1) What complications are associated with tumor resection and reconstruction with a modular RTSA? (2) What are the functional results of modular RTSA in these patients?

METHODS

From January 2011 to January 2018, we treated 52 patients for bone tumors of the proximal humerus. Of these, three patients were treated with forequarter amputation, 14 were treated with standard modular proximal humerus implants, seven were treated with allograft-prosthetic composites (RTSA-APC), and 28 were treated with a modular RTSA. Generally, we used anatomic modular prosthetic reconstruction if during the tumor resection none of the abductor mechanism could be spared. Conversely, we preferred reconstruction with RTSA if an innervated deltoid muscle could be spared, but the rotator cuff and capsule could not, using RTSA-APC or modular RTSA if humeral osteotomy was distal or proximal to deltoid insertion, respectively. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed only patients treated with modular RTSA after proximal humerus resection. We excluded three patients treated with modular RTSA as revision procedures after mechanical failure of previous biological reconstructions and three patients treated after December 2016 to obtain an expected minimum follow-up of 2 years. There were nine men and 13 women, with a mean (range) age of 55 years (18 to 71). Reconstruction was performed in all patients using silver-coated modular RTSA protheses. Patients were clinically checked according to oncologic protocol. Complications and function were evaluated at final follow-up by the treating surgeon (PR) and shoulder surgeon (AC). Complications were evaluated according to Henderson classification. Functional results were assessed with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (range 0 points to 30 points), Constant-Murley score (range 0 to 100), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (range 0 to 100). The statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Complications occurred in five of 22 patients; there was a shoulder dislocation (Type I) in four patients and aseptic loosening (Type II) in one. Function in these patients on the outcomes scales we used was generally satisfactory; the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 29, the mean Constant score was 61, and the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this was a small series of patients with heterogeneous diagnoses and resection types, and we were not able to directly compare the results of this procedure with those of other available reconstructions, we found patients treated with RTSA achieved reasonable shoulder function after resection and reconstruction of a proximal humerus tumor. It may not be valuable in all tumor resections, but in patients in whom the deltoid can be partly spared, this procedure appears to reasonably restore short-term shoulder function. However, future larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failed megaprosthesis for osteosarcoma of the proximal humerus: A case report and review of literature

The involvement of proximal humerus by Osteosarcoma is quite common, with the survival rates highly dependent on the staging of the tumor. Numerous salvage methods have been described but without any consensus. We present a case of a 17-year-old patient who had a wide excision of the tumor and underwent a mega prosthesis fixation, which underwent implant failure with the revised prosthesis subluxing. Finally, Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty was done. Ten years follow up shows the success of the above. Salvage surgery in young patients yields good functional and cosmetic results. However, an insight into the complications associated with extended use of the mega prosthesis is needed. Prolonged survival after bone tumors is associated with surgical, medical and psychological challenges.

Reconstruction techniques after proximal humerus tumour resection

Reconstruction of the proximal humerus after tumour resection is a surgical challenge. The goal consists not only in reconstructing the resected bone segment, but also in restoring a stable and mobile shoulder. The choice of the technique depends on the status of the soft-tissues at the end of the resection. The preoperative work-up must determine the oncological goals of the resection and identify the structures that can be spared. When deltoid muscle function is preserved, a reverse prosthesis offers the best stability and mobility outcomes. The objective of this work is to describe the indications and techniques used in the various available reconstruction methods. Shoulder mobilities are restored using some of these methods and lost with others. Emphasis is put on the reverse shoulder prosthesis, with a description of its variants (standard prosthesis, cement sleeve, allograft-prosthesis composite, and massive prosthesis) and a discussion of the management of its early complications. When performing reverse shoulder arthroplasty, glenoid implant preparation and positioning are crucial to achieve stability, and humeral length restoration will govern soft-tissue tension. Latissimus dorsi tendon transfer is required to restore active external rotation if the posterior rotator cuff tendons have been removed. Allograft-anatomic prosthesis composites, osteo-cartilaginous allografts, arthrodesis, and spacer prostheses are proposed for patients in whom the local conditions preclude implantation of a reverse shoulder prosthesis.

Incidence and risk factors for aseptic baseplate loosening of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Aseptic glenoid baseplate loosening (AGBL) is a catastrophic complication after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Our goals were to determine the incidence of AGBL in patients who underwent RTSA and identify risk factors for AGBL after RTSA.

METHODS

We analyzed 202 shoulders that underwent primary or revision RTSA using 1 implant system and evaluated baseplate loosening at a minimum 2-year follow-up. The associations between AGBL and the following variables were investigated: patient age, sex, primary vs. revision RTSA, scapular notching, use of bone graft, and type of baseplate screw fixation.

RESULTS

AGBL occurred in 6 shoulders (3.0%). The incidence of AGBL after revision RTSA (10%) was significantly higher than that after primary RTSA (1.2%; P = .014). There were significant associations between AGBL and the use of bone graft and the use of nonlocking screws. Scapular notching, glenosphere center-of-rotation offset, patient age, and sex were not associated with AGBL. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the use of all peripheral nonlocking 3.5-mm screws (odds ratio, 10.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1- 39) and the use of bone graft (odds ratio, 7.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-30) were independent risk factors for AGBL.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of baseplate failure after primary RTSA is low (1.2%) but is significantly higher after revision RTSA (10%). Major risk factors for baseplate failure are the use of all 3.5-mm nonlocking screws for peripheral baseplate fixation and the use of a bone graft to address deficiencies in bony support beneath the baseplate.

Feasibility Analysis and Clinical Applicability of a Modified Type V Resection Method for Malignant Bone Tumors of the Proximal Humerus

Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and clinical applicability of a modified type V resection method for malignant bone tumors of the proximal humerus. Methods: The relevant anatomic MRI data from 30 normal adult shoulder joints were measured to analyze the feasibility of the modified type V resection method for malignant bone tumors of the proximal humerus. Sixteen patients with malignant bone tumors of the proximal humerus were treated with modified radical resection between March 2012 and April 2017. Recurrence of tumor was evaluated after surgery, and shoulder function was assessed according to the Enneking skeletal muscle tumor function scoring system. Results: Radiographic results showed that the modified type V resection method was feasible, and within the allowable range of the maximum longitudinal diameter (<29.8 mm) and depth (<4 mm). Surgery was successfully completed in all 16 cases, and pathological examination suggested that the purposes for radical resection had been achieved. All patients were followed up over 3-49 months (mean, 15.6 months). One patient had local recurrence at 12 months after surgery, and we performed upper limb amputation. The remaining 15 patients had good prosthesis survival. At the final follow-up, shoulder joint function had recovered compared with preoperative levels, with a mean Enneking score of 25.8 points (range, 24-27 points). Conclusion: Modified type V resection may be feasible for treating tumors of the proximal humerus, maintaining good early shoulder function.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Since the introduction of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in 1987 (in Europe) and 2004 (in the United States), the number of RTSAs performed annually has increased.

Although the main indication for RTSA has been rotator cuff tears, indications have expanded to include several shoulder conditions, many of which involve dysfunction of the rotator cuff.

RTSA complications have been reported to affect 19% to 68% of patients and include acromial fracture, haematoma, infection, instability, mechanical baseplate failure, neurological injury, periprosthetic fracture and scapular notching.

Current controversies in RTSA include optimal baseplate positioning, humeral neck-shaft angle (135° versus 155°), glenosphere placement (medial, lateral or bony increased offset RTSA) and subscapularis repair.

Improvements in prosthesis design, surgeon experience and clinical results will need to occur to optimize this treatment for many shoulder conditions.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:58–69 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170044

Reverse shoulder endoprosthesis for pathologic lesions of the proximal humerus: a minimum 3-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The Bayley Walker (Stanmore Implants, Elstree, UK) reversed polarity, linked shoulder replacement is designed to provide stable function in the treatment of a painful shoulder with poor soft tissue coverage. We reviewed the results of the prosthesis in destructive pathologic lesions of the proximal humerus at a United Kingdom tumor center.

METHODS

We identified 8 patients (2 men, 6 women) in our database. Clinical information and functional outcome scores were collected, including range of movement, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, the Musculoskeletal Tumor Score. Radiographs from the last clinic follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 8 patients, 2 were revisions for aseptic loosening around proximal humeral endoprosthetic replacements. Indications for surgery included chondrosarcoma in 4, metastatic disease in 2, Ewing sarcoma in 1, and osteomyelitis in 1. Patients were a mean age at diagnosis of 49 years (range, 16-78 years). One patient died of metastatic disease during follow-up. Mean follow-up was 49 months (range, 36-90 months). At the latest follow-up, there was 100% survivorship using revision as the end point. There were no local recurrences. Three of 5 patients returned to their previous occupation. Neuropathic pain developed in 1 patient postoperatively, but no other postoperative complications were noted. Radiographs showed no progressive lucencies or scapula notching. Mean range of movement at final follow-up was abduction, 62°; forward flexion, 71°; and external and internal rotation, 50°.

CONCLUSION

The Bayley Walker prosthesis gives excellent medium-term survivorship and pain relief in patients with pathologic lesions of the proximal humerus requiring wide local excision.

Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty can provide good function and quality of life in cases of malignant tumour of the proximal humerus

PURPOSE

Management of proximal humeral tumours remains a surgical challenge. No study to date has assessed the quality of life scores following the composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty for this indication. We, therefore, evaluated function and quality of life following reconstruction with allograft for malignant tumour of the humerus.

METHODS

A series of six cases of humeral tumour treated by a single surgeon in a single centre was reviewed after a mean follow-up of 5.9 years. The tumours included two chondrosarcomas, one plasmocytoma and three metastases. Resection involved bone epiphysis, metaphysis and diaphysis in five cases (S3S4S5A) and epiphysis and metaphysis in one case (S3S4A). For reconstruction, an allograft composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty was used in all the cases. Outcomes were assessed with range of motion, the QuickDash score and the Short Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey. Radiographs assessed osseointegration and complications.

RESULTS

At the final follow-up, the mean shoulder range of motion were respectively 95°, 57° and 11° for forward flexion, abduction and external rotation. Mean QuickDASH score improved from 28 to 41 and VAS-pain scores improved from 5.1 to 2.3. The post-operative MSTS score was 73% and the Constant score was 46.1/100. The SF-12 PCS and MCS scores were also improved, respectively from 44.4 and 39.7 to 45.5 and 56.1. The mean satisfaction score was 8.1/10.

CONCLUSIONS

Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty is a viable alternative for reconstruction after resection of malignant humeral tumour. Although total tumour resection was the most important objective, the functional and quality of life scores were satisfactory.

What is the Optimal Reconstruction Option after the Resection of Proximal Humeral Tumors? A Systematic Review

Purpose:

The proximal humerus is a common location for both primary and metastatic bone tumors. There are numerous reconstruction options after surgical resection. There is no consensus on the ideal method of reconstruction.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed with a focus on the surgical reconstructive options for lesions involving the proximal humerus.

Results:

A total of 50 articles and 1227 patients were included for analysis. Reoperation rates were autograft arthrodesis (11%), megaprosthesis (10%), RSA (17%), hemiarthroplasty (26%), and osteoarticular allograft (34%). Mechanical failure rates, including prosthetic loosening, fracture, and dislocation, were highest in allograft-containing constructs (APC, osteoarticular allograft, arthrodesis) followed by arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, RSA, megaprosthesis) and lowest for autografts (vascularized fibula, autograft arthrodesis). Infections involving RSA (9%) were higher than hemiarthroplasty (0%) and megaprosthesis (4%).

Postoperative function as measured by MSTS score were similar amongst all prosthetic options, ranging from 66% to 74%, and claviculo pro humeri (CPH) was slightly better (83%). Patients were generally limited to active abduction of approximately 45° and no greater than 90°. With resection of the rotator cuff, deltoid muscle or axillary nerve, function and stability were compromised even further. If the rotator cuff was sacrificed but the deltoid and axillary nerve preserved, active forward flexion and abduction were superior with RSA.

Discussion:

Various reconstruction techniques for the proximal humerus lead to relatively similar functional results. Surgical choice should be tailored to anatomic defect and functional requirements.