Revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty: epidemiology, etiology, and surgical options

Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty using convertible glenoid: a systematic review of clinical and radiological outcomes

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review is to collect all the available evidence regarding the clinical and radiological results of revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) of modular anatomic shoulder prostheses (TSA) using a convertible metal-backed glenoid (MBG).

METHODS

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies investigating revision of TSA to RSA utilizing a convertible MBG and reporting clinical and radiological outcomes were identified.

RESULTS

A total of five studies on the use of convertible modular glenoid component in the setting of TSA revision to RSA were finally included in the present systematic review. A total of 60 procedures were reported. Mean operative times was 65 min. Intraoperative complications included 3 cases of glenoid loosening. Only one case of dislocation was reported as postoperative complication. At mean follow-up of 32.3 months post-revision, no glenoid loosening was reported, VAS score decreased from 7.7 to 1.5, Constant Score increased from 24.8 to 57.6.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision to RSA after failed TSA using a convertible modular glenoid component was associated with a low rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, low surgical time and led to good results in term of pain relieve and functional outcomes. Given the complexity and risk associated with revision of anatomic shoulder prosthesis having a convertible glenoid may help to simplify the procedure and improve clinical results.

Convertible-platform shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Shoulder arthroplasty has become an increasingly common procedure used to treat degenerative, inflammatory, and traumatic conditions of the glenohumeral joint. With a significant increase in primary anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, revision procedures have likewise increased. Updates in shoulder arthroplasty have allowed for the convertibility of implants, which allows for the retention of both glenoid and humeral components during revision surgery. This review aims to highlight the epidemiology, indications, and outcomes of convertible-platform total shoulder arthroplasty procedures.

Methods

A review of the current literature surrounding convertible-platform shoulder arthroplasty was completed to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of commercially available instrumentation and implant systems as well as their outcomes.

Discussion

Leading causes of shoulder arthroplasty revision surgery include glenoid failure, implant instability, and rotator cuff dysfunction. Variations in implant design between inlay and onlay humeral components and metal-backed glenoid components are important considerations at the time of revision surgery. Advantages of convertible-platform systems include increased efficiency and decreased complications during revision procedures as well as shorter recovery, lower cost, and better functional outcomes. Limitations of convertible systems include poorly positioned components during the index procedure, excessive soft-tissue tensioning, and problems associated with metal-backed glenoid implants. Changes in arm length have also been documented. These findings indicate the benefit of additional research and design to improve the effectiveness and utility of convertible-platform shoulder arthroplasty systems.

Functional outcomes and survivorship following aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Revision shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is a surgical procedure performed to address complications or failures of primary total SA. However, limited evidence exists regarding the functional outcomes and longevity of implants following revision.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent revision SA for failed primary arthroplasty at a single institution between 2009 and 2021 with a minimum of 2-years follow-up. Data was collected from medical records, including type of arthroplasty (anatomic total SA [TSA], reverse total SA [RSA], or hemi-SA [HSA]), demographics and patient-specific information, functional measurements, and implant survival. Patient reported outcomes were obtained during follow-up by phone.

Results

The mean age at index and revision surgeries was 60.5 ± 12.1 years and 64.8 ± 11.1 years, respectively, and average total follow-up was 5.5 ± 3.5 years. The average time to revision was 4.5 ± 5.2 years (range 0.01-24.5 years). Among 99 revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures, 28 were TSA/HA to TSA/HA, 51 were TSA/HA to RSA, 18 were RSA to RSA, and 2 were RSA to HA. Revision surgery significantly improved functional outcomes in forward elevation (preoperative: 79.8 ± 41.0 vs postoperative: 118.5 ± 38.3; p < 0.001), external rotation (preoperative: 27.8 ± 19.3 vs postoperative: 34.3 ± 16.2; p = 0.028), internal rotation (preoperative: glute vs postoperative: S1; p = 0.002), and forward elevation strength (preoperative: 4+/5 vs postoperative: 5/5; p = 0.002). Postoperative patient reported outcomes included: VAS pain (2.2 ± 2.9), SANE (72.6 ± 21.5), ASES (73.3 ± 20.4), and SST (7.7 ± 2.8) scores. The overall 2-, 5-, and 10-year post-revision implant survival rate was 85.48%, 83.06%, and 79.84%, respectively. Patients who had an initial RSA and were revised to RSA were at higher risk of implant failure and subsequent re-revision (RSA to RSA: 1.5 ± 2.5 years vs. TSA/HA to RSA: 2.5 ± 2.1 years vs. TSA/HA to TSA/HA: 4.0 ± 3.5 years; p = 0.0046).

Conclusion

Revision shoulder arthroplasty improved patient outcomes post-index arthroplasty failure. Revisions were more likely to be successful when revising from TSA/HA to RSA.

Level of evidence

Level III - retrospective comparative study.

How anatomic should anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty be? Evaluation of humeral head reconstruction with the best-fit circle

BACKGROUND

Humeral implant designs for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) focus on anatomic reconstruction of the articular segment. Likewise, the pathoanatomy of advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis often results in humeral head deformity. We hypothesized the anatomic reconstruction of the humeral head in aTSA risks overstuffing the glenohumeral joint.

METHODS

Ninety-seven cases (52 females) of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients treated with aTSA were evaluated. Preoperative computed tomography scans were used to classify glenoid morphology according to the Walch classification. Coronal plane images in the plane of the humerus were used to determine the anatomic best-fit circle as described by Youderian et al. Humeral head thinning was determined as the distance from the center of rotation of the best-fit circle to the nearest point along the humeral articular surface. aTSA was modeled with a predicted anatomic humeral head and a simulated 4-mm polyethylene glenoid component. The change in the position of the native humerus was determined. Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used to evaluate differences in humeral head thinning and humeral lateralization between monoconcave and biconcave glenoid morphologies. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between humeral head thinning with preoperative active forward elevation and external rotation.

RESULTS

The mean radius of the best-fit circle was 25.0 ± 2.1 mm. There was a mean thinning of 2.4 ± 2.0 mm (range -1.7 to 8.3). The mean percent thinning of the humeral head was 9.4% ± 7.7%. The mean humeral lateralization was 6.4 ± 2.0 mm. Humeral head thinning was not significantly associated with active forward elevation (r = -0.15, P = .14) or active external rotation (r = -0.12, P = .25). There were no significant differences in the percentage of humeral head thinning (P = .324) or humeral lateralization (P = .350) between concentric and eccentric glenoid wear patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of the best-fit circle as a guide in aTSA may risk excessive lateralization of the humerus and overstuffing the glenohumeral joint. This may have implications for subscapularis repair and healing, as well as glenoid implant and rotator cuff longevity. These findings call into question whether recreation of normal glenohumeral anatomy in aTSA is appropriate for all patients. Humeral head reconstruction in aTSA should account for glenohumeral joint volume and soft tissue contracture.

Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the management of baseplate failure: an analysis of 676 revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures

BACKGROUND

Baseplate failure in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a rare but potentially catastrophic complication owing to poor patient outcomes and significant glenoid bone loss. The purpose of this study was to report on the prevalence, causes, and outcomes of revision RSA (rRSA) for baseplate failure or loosening.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our institutional database was performed to identify all patients treated for a failed RSA from 2006 to 2021 who required revision to another RSA (rRSA) performed by a single surgeon. A total of 676 failed RSA procedures were identified, and further analysis identified 46 patients (6.8%) who underwent rRSA for baseplate failure with a confirmed loose baseplate at the time of rRSA. The primary outcome was repeated failure of the reimplanted baseplate following rRSA. The mode of failure associated with baseplate failure was stratified into 1 of 3 groups: aseptic, septic, or traumatic. Twenty-four patients underwent primary revision, and 22 had undergone >1 previous arthroplasty prior to undergoing re-revision. Five patients underwent previous rRSA for baseplate failure performed by an outside surgeon. The criteria for secondary outcome analysis of final American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and range of motion were met by 32 patients and 23 patients at 1- and 2-year follow-up, respectively.

RESULTS

Three patients (6.5%) had repeated baseplate failure requiring re-revision; 2 had baseplate failure at <1 year with associated periprosthetic infections and underwent conversion to hemiarthroplasty. The third patient experienced traumatic failure at 10 years and underwent successful rRSA. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores at 1 and 2 years were 62.3 and 61.7, respectively. There was no significant difference in outcomes based on mode of baseplate failure (P = .232) or total arthroplasty burden (P = .305) at 1 year. There were 13 total complications in 11 patients, 5 of which required reoperation for reasons other than baseplate failure.

CONCLUSION

In this study, rRSA for baseplate failure constituted 6.8% of all revisions performed over a period of 15 years. Re-revision for recurrent baseplate failure was required in 3 of 46 patients (6.5%). Complications and reoperation rates were higher than those for primary RSA but outcomes were comparable for revision of failed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection management: one-stage should be the way: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is still no consensus among surgeons on whether to perform a 1- or 2-stage surgical revision in infected shoulder arthroplasties. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to rigorously synthesize published studies evaluating the clinical outcomes, recurrence of infection, and other clinical complications in order to discuss which is the best strategy for treating periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Upon research using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, in November 2022, studies that presented 1- or 2-stage surgical revision as a treatment for periprosthetic joint infection after shoulder arthroplasty and assessed the reinfection rate on these patients, as well as other clinical outcomes, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were included. Study quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. Reinfection and complication rates were extracted, and pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

After careful screening, 44 studies were included, 5 reporting on 1-stage and 30 on 2-stage revisions and 9 assessing both strategies. A total of 185 shoulders were reported in 1-stage revision studies, whereas 526 shoulders were reported in 2-stage revision studies. The overall pooled random-effects reinfection rate was 6.68% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.76-10.13), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 28%, P = .03). One-stage revision showed a reinfection rate of 1.14% (95% CI: 0.00-4.88), whereas 2-stage revision analysis revealed a reinfection rate of 8.81% (95% CI: 4.96-13.33). There were significant statistical differences between 1- and 2-stage reinfection rates (P = .04). The overall pooled rate for other clinical complications was 16.76% (95% CI: 9.49-25.15), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 70%, P < .01). One-stage revision had a complication rate of 6.11% (95% CI: 1.58-12.39), whereas the 2-stage revision complication rate was 21.26% (95% CI: 11.51-32.54). This difference was statistically significant (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis showing significant statistical differences between 1- and 2-stage surgical revision in infected shoulder arthroplasties. Provided the right conditions exist, 1-stage revision shows better results in infection control, with lower clinical complications and possible better clinical outcomes.

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty has similar outcomes to primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty at 5 Year average follow-up

Background

Shoulder arthroplasty is a successful procedure that provides pain relief and improvements in function and range of motion. Anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty are both effective procedures, and their indications continue to expand. We look at the outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and compare it to the outcomes of primary reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

We identified patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty at our institution between the years of 2010 and 2020. Data was prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for post-operative range of motion and strength in patients with revision surgery and compared to controls. Measurements were collected preoperatively and postoperatively including range of motion and strength in the affected and unaffected shoulder. We collected patient reported outcome measures in person and via phone to identify subjective outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty. Average final follow-up was 5.27 years.

Results

Our total patient sample was split between three groups: those with primary anatomic arthroplasty those who underwent primary reverse arthroplasty, and those who were revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. All three groups had significant improvements in abduction and forward elevation from their pre-operative baseline to two years follow-up. Primary reverse had a significant improvement over revision reverse in abduction at one year follow-up. For all other range of motion measurements, there was no statistically significant difference at 2 years between primary and revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Patient reported outcomes had a significant increase from pre-op to most recent follow-up in all three groups.

Conclusion

Overall, our data suggest there is an improvement in outcomes with both primary and revision surgeries, and that results after revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty may be comparable to primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Primary Total Shoulder Arthroplasty is Superior to Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Glenohumeral Arthritis: Analysis of 5-year Outcomes in a Large Surgical Database

Background

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is the preferred treatment for glenohumeral arthritis refractory to nonoperative measures. However, some surgeons have argued for a role for hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the setting of a smooth glenoid that articulates appropriately with the humeral head. The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term revision rates and short-term postoperative complications in patients undergoing either HA or TSA for glenohumeral arthritis.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients who underwent HA and TSA was conducted using a commercially available national database. Demographics, postoperative complications, risk factors, revision rates, and costs were analyzed using 2 sample t-tests, chi-squared tests, and multivariate logistic regressions.

Results

Patients were stratified by operation: (1) HA (n = 1615) or 2) TSA (n = 7845). Patients undergoing primary TSA had higher rates of prior ipsilateral rotator cuff repair and corticosteroid injections. At 2 years, patients who underwent HA, 3.0% of patients had revision surgery, compared to 1.6% of patients who underwent TSA (P = .002); at 5 years, 3.7% of the HA cohort (P < .0001) had revision surgery, compared to 1.9% of patients who underwent TSA.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing TSA or RTSA for glenohumeral arthritis had higher preoperative co-morbidities but had no difference in short-term complication rates with a lower risk of revision surgery at both 2-year and 5-year follow-up when compared to HA. Increasing age, female sex, hyperlipidemia, postoperative infection, shoulder instability, and thromboembolism all independently increased odds for revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis.

Level of evidence Level

III.

Survivorship of shoulder arthroplasty in young patients with osteoarthritis: an analysis of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

The treatment of shoulder osteoarthritis in the young patient remains challenging. The higher functional demands and higher expectations of the young patient cohort are often coupled with increased failure and revision rates. Consequently, shoulder surgeons are faced with a unique challenge with implant selection. The aim of this study was to compare the survivorship and reasons for revision of 5 classes of shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged <55 years with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis by use of data from a large national arthroplasty registry.

METHODS

The study population included all primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis in patients aged <55 years and reported to the registry between September 1999 and December 2021. Procedures were grouped into the following classes: total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), hemiarthroplasty resurfacing (HRA), hemiarthroplasty stemmed metallic head (HSMH), hemiarthroplasty stemmed pyrocarbon head (HSPH), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and sex, to compare revision rates among groups.

RESULTS

There were 1564 shoulder arthroplasty procedures in patients aged <55 years, of which 361 (23.1%) were HRA, 70 (4.5%) were HSMH, 159 (10.2%) were HSPH, 714 (45.7%) were TSA, and 260 (16.6%) were RTSA. HRA had a higher rate of revision than RTSA after 1 year (HRA = 2.51 (95% CI 1.30, 4.83), P = .005), with no difference prior to that time. In addition, HSMH had a higher rate of revision than RTSA for the entire period (HR, 2.69 [95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.63], P = .008). There was no significant difference in the rate of revision for HSPH and TSA when they were compared with RTSA. Glenoid erosion was the most common cause of revision for HRA (28.6% of revisions) and HSMH (50%). Instability/dislocation was the leading cause of revision for RTSA (41.7%) and HSPH (28.6%), and for TSA, the majority of revisions were for either instability/dislocation (20.6%) or loosening (18.6%).

CONCLUSION

These results should be interpreted within the context of the lack of availability of long-term data on RTSA and HSPH stems. RTSA outperforms all implants regarding revision rates at mid-term follow-up. The high early dislocation rate associated with RTSA, as well as the lack of revision options available to address this, indicates that careful selection of patients and a greater appreciation of anatomic risk factors are needed in the future.

The effect of pre-operative shoulder injections on post-operative opioid use, infection and revision following shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) may include conservative management with use of intraarticular injections, prior to considering total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to assess trends in the use of preoperative cortisone (CO) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections, as well as investigate the relationship between injection use and infection or revision arthroplasty following TSA.

Methods

Pearl Driver was used to identify all patients undergoing TSA for GHOA between 2010 and 2018. Patients were categorized based on the type and number of injections they received. Outcomes of interest included post-operative opioid use, post-operative infection, and risk of revision surgery within 1 year of the index procedure.

Results

The incidence of patients receiving a CO or HA injections within 1 year of their TSA decreased by 83% and 54%, respectively. Patients who had received 1 or more steroid injections had higher odds of prolonged opiate use following surgery. Patients that received 1 or 2 CO injection prior to TSA had an increased risk of needing revision surgery.

Discussion

Use of intraarticular injections for the management of GHOA has declined. Patients receiving preoperative injections had increased odds of prolonged opiate use and the need for revision surgery.

Trends in prevalence and implant types in the Nova Scotia Joint Database Registry between 2005 and 2021

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in incidence rate of shoulder arthroplasty, indications, and surgeon volume trends associated with these procedures between January 2003 and April 2021 in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada.

Methods

A total of 1,545 patients between 2005 and 2021 were analyzed. Patients operated on between 2003 and 2004 were excluded due to a lack of electronic records. Overall, 84.1% of the surgeries (n = 1,299) were performed by two fellowship-trained upper limb surgeons, with the remainder performed by one of the 14 orthopaedic surgeons working in the province.

Results

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) was the most frequent procedure (32.17%; n = 497), followed by stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) (27.7%; n = 428). The most frequent indication for primary shoulder arthroplasty was degenerative osteoarthritis (58.1%; n = 882), followed by acute proximal humerus fracture in 15.11% (n = 245), and rotator cuff arthropathy in 14.18% (n = 220). The overall rate of revision was 7.7% (2.8% to 11.2%). The number of TSAs and reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) has been increasing since 2016. The amount of revision cases is proportional to the number of operations performed in the same year throughout the study period.

Conclusion

The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the Maritime Provinces has increased over the last 16 years. Revision rates are similar the those found in other large database registries. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty prevalence has increased since 2016.

Comparing outcomes of central ingrowth peg vs. noningrowth pegged glenoid components during revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Background

One innovation to reduce glenoid loosening in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is a large, central ingrowth peg. However, when bone ingrowth fails to occur, there is often increased bone loss surrounding the central peg which may increase complexity of subsequent revisions. Our goal was to compare outcomes between central ingrowth pegs and noningrowth pegged glenoid components during revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

In a comparative retrospective case series, all patients who underwent TSA-to-reverse TSA revision between 2014 and 2022 were reviewed. Demographic varibles as well as clinical and radiographic outcomes were collected. Ingrowth central peg and noningrowth pegged glenoid groups were compared using t-test, Mann-Whitney U, Chi-Square, or Fisher's exact tests where indicated.

Results

Overall, 49 patients were included: 27 underwent revision from noningrowth and 22 from central ingrowth components. Females more commonly had noningrowth components (74% vs. 45%, P = .04) and preoperative external rotation was higher in central ingrowth components (P = .02). Time to revision was significantly earlier in central ingrowth components (2.4 vs. 7.5 years, P = .01). Structural glenoid allografting was required more with noningrowth components (30% vs. 5%, P = .03) and time to revision in patients ultimately requiring allograft reconstruction was significantly later (9.96 vs. 3.68 years, P = .03).

Conclusion

Central ingrowth pegs on glenoid components were associated with decreased need for structural allograft reconstruction during revision; however, time to revision was earlier in these components. Further research should focus on whether glenoid failure is due to glenoid component design, time to revision, or both.

The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty infection presents a substantial economic burden in the United States: a predictive model

Background

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a major cause of morbidity after shoulder arthroplasty. Prior national database studies have estimated the trends of shoulder PJI up to 2012.²¹ Since 2012, the landscape of shoulder arthroplasty has changed drastically with the expanding popularity of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. The dramatic growth in primary shoulder arthroplasties is likely paralleled with an increase of PJI case volume. The purpose of this study is to quantify the rise in shoulder PJIs and the economic stress they currently place on the American healthcare system as well as the toll they will incur over the coming decade.

Methods

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried for primary and revision anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, and hemiarthroplasty from 2011-2018. Multivariate regression was used to predict cases and charges through the year 2030 adjusted to 2021 purchasing power parity.

Results

From 2011 to 2018, PJI was found to be 1.1% shoulder arthroplasties, from 0.8% (2011) to 1.4% (2018). Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty experienced the greatest proportion of infections at 2.0%, followed by hemiarthroplasty at 1.0% and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at 0.3%. Total hospital charges grew 324%, from $44.8 million (2011) to $190.3 million (2018). Our regression model projects 176% growth in cases and 141% growth in annual charges by 2030.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the large economic burden that shoulder PJIs pose on the American healthcare system, which is predicted to reach nearly $500 million in charges annually by 2030. Understanding trends in procedure volume and hospital charges will be critical in evaluating strategies to reduce shoulder PJIs.

Revision of total shoulder arthroplasty to hemiarthroplasty: results at mean 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Although there is a trend to manage failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (aTSA) with revision to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, such revisions can be complicated by difficulties in baseplate fixation, instability, and acromial stress fractures. Some cases of failed aTSA may be safely revised to a hemiarthroplasty (HA). The objectives of this study were to report patient-reported outcomes after conversion from aTSA to HA and assess patient and shoulder characteristics associated with a successful outcome.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision from aTSA to HA between 2009 and 2018 were contacted. Patient demographics, surgical history, intraoperative findings, and microbiology results were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were collected with minimum 2-year follow-up. Preoperative radiographic characteristics were reviewed for component positioning and component loosening. Patients with a clinically significant improvement exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) were compared with those patients who did not improve past the MCID.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients underwent conversion from aTSA to HA with a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 1.8 years. Intraoperative glenoid or humeral component loosening was found in all 29 patients. Pain improved in 25 of 30 patients (87%), and mean pain scores improved from 6.2 ± 2.3 to 3.1 ± 2.4 (P < .001). SST scores improved from 4.1 ± 3.1 to 7.3 ± 3.2 (P < .001), and 18 of 29 patients (62%) had improvement above the SST MCID threshold of 2.4. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score at the latest follow-up was 64 ± 19, and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was 65 ± 23. Twenty-two of 29 (76%) patients were satisfied with the procedure. Four patients (14%) required conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty-2 to anatomic and 2 to reverse. An additional 3 patients (10%) had a revision HA performed. No significant differences in patient or shoulder characteristics were found in those patients who improved greater than the MCID of the SST compared patients who improved less than the MCID of the SST. Fifty-nine percent of patients had ≥2 positive cultures with the same bacteria, and 82% of these were with Cutibacterium. Seven of 8 patients (88%) with a loose humeral component had ≥2 positive cultures with the same bacteria.

DISCUSSION

Component loosening is a common failure mode after aTSA. Revision to HA can improve pain and patient-reported outcomes in most patients.

Patient Specific Instruments and Patient Individual Implants—A Narrative Review

Joint arthroplasties are one of the most frequently performed standard operations worldwide. Patient individual instruments and patient individual implants represent an innovation that must prove its usefulness in further studies. However, promising results are emerging. Those implants seem to be a benefit especially in revision situations. Most experience is available in the field of knee and hip arthroplasty. Patient-specific instruments for the shoulder and upper ankle are much less common. Patient individual implants combine individual cutting blocks and implants, while patient individual instruments solely use individual cutting blocks in combination with off-the-shelf implants. This review summarizes the current data regarding the implantation of individual implants and the use of individual instruments.

Complications and revisions in anatomic and reverse short stem shoulder arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

One current trend in the field of shoulder arthroplasty is a design shift to shorter and metaphyseal fixed humeral stem components. The aim of this investigation is to analyze complications resulting in revision surgery after anatomic (ASA) and reverse (RSA) short stem arthroplasty. We hypothesize that complications are influenced by the type of prosthesis and indication for arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 279 short stem shoulder prostheses were implanted by the same surgeon (162 ASA; 117 RSA), and 223 of these prostheses were implanted as primary procedures; in 54 cases, arthroplasty was performed secondary to prior open surgery. Main indications were osteoarthritis (OA) (n = 134), cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (n = 74) and posttraumatic deformities (PTr) (n = 59). Patients were evaluated at 6 weeks (follow-up 1; FU1), 2 years (FU2) and the time span of the last follow-up defined as FU3 with a minimum FU of 2 years. Complications were categorized into early complications (within FU1), intermediate complications (within FU2) and late complications (> 2 years; FU3).

RESULTS

In total, 268 prostheses (96.1%) were available for FU1; 267 prostheses (95.7%) were available for FU2 and 218 prostheses (77.8%) were available for FU3. The average time for FU3 was 53.0 months (range 24-95). A complication leading to revision occurred in 21 prostheses (7.8%), 6 (3.7%) in the ASA group and 15 (12.7%) in the RSA group (p < 0.005). The most frequent cause for revision was infection (n = 9; 42.9%). After primary implantation, 3 complications (2.2%) occurred in the ASA and 10 complications (11.0%) in the RSA group (p < 0.005). The complication rate was 2.2% in patients with OA, 13.5% in CTA and 11.9% in PTr.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty had a significantly higher rate of complications and revisions than primary and secondary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, respectively. Therefore, indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasty should be critically questioned in each individual case.

Does fluoroscopy improve baseplate position compared to conventional technique in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A preliminary study

Background

Accurate placement of glenoid component in reverse shoulder arthroplasty remains a challenge for surgeons of all levels of expertise; however, no studies have evaluated the utility of fluoroscopy as a surgical assistance method.

Methods

Prospective comparative study of 33 patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty during a 12-month period. Fifteen patients had a baseplate placed using the conventional "free hand" technique (control group), and 18 patients using intraoperative fluoroscopy assistance group, in a case-control design. Postoperative glenoid position was evaluated on postoperative Computed Tomography (CT) scan.

Results

The mean deviation of version and inclination for fluoroscopy assistance vs. control group was 1.75° (0.675-3.125) vs. 4.2° (1.975-10.45) (p = .015), and 3.85° (0-7.225) vs. 10.35° (4.35-18.75) (p = .009). The distance from the central peg midpoint to the inferior glenoid rim (fluoroscopy assistance 14.61 mm/control 4.75 mm, p = .581) and the surgical time (fluoroscopy assistance 1.93 ± 0.57/control 2.18 ± 0.44 h, p = .400) showed no differences, with an average radiation dose of 0.45 mGy and fluoroscopy time of 14 s.

Conclusions

Accurate axial and coronal scapular plane positioning of glenoid component is improved with intraoperative fluoroscopy at the cost of a greater radiation dose and without differences in surgical time. Comparative studies are needed to determine whether their use in relation to more expensive surgical assistance systems result in similar effectiveness.L evel of evidence : Level III, therapeutic study.

[Bony glenoid reconstruction in revision arthroplasty]

Glenoid pathologies are one of the main indications for shoulder arthroplasty revisions. In most cases, the glenoid bone defect is associated with insufficiency of the rotator cuff, so that only reverse total shoulder arthroplasty can be considered as a revision implant. For stable permanent fixation of the reverse glenoid component, to avoid inferior glenoid notching, and to achieve optimal function, physiological restoration of three-dimensional glenoid anatomy is necessary. In order to approach the individual glenoid pathologies in a differentiated and optimal manner, it is important to classify the defects. A basic distinction must be made between centric contained and eccentric uncontained defects. Combinations often occur. It is also important to consider the severity, depth, and three-dimensional orientation of the defect. Therefore, a CT analysis of the glenoid is essential preoperatively. The data obtained should serve as the basis for computer-assisted planning to determine the optimal position of the glenoid baseplate and the type and shape of the bone graft for the reconstruction. For patients with good bone quality, we recommend defect reconstruction with autologous iliac crest. The type of graft configuration and fixation and the decision between a one- and two-stage procedure depend on the type and severity of the defect. With technically correct reconstruction and proper prosthesis implantation, sufficient integration of the bone graft and durable fixation of the glenoid component can be expected with satisfactory clinical results. After bony reconstruction of the defects, repeated treatment with a reverse arthroplasty is possible in the long term in the event of renewed glenoid problems.

[Revision of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty]

With the increasing number of primary arthroplasties, revisions of anatomical prostheses are becoming increasingly important. The most common reasons for revision are glenoid loosening, including protrusion, rotator cuff insufficiency, including instability, and early/late infection. The reconstruction of glenoid defects can be done with an autograft or allograft. Depending on the size and situation, it is carried out in one or two stages. The stemless humeral head replacement and the short-stem prostheses that have been used more frequently in recent years have significantly simplified humeral revision. Platform systems take a different approach with the option of conversion without major interventions on the glenoid or revision stem. Intraoperative complications mainly occur on the humeral side. Postoperative complications include dislocation, component loosening, and infection. Revision of anatomical to reverse arthroplasty shows better clinical outcomes and lower complication rates than anatomical revision.

Incidence and 30- and 90-day readmission rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty in the United States: an analysis using the National Readmissions Database

BACKGROUND

The field of shoulder arthroplasty has experienced a substantial increase in the number of procedures performed annually and a shift toward more common implantation of reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs). Same-day discharge is perceived as beneficial for most patients as well as our health care system, and the number of shoulder procedures performed as same-day surgery has increased substantially. However, the potential benefits of same-day discharge after shoulder arthroplasty may be negatively influenced by unexpected readmissions. As such, an in-depth analysis of readmission rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty is particularly timely.

METHODS

The National Readmissions Database was queried for primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed in the United States between 2016 and 2018. National incidences were calculated, and indications, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, facility characteristics, and rates and causes of 30- and 90-day readmissions were determined for all procedures and compared between anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), anatomic hemiarthroplasty (HA), and RSA.

RESULTS

During the study period, 336,672 primary shoulder arthroplasties were performed (37% TSAs, 57% RSAs, and 6% HAs). In 2018, national incidences per 100,000 inhabitants were 22.64 for RSA, 12.70 for TSA, and 1.50 for HA. The utilization of these procedures between 2016 and 2018 increased for RSA, decreased for HA, and remained constant for TSA, but these changes did not reach the level of statistical significance. The average all-cause 30-day readmission rates were 3.63%, 1.92%, and 3.81% for RSA, TSA, and HA, respectively, and the average all-cause 90-day readmission rates were 7.76%, 4.37%, and 9.18%, respectively. For both RSA and HA, the most common surgical diagnosis for 30-day and 90-day readmissions was dislocation (0.45% and 0.99%, respectively, for RSA and 0.21% and 0.67%, respectively, for HA). For TSA, the most common surgical diagnosis for 30-day readmission was infection (0.11%); however, this was surpassed by dislocation (0.28%) at 90 days.

CONCLUSION

RSA surpassed TSA as the most frequently performed shoulder arthroplasty procedure in the United States between 2016 and 2018. During this period, the 90-day readmission rate was not negligible, with dislocation and infection as the leading orthopedic causes of readmission.

Survivorship analysis of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The expansion of indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has resulted in a rapid increase in the incidence of subsequent revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence and risk factors for re-revision shoulder arthroplasty after first revision RTSA.

METHODS

We retrospectively queried our institutional shoulder arthroplasty database of prospectively collected data from 2003 to 2019. To assess revision implant survival, patients were censored on the date of re-revision surgery or, if the revision arthroplasty was not revised, at the most recent follow-up or their date of death. Patients with a prior infection, concern for infection at the time of revision, antibiotic spacer, or oncologic indication for primary arthroplasty were excluded. A total of 186 revision RTSAs were included, with 32 undergoing re-revision shoulder arthroplasty. The Kaplan-Meier method and bivariate Cox regression were used to assess the relationship of patient and surgical characteristics on implant survivorship. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to identify independent predictors of re-revision.

RESULTS

Re-revision shoulder arthroplasty was most commonly performed for instability (34%), infection (28%), and glenoid loosening (19%). Overall re-revision rates at 6 months (7%), 1 year (9%), and 2 years (13%) were relatively low; however, the rate of re-revision increased at 5 years (35%). Men underwent re-revision more often than women within the first 6 months after revision RTSA (12% vs. 2%; P = .025), but not thereafter. On multivariate analysis, increased estimated blood loss was associated with a greater risk of undergoing re-revision shoulder arthroplasty (hazard ratio: 41.16 [3.34-506.50]; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

The rate of re-revision after revision RTSA is low in the first 2 years postoperatively (13%) but increases to 35% at 5 years. Increased estimated blood loss, which may reflect greater operative complexity, was identified as a risk factor that may confer an increased chance of re-revision after revision RTSA. Knowledge of risk factors for re-revision after revision RTSA can aid surgeons and patients in preoperative counseling.

Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Failed Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tear

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has become more common as surgical indications have expanded. However, the burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty has inevitably increased as well. Multiple studies have examined the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) as a revision option for failed anatomic TSA with a massive irreparable rotator cuff tear. Successful reconstruction of failed TSA with rTSA requires sufficient glenoid bone to place the glenoid segment, enough proximal humeral bone to allow for implantation of the humeral component, and sufficient tension in the soft-tissue envelope to ensure implant stability. In this article, we describe our preferred rTSA revision technique for the treatment of a failed TSA.

Revision Rates and Associated Risk Factors after Shoulder Arthroplasty

This study aims at answering the following questions (1) How high is the revision rate after osteoarthritis-, and rotator cuff-related compared to proximal humerus fracture (PHF)-related shoulder arthroplasty? (2) What are the associated risk factors for a revision after shoulder arthroplasty? Shoulder arthroplasty procedures occurring between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2019 were identified from the Medicare database. First, revision rates for PHF patients and age- and sex-matched non-fracture patients, grouped into osteoarthritis-related and rotator cuff-related arthroplasty, were compared. Second, revision rates between total shoulder arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty after PHF were compared. Semiparametric Cox regression was applied, incorporating 23 demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates, to investigate risk factors for revision surgery. Between the considered time period from 2009 through 2019, a total number of 47,979 PHFs was identified. A shoulder arthroplasty procedure was performed in n = 2639 (5.5%, 95%CI: 4.8-6.1) of the cases. The five-year survivorship of the implant was 96.3 (95%CI: 93.8-97.9) after hemiarthroplasty and 96.1% (05%CI: 94.2-97.3) after total shoulder arthroplasty. To compare the revision rates, n = 14,775 patients with osteoarthritis and n = 4268 patients with rotator cuff arthropathy, who received a shoulder arthroplasty, served as a non-fracture control group. Patients receiving a rotator cuff-related arthroplasty were more likely to require a revision compared to patients treated for osteoarthritis (HR: 1.27, 95%CI: 1.04-1.44, p = 0.018). Identified significant risk factors for revision surgery after shoulder arthroplasty included age ≤ 75 years, male sex, and osteoporosis. High implant survival was found for hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of PHF in elderly patients. The risk of revision surgery was elevated in patients receiving a rotator cuff-related arthroplasty as well as in patients with osteoporosis, male patients and patients older than 75 years.

Systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, and management of instability following reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Background

Since its approval for use, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the primary treatment for cuff tear arthropathy, with indications expanding more recently to include revision fracture, osteoarthritis with significant glenoid bone loss, tumor, and chronic instability. Instability is a well-described postoperative complication, occurring in 1to 31% of relatively small cohorts and case series. Given the relative infrequency of instability, there remains a need for a comprehensive review of instability with a focus on risk factors and management. Our goal of this systematic review is to describe the prevalence, risk factors, and management strategies for instability following RSA.

Methods

A systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria included primary RSA cohorts ≥ 100 patients, revision RSA cohorts of any size, and minimum 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome of interest was postoperative instability. MINORS criteria were used to assess study bias. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed with data reported as ranges.

Results

Seventeen studies that included 7885 cases of RSA were reviewed. The mean follow-up ranged from 12 to 84 months. Mean age ranged from 64 to 77 years old, and males represented 19 to 39% of cohorts. There were 204 (2.5%) dislocations in 7885 cases, accounting for a rate of instability from 0.4 to 49% across all studies. By intervention, instability rates ranged from 1 to 5% (primary RSA cases), 1 to 49% (revision RSA cases only), and 0.4 to 10% (mixed cohorts). Subscapularis insufficiency and proximal humerus fractures, and fracture sequelae (malunion and nonunion) were identified as risk factors for instability. Closed reduction and casting and revision RSA were reported as successful treatment strategies with acceptable rates of stable prostheses (28-100% and 55-100%, respectively, across studies). Hemiarthroplasty or resection arthroplasty due to recurrent instability was not uncommon after 2 or more episodes of instability.

Conclusion

Instability following RSA occurs infrequently (1-5%) following primary RSA and more commonly following revision RSA (1-49%). RSA for acute proximal humerus fracture and fracture sequelae carries a higher risk of instability. Subscapularis repair appears to be a protective factor. While instability may be successfully treated with closed management or revision RSA, recurrent instability may ultimately require hemiarthroplasty or resection arthroplasty.

Do preoperative factors and implant design features influence humeral stem extraction efforts?

BACKGROUND

Variations in humeral component designs in hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty cases can impact the degree of difficulty during a revision surgery that necessitates the removal of the humeral stem. However, no metric exists to define stem extraction effort nor to identify associated factors that contribute to extraction difficulty. The purpose of this study is to describe a method to quantify stem extraction difficulty and to define features that will impact the effort during stem removal.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of 58 patients undergoing revision of hemiarthroplasty or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty requiring stem extraction. Each included patient had existing preoperative radiographic examination, an intraoperative video of the stem removal process, and explants available for analysis by 3 surgeons. The following factors were assessed for the impact on extraction difficulty: (1) preoperative features such as cement use, fill of proximal humerus, and stem design features; (2) intraoperative data on extraction time and bone removal; and (3) postoperative findings related to extraction artifacts (EAs). A scoring system was established to distinguish easy (Easy group) and difficult (Difficult group) stem removal cases and further used to identify the features that may affect intraoperative difficulty of stem removal.

RESULTS

The Difficult group accounted for 26% (15/58) of the study population with an 18-minute average stem extraction time, average EA count of 69, and 35 mm of bone removed. The Easy group accounted for 74% (43/58) of patients, with a 4-minute average extraction time, average EA count of 23, and 10 mm of bone removed. Logistic regression model was able to correctly classify 82% of the cases, explaining 26.7% of the variance in humeral stem removal with cement and proximal coating variables. The likelihood of cemented stem removal being difficult is 5 times greater compared to an uncemented stem, and having proximal coating doubles the likelihood of a difficult stem removal compared to cases with no coating.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantifying stem extraction difficulty is possible with intraoperative video as well as explant analysis. Preoperative features of the fixation type and specific features of stem design such as proximal coating will impact difficulty of stem extraction.

Influence of rotator cuff preload on fracture configuration in proximal humerus fractures: a proof of concept for fracture simulation

INTRODUCTION

In regard of surgical training, the reproducible simulation of life-like proximal humerus fractures in human cadaveric specimens is desirable. The aim of the present study was to develop a technique that allows simulation of realistic proximal humerus fractures and to analyse the influence of rotator cuff preload on the generated lesions in regards of fracture configuration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten cadaveric specimens (6 left, 4 right) were fractured using a custom-made drop-test bench, in two groups. Five specimens were fractured without rotator cuff preload, while the other five were fractured with the tendons of the rotator cuff preloaded with 2 kg each. The humeral shaft and the shortened scapula were potted. The humerus was positioned at 90° of abduction and 10° of internal rotation to simulate a fall on the elevated arm. In two specimens of each group, the emergence of the fractures was documented with high-speed video imaging. Pre-fracture radiographs were taken to evaluate the deltoid-tuberosity index as a measure of bone density. Post-fracture X-rays and CT scans were performed to define the exact fracture configurations. Neer's classification was used to analyse the fractures.

RESULTS

In all ten cadaveric specimens life-like proximal humerus fractures were achieved. Two III-part and three IV-part fractures resulted in each group. The preloading of the rotator cuff muscles had no further influence on the fracture configuration. High-speed videos of the fracture simulation revealed identical fracture mechanisms for both groups. We observed a two-step fracture mechanism, with initial impaction of the head segment against the glenoid followed by fracturing of the head and the tuberosities and then with further impaction of the shaft against the acromion, which lead to separation of the tuberosities.

CONCLUSION

A high energetic axial impulse can reliably induce realistic proximal humerus fractures in cadaveric specimens. The preload of the rotator cuff muscles had no influence on initial fracture configuration. Therefore, fracture simulation in the proximal humerus is less elaborate. Using the presented technique, pre-fractured specimens are available for real-life surgical education.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Component Size Prediction with 3-Dimensional Pre-Operative Digital Planning

Background

The rate, complexity, and cost of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) continues to grow. Technology has advanced pre-operative templating. Reducing cost of TSA has positive impact for the patient, manufacturer, and hospital. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant size selection based on 3-D templating. Our hypothesis was that pre-operative templating would enable accurate implant prediction within one size.

Methods

Multicenter retrospective study of anatomic TSAs templated utilizing 3-D virtual planning technology. This program uses computed tomography (CT) scans allowing the surgeon to predict component sizes of the glenoid and humeral head and stem. Pre-operative templated implant size were compared to actual implant size at the time of surgery. Primary data analysis utilized unweighted Cohen's Kappa test.

Results

111 TSAs were analyzed from five surgeons. Pre-operative templated glenoid sizes were within one size of actual implant in 99% and exactly matched in 89%. For patients requiring a posterior glenoid augment (n = 14), 100% of implants were within one size of the template and 93% matched exactly. For stemless humeral components (n = 87) implanted, 98% matched the pre-operative template within one size with 79% exactly matched. For stemmed components (n = 24), 88% of cases were within one size of the preoperative plan and exactly matching in 83%. Humeral head diameter matched within one size of the pre-operative template in 84% of cases and exactly matched in 72%.

Conclusion

Pre-operative 3-D templating for TSAs can accurately predict glenoid and humeral component size. This study sets the groundwork for utilization of pre-operative 3-D templating as a potential method to reduce overall TSA costs by managing cost of implants, reducing inventory needs, and improving surgical efficiency.

Long-term results of the uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty (Global Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis)

BACKGROUND

Treatment with uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty has proved to be viable for patients with end-stage osteoarthritis at short- and mid-term follow-up. This study was essential to determine whether those outcomes will endure. This study presents the long-term results of the Global Conservative Anatomic Prosthesis (CAP) uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA).

METHODS

All patients with a diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis and an intact and clinically sufficient rotator cuff who underwent uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty between 2007 and 2009 were included. The data of all patients who completed the 10-year follow-up assessments were used for analysis. The visual analog scale pain score, Dutch version of the Simple Shoulder Test score, Constant score, Short Form 12 scores, and physical examination findings were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively on an annual basis. All complications and revisions were documented. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening, luxation or subluxation, migration, and glenoid erosion.

RESULTS

Of 48 shoulders, 23 (48%, 18 women and 5 men) were available for the 10-year follow-up assessments and their data were used for analysis. The main reasons for dropout were revision (27%) and death (10%). The mean follow-up period of the remaining patients was 10.9 years (range, 9-13 years). The visual analog scale pain score (from 6.5 ± 2.1 to 0.7 ± 1.6, P < .001), Simple Shoulder Test (Dutch version) score (from 22% ± 22% to 79% ± 22%, P < .001), Constant score (from 40 ± 29 to 70 ± 8, P < .001), and Short Form 12 physical score (from 36 ± 7 to 41 ± 12, P = .001) improved significantly compared with preoperative scores. Revision surgery was performed in 13 of the initial 48 shoulders (27%). Most revisions were seen within 7 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Two revisions have been performed in the mid-term to long term because of increased functional outcome scores and the absence of signs of loosening. Nevertheless, the high overall revision rate of 27% between short- and long-term follow-up reflects the need to limit the use of uncemented resurfacing shoulder hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

Prior Nonshoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection Increases the Risk of Surgical Site Infection, Sepsis, and All-Cause Revision After Primary Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty is a known risk factor for infection in subsequent joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine whether prior nonshoulder PJI contributes to the increased risk of infectious complications, greater healthcare utilization, and increased revision surgery after primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA).

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary TSA for osteoarthritis with prior nonshoulder PJI were identified in a national database (PearlDiver Technologies) using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes. These patients were propensity matched based on age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, smoking status, and obesity (body mass index >30 kg/m2) to a control cohort of patients who underwent primary TSA for osteoarthritis without any prior PJI. Primary outcomes include 1- and 2-year revision rates. Secondary outcomes include healthcare-specific outcomes of readmission, emergency department visits, length of stay, and mortality. Bivariate analysis was conducted using chi-square tests to compare all outcomes and complications between both cohorts.

RESULTS

Compared with patients without prior PJI, those with prior PJI had a significantly higher risk of 90-day surgical site infection (7.61% versus 0.56%) and sepsis (1.79% versus 0.56%) after TSA (P < 0.05 for both). Patients with prior PJI also had a higher risk of 90-day readmission compared with those without prior PJI (3.36% versus 1.23%, P = 0.008). In terms of surgical complications, patients with prior PJI had significantly higher risk of 2-year revision surgery compared with patients without prior PJI (3.36% versus 1.57%, P = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Prior nonshoulder PJI of any joint increases rates of 90-day surgical site infection, sepsis, and hospital readmission, as well as 2-year all-cause revision after TSA. These results are important for risk-stratifying patients undergoing TSA with prior history of PJI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Short-term outcomes and survival of pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty in the young arthritic shoulder

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to report the short-term outcomes and survival of hemiarthroplasty with a pyrocarbon head (HA-PYC) for the treatment of shoulder osteoarthritis in patients aged ≤ 60 years. We hypothesized that HA-PYC could be an alternative to hemi-metal (avoiding the risk of rapid glenoid erosion) and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) (avoiding the risk of rapid glenoid loosening) in an active patient population.

METHODS

Sixty-four consecutive patients (mean age, 53 years) who underwent HA-PYC for glenohumeral osteoarthritis were included. The primary outcome was revision to TSA or reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Secondary outcome measures included functional outcome scores; return to work and sports; and radiographic evaluation of humeral reconstruction quality using the "circle method" of Mears, as well as glenoid erosion severity and progression using the Sperling classification. Patients were reviewed and underwent radiography at an average follow-up of 33 months (range, 24-60 months).

RESULTS

At last follow-up, the rate of survival of the HA-PYC prosthesis was 92%. Revision was performed in 5 patients, with a mean delay of 24 months (range, 15-37 months): 1 conversion to TSA and 4 conversions to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The Constant score and Subjective Shoulder Value increased from 36 points (range, 26-50 points) to 75 points (range, 69-81 points) and from 35% (range, 20%-50%) to 80% (range, 75%-90%), respectively (P < .001). Postoperatively, 91% of the patients (42 of 46) returned to work and 88% (15 of 17) returned to sport. The severity of preoperative and postoperative glenoid wear (Sperling grade 3 or 4) had no influence on the functional results. Patients who underwent associated concentric glenoid reaming (n = 23) had similar Constant scores and Subjective Shoulder Values (P = .95) to other patients and did not show more progression of glenoid wear. Nonanatomic reconstruction of the proximal humerus (center of rotation of the prosthesis > 3 mm from the anatomic center) occurred in 29% (18 of 62 patients) and was associated with significantly lower functional and subjective results, more complications (subscapularis insufficiency and/or symptomatic glenoid erosion), and a higher risk of revision. The additional 1.5-mm thickness of the metal disc under the pyrocarbon head was found to be the main reason for oversizing of the prosthetic head.

CONCLUSION

HA-PYC is a reliable procedure to treat shoulder osteoarthritis and allows return to work and sports in a young (≤60 years) and active patient population. The severity of glenoid bone erosion or the association with glenoid reaming does not affect functional outcomes and failure risk. By contrast, nonanatomic reconstruction of the proximal humerus after HA-PYC (because of humeral head oversizing) occurred in one-third of the cases and is associated with lower functional outcomes, as well as higher risks of complications and revision.

Surgical Trends of Shoulder Arthroplasty: Nationwide Epidemiologic Study in South Korea

Background

The aim of this study was to determine the nationwide shoulder arthroplasty trends in South Korea based on an analysis of nationwide data acquired from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA).

Methods

We analyzed a nationwide database acquired from the HIRA that covered 2008 to 2017. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes and procedure codes were used to identify patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty, including total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Results

From 2008 to 2017, a total of 19,831 shoulder arthroplasties were performed; there were 16,162 TSAs and 3,669 hemiarthroplasties. During the 10-year study period, there was an exponential increase in the incidence of TSA (from 513 cases in 2008 to 3,583 cases in 2017), while the number of hemiarthroplasties remained steady. The most common diagnoses for TSA were rotator cuff tears (6,304 cases, 39.0%) and osteoarthritis (6,589 cases, 40.8%) for all 9 years. Osteoarthritis was the most common reason for TSA during the first 3 years (2008-2010), but rotator cuff tears ultimately surpassed osteoarthritis during the last 3 years (2015-2017). HA was performed to treat proximal humerus fracture (1,770 cases, 48.2%) and osteoarthritis (774 cases, 21.1%). In terms of hospital types, the rate of TSA in hospitals with 30-100 inpatient beds increased from 21.83% to 46.27%, while the rates of the other types of surgery decreased. A total of 430 revision surgeries were performed during the study period, and infection (152 cases, 35.3%) was the most common reason for revision surgery.

Conclusions

Overall, the total count and incidence of TSA, unlike HA, increased rapidly between 2008 and 2017 in South Korea. Moreover, at the end of the study period, nearly half of the TSAs were performed in small hospitals (30 to 100 beds). Rotator cuff tears were the leading cause of TSA at the end of the study period. These findings revealed an explosive increase in reverse TSA surgery.

Limited value of current shoulder arthroplasty registries in evidence-based shoulder surgery: a review of 7 national registries

National shoulder arthroplasty registries are currently used to assess incidence, indication, type of prosthesis and revision, but they seem to lack sufficient information to lead to evidence based decision-making in shoulder surgery. There appears to be a large difference in registered parameters and outcome measurement per country. First we investigated whether existing registries have sufficient common datasets to enable pooling of data. Second, we determined whether known risk factors for prosthetic failure are being recorded. Through a non-systematic literature review studies on registries were analyzed for included parameters. Seven national registries were scrutinized for the data collected and these were classified according to categories of risk factors for failure: patient-, implant and surgeon related, and other parameters. This shows a large heterogeneity of registered parameters between countries. The majority of parameters shown to be relevant to outcome and failure of shoulder prostheses are not included in the studied registries. International agreement on parameters and outcome measurement for registries is paramount to enable pooling and comparison of data. If we intend to use the registries to provide us with evidence to improve prosthetic shoulder surgery, we need adjustment of the different parameters to be included.

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Compared with hemiarthroplasty (HA), reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) may provide greater cost and health-related benefits for patients with complex three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures. This study set out to compare RTSA versus HA for the incremental cost per incremental improvement in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for a hypothetical cohort of patients with proximal humerus fractures.

METHODS

Parameters and characteristics for a hypothetical cohort of elderly patients with proximal humerus fractures were collected through the literature. A cohort-level Markov decision model was constructed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios representing the difference in cost divided by the difference in QALYs were calculated, and scenario, one-way, and probabilistic analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

RTSA was associated with lower cost and greater effectiveness compared with HA. The predicted cost difference corresponded to a saving of $99,626 per 100 individuals treated, and the predicted difference in QALY was 16.8 per 100 individuals treated. Results were sensitive to the discount rate, the health-related quality of life assigned to health states, and the cost of the surgical procedures. In probabilistic analysis, 77.1% of iterations were cost-effective at a threshold willingness-to-pay for a QALY of $100,000 US dollars.

DISCUSSION

Findings suggest that RTSA may be a cost-effective alternative to HA for treating elderly patients requiring surgery for proximal humerus fractures.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The model and corresponding code are available on request to the corresponding author.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE USING THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS GUIDANCE

Level III.

Mechanical complications and fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty related to different design types and their rates: part I

The initial reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), designed by Paul Grammont, was intended to treat rotator cuff tear arthropathy in elderly patients. In the early experience, high complication rates (up to 24%) and revision rates (up to 50%) were reported.The most common complications reported were scapular notching, whereas clinically more relevant complications such as instability and acromial fractures were less commonly described.Zumstein et al defined a 'complication' following RSA as any intraoperative or postoperative event that was likely to have a negative influence on the patient's final outcome.High rates of complications related to the Grammont RSA design led to development of non-Grammont designs, with 135 or 145 degrees of humeral inclination, multiple options for glenosphere size and eccentricity, improved baseplate fixation which facilitated glenoid-sided lateralization, and the option of humeral-sided lateralization.Improved implant characteristics combined with surgeon experience led to a dramatic fall in the majority of complications. However, we still lack a suitable solution for several complications, such as acromial stress fracture. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1097-1108. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210039.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty used for revision of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

Background

As reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) cases increase, so too will the need to revise subsequent failures. Many of the complications associated with revising anatomic total shoulder and hemiarthroplasty have been adequately addressed by RSA including glenoid bone deficiency, instability, and functional outcomes. However, the risk for complication when revising a failed reverse prosthesis may be more pronounced with increased bone and soft tissue deficiency. The ability for the reversed prosthesis to accommodate these insufficiencies following a prior reversed prosthesis is unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were queried for articles which fit the inclusion criteria of a reversed prosthesis used to revise a failed primary reverse prosthesis with a minimum follow-up of 12 months and clinical outcome reporting.

Results

After exclusions, 9 studies reporting on 242 reverse shoulders with a mean follow-up of 40.29 months were analyzed. The differences between preoperative and postoperative weighted means were not significant for Constant (P = .26), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder score (P = .61), SSV (P = .57), and visual analog scale for pain (P = .48). Functional improvements in elevation (74°-102°) and external rotation (18°-21°) were consistent with those reported for primary reverse procedures, although differences in preoperative and postoperative measures were not statistically significant. Patient satisfaction was 89% with a major complication rate of 25%.

Discussion

The reverse shoulder prosthesis has proven satisfactory in revising hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The current results indicate RSA is also a satisfactory treatment option when revising a prior reverse prosthesis. Inherent to revision shoulder surgery is the obstacle of humeral and glenoid bone loss, an attenuated soft-tissue envelope, and instability. The reverse prosthesis may adequately address these commonly confronted difficulties with its inherent design characteristics. RSA provides a secure glenoid fixation for bone grafting, the ability to increase construct stability with component sizing, and a reliance on the deltoid for function. As our learning about revision of RSA improves, so will our ability to preemptively address potential issues which may lead to decreased complications in these cases. Despite the 25% rate of major complication, patients reported satisfaction of 89% which demonstrates the improvements in function and pain relief that are provided by the reverse prosthesis.

Projections of Primary and Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty until 2040: Facing a Massive Rise in Fracture-Related Procedures

Although the demand for shoulder arthroplasties has reached its highest number worldwide, there remains a lack of epidemiologic data regarding recent and future trends. In this study, data for all shoulder arthroplasties (hemiarthroplasty, reverse/anatomic shoulder arthroplasty) from the nationwide inpatient statistics of Germany (2010–2019) and population forecasts until 2040 were gathered. A Poisson and a negative binomial approach using monotone B-splines were modeled for all types of prostheses to project the annual number and incidence of primary and revision arthroplasty. Additionally, trends in main indicators were also gathered and expected changes were calculated. Overall, the number of primary shoulder replacements is set to increase significantly by 2040, reaching at least 37,000 (95% CI 32,000–44,000) procedures per year. This trend is mainly attributable to an about 10-fold increased use of fracture-related reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients over 80 years of age, although the number of procedures in younger patients will also rise substantially. In contrast, hemiarthroplasties will significantly decrease. The number of revision procedures is projected to increase subsequently, although the revision burden is forecast to decline. Using these country-specific projection approaches, a massive increase of primary and revision shoulder arthroplasties is expected by 2040, mainly due to a rising number of fracture-related procedures. These growth rates are substantially higher than those from hip or knee arthroplasty. As these trends are similar in most Western countries, this draws attention to the international issue, of: if healthcare systems will be able to allocate human and financial resources adequately, and if future research and fracture-prevention programs may help to temper this rising burden in the upcoming decades.

Failed Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: What Are Our Bailouts?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the population continues to age and indications continue to expand, the number of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSTA) procedures has increased significantly. While RTSA is an effective solution to many shoulder problems, it is not without complications. Furthermore, as the number of RTSA procedures increases, so will the number of complications following this procedure. While some complications can be managed with revision RTSA, there are some complications that, unfortunately, cannot. The purpose of this review is to discuss the revision options for failed RTSA.

RECENT FINDINGS

While there has been a significant amount of recent literature surrounding RTSA, much of this literature has been aimed at improving outcomes for primary RTSA by improving glenoid placement, maximizing range of motion, etc., or improving outcomes following conversion of another surgery to RTSA [1••, 2, 3]. There has been little evidence surrounding options for failed RTSA that cannot be salvaged to a revision RTSA. These options are limited and often involve resection arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty, although neither option provides patients with significant function of the shoulder [4, 5•]. Complications following RTSA are becoming more common as the number of RTSA continues to increase. Furthermore, as the indications for RTSA expand, the complications will continue to increase as this implant is used to tackle more difficult problems about the shoulder. When possible, the etiology of the problem with the RTSA should be addressed and may involve component revision, bone grafting, etc. When the problem cannot be solved with revision RTSA, then the patient can be converted to a hemiarthroplasty, or have a resection arthroplasty, with the understanding that their shoulder function will be limited.

Two-year results of a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial comparing a second-generation uncemented trabecular metal-backed versus cemented polyethylene glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty

Aims

To report early (two-year) postoperative findings from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating disease-specific quality of life (QOL), clinical, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a second-generation uncemented trabecular metal (TM) glenoid versus a cemented polyethylene glenoid (POLY) component.

Methods

Five fellowship-trained surgeons from three centres participated. Patients aged between 18 and 79 years with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis were screened for eligibility. Patients were randomized intraoperatively to either a TM or POLY glenoid component. Study intervals were: baseline, six weeks, six-, 12-, and 24 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder QOL score. Radiological images were reviewed for metal debris. Mixed effects repeated measures analysis of variance for within and between group comparisons were performed.

Results

A total of 93 patients were randomized (46 TM; 47 POLY). No significant or clinically important differences were found with patient-reported outcomes at 24-month follow-up. Regarding the glenoid components, there were no complications or revision surgeries in either group. Grade 1 metal debris was observed in three (6.5%) patients with TM glenoids at 24 months but outcomes were not negatively impacted.

Conclusion

Early results from this RCT showed no differences in disease-specific QOL, radiographs, complication rates, or shoulder function between uncemented second-generation TM and cemented POLY glenoids at 24 months postoperatively. Revision surgeries and reoperations were reported in both groups, but none attributed to glenoid implant failure. At 24 months postoperatively, Grade 1 metal debris was found in 6.5% of patients with a TM glenoid but did not negatively influence patient-reported outcomes. Longer-term follow-up is needed and is underway.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):728–736.

Biomechanical comparison of zoned-conformity glenoid versus standard glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty: impact on rotator cuff strain and glenohumeral translation

BACKGROUND

Current standard total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid implants allow for high levels of glenohumeral mismatch and associated high levels of humeral head translation to improve range of motion and reduce rim stresses on the glenoid. However, high levels of glenohumeral mismatch could also increase glenoid edge loading, eccentric wear, and rotator cuff strain. A zoned-conformity glenoid may be able to reduce the forces on the rotator cuff and glenoid. We compared rotator cuff strain and glenohumeral translation between a standard glenoid (SG) with moderate glenohumeral mismatch and a zoned-conformity glenoid (conforming glenoid [CG]) that limits mismatch. We hypothesized that the CG would have lower levels of strain on the rotator cuff and lower levels of humeral head translation compared with the SG.

METHODS

Eight fresh frozen cadaveric shoulders, aged 72 years (range, 67-76 years), were used in this biomechanical study. The specimens were first tested in the intact state. We cycled them 3 times from 0° to 60° of abduction and measured the superiorly-inferiorly and anteriorly-posteriorly directed forces at the joint, compressive forces applied to the glenoid, and humeral head translation. The specimens were then implanted with a standard press-fit humeral component and a polyethylene glenoid with 3 peripherally cemented pegs and a central press-fit peg. Testing was repeated. Finally, the SG was removed, the CG was implanted, and each specimen was tested a third time.

RESULTS

The average superiorly directed force at the glenohumeral joint was significantly lower in the intact and CG groups (18.1 ± 18.6 N and 19.8 ± 16.2 N, respectively) than in the SG group (29.3 ± 21.9 N, P = .024). The maximum force directed against the glenoid was also significantly lower in the CG group (87.6 ± 11.7 N) than in the SG (96.0 ± 7.3 N) and intact (98.9 ± 16.5 N) groups (P = .035). No difference was observed in humeral head translation in the anterior-posterior plane from 0° to 60° of abduction (P = .998) or in the superior-inferior plane (P = .999).

CONCLUSION

A zoned-conformity glenoid was associated with similar humeral head translation but significantly lower superior forces against the rotator cuff and a significantly lower maximum force against the glenoid compared with an SG implant. These biomechanical findings suggest that a zoned-conformity implant warrants further study in the effort to maintain humeral head translation while reducing rotator cuff and glenoid forces for successful outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty.

The effect of glenoid bone loss and rotator cuff status in failed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty after revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty

HYPOTHESIS

We evaluated outcomes and the risk of re-revision in patients with a failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) based on rotator cuff deficiency and glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

From 2004 to 2017, 123 patients with failed TSAs underwent revision to RSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up. Preoperative radiographs were evaluated to determine whether the glenoid component was fixed or loose. The rotator cuff was assessed intraoperatively and as intact or deficient. Patient outcomes including shoulder motion and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively. Patient outcomes were compared based on glenoid fixation and rotator cuff status. There were 18 TSAs revised to RSAs that underwent subsequent revision.

RESULTS

The mean preoperative ASES score was 31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 29-33) with no difference in preoperative ASES scores based on glenoid status (P = .412) or rotator cuff status (P = .89). No difference in postoperative ASES score was found based on glenoid component status or rotator cuff status. However, improvement in the ASES score was greater with an intact rotator cuff (mean postoperative score, 67 [95% CI, 57-76] vs. 55 [95% CI, 50-60]; P = .025). The overall re-revision rate was 11.4%, with a mean time to re-revision of 22 months (range, 0-89 months). The odds ratio was 1.786 for subsequent revision in patients with glenoid loosening compared with those without loose glenoids on preoperative radiographs.

CONCLUSION

There was an overall improvement in patient outcomes for failed TSAs revised to RSAs; however, patients with an intact cuff had a greater improvement in ASES scores.

Primary reverse shoulder replacement with a short stem: A systematic literature review

Background

Total shoulder arthroplasty implant designs have continued to evolve over the years. One recent change has been the shortening of the humeral component to preserve bone stock and to facilitate revision surgery. Despite promising clinical results, radiographic bone adaptions occur frequently in short-stem total shoulder arthroplasty, and limited data exist on short-stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this systematic review was to provide an overview about the functional and radiographic outcomes after an uncemented short-stem RSA, as well as identify areas of clinical importance that are underreported in the current literature.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Clinical outcome studies reporting on short-stem RSA outcomes with evidence level I-IV were included. Demographics, clinical and radiological outcomes, as well as complications and revision data were systematically analyzed and described.

Results

Ten studies, published between 2014 and 2019, reporting on 555 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 32 months (range, 20-99.6 months) met the inclusion criteria. For all studies cuff tear arthropathy was the main indication for RSA (36%), followed by primary osteoarthritis (20%). Clinical outcome was reported in nine of ten studies, with range of motion improving in all studies. Six of the seven studies that used the Constant score (CS) demonstrated significant improvement (27.9 points to 69.3 points in weighted means). All studies reported on radiographic changes and bone adaptions. Among these, scapular notching was the most commonly observed (60 out of 327 cases, 18%) but without any described implication on clinical outcomes. No stem loosening was recorded at any final follow-up. A total of 63 complications (12.9%) were reported, with scapula fractures being the most commonly reported complication. Revision surgery was necessary in 24 cases (4.9%).

Conclusion

Good clinical results, comparable with long-stem RSAs, are reported at short-term follow-up for short-stem RSAs. Humeral bone adaptions occur frequently but aseptic stem loosening is not a matter of concern at short-term follow-up. An area of clinical importance that is under-reported is the relation between filling ratio and stem alignment in short-stem RSA.

Computer-Assisted Surgery in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Early Experience

BACKGROUND

In the last decade, new technologies have been applied to shoulder arthroplasty. The aim of this work was to show that navigated RSA allows the surgeon to reach the planned version/inclination in all cases. In this article are shown preliminary data, advantages, disadvantages and limits of the technique.

METHODS

Eighteen computer-assisted reverse shoulder arthroplasty were performed. Preoperative glenoid version and inclination were evaluated with preoperative CT scan using Orthoblue^® (Exactech, Gainesville, FL,USA) software, as well as baseplate type, planned glenoid component seating, planned postoperative version, planned postoperative inclination, intraoperative glenoid version/inclination, screw length and surgical time. A senior shoulder surgeon has analyzed the advantages, disadvantages and limitation of this kind of surgery.

RESULTS

Mean surgical time of the primary implants was 92 ± 12 min (min 75-max 110). Mean preoperative inclination was + 2.6° ± 6.4, mean preoperative version was - 7.6° ± 8.4. Mean planned postoperative inclination was - 2.7° ± 2.3, mean planned postoperative version was - 1.6° ± 2.9 and mean planned glenoid seating was 89% ± 8%. Planned settings were reached in all cases during surgery. Baseplate implanted were in nine cases 8° posterior augmented, in six cases standard and in three cases 10° superior augmented. Mean screw length was 33.5 mm ± 4.2 mm. No GPS system failure has been recorded. One coracoid fracture occurred during the first case.

DISCUSSION

Intraoperative navigation system is a reliable and user-friendly technology that allows the surgeon to reach planned glenoid positioning during surgery. Furthermore, this technology will allow the surgeon to compare clinical outcomes to component positioning data. The lack of humeral implant navigation is the main limit of this technique.

Percutaneous cementoplasty of periprosthetic loosening: can interventional radiologists offer an alternative to revision surgery?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate feasibility and validate both safety and efficiency of radiological percutaneous periprosthetic bone cementoplasty (RPPBC) performed under local anesthesia as an alternative minimally invasive treatment of aseptic implant loosening.

METHODS

In this case series, seven patients (mean age 81 years, range 73 to 89 years, 2 men and 5 women) were enrolled between February 2011 and January 2020 with confirmed aseptic loosening of orthopedic implants. One patient presented with tibial component loosening of an unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, one with glenoid component loosening from a reverse shoulder arthroplasty, one femoral gamma nail, and four presented with pedicle screw loosening after staged posterior lumbar interbody fusion. All patients underwent clinical, biochemical, and imaging assessments to confirm the diagnosis of aseptic loosening. All benefited from RPPBC under dual CT and fluoroscopic guidance. All procedures were performed under local anesthesia by an experienced radiologist. Preprocedural, immediate and 6-month post-cementoplasty pain levels on a visual analogue scale (VAS), and functional outcomes were evaluated. Immediate and 6-month postprocedural CTs were performed to evaluate the treated region.

RESULTS

All RPPBC were well tolerated by patients throughout the procedure. None of the patients suffered from local or systemic infection post-RPPBC, or periprosthetic fractures. No recurrent implant loosening was observed. Six patients were pain free at 6 months. All patients expressed functional improvements during validated outcome score evaluations.

CONCLUSION

RPPBC appears to be an efficient and reliable treatment strategy for aseptic loosening of orthopedic implants in elderly patients deemed unfit for revision surgery.

KEY POINTS

• Radiological percutaneous periprosthetic bone cementoplasty offers immediate and long-lasting pain relief in elderly frail patients, or those deemed unfit for revision surgery despite presenting with symptomatic aseptic loosening of orthopedic implants. • Radiological percutaneous periprosthetic bone cementoplasty brings quick and long-lasting improvements in clinical functional outcomes and offer effective pain reduction, thereby improving the overall quality of life. • Radiological percutaneous periprosthetic bone cementoplasty is a safe, quick, reliable, and well-tolerated minimally invasive procedure which can be easily performed under simple locoregional anesthesia and requires short-term hospital stay.

Salvage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) as a revision procedure for failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is increasing in incidence. The purpose of this study was to analyze the results of RTSA as a revision salvage procedure for failed TSA and identify factors that influenced those outcomes.

METHODS

All anatomic TSAs that were revised to RTSAs in adult patients, under the care of 2 senior surgeons at a single academic center from 2006 to 2018, were queried and reviewed. Cases in which hemiarthroplasty or RTSA was revised to RTSA were excluded. Electronic medical records and survey databases were reviewed for each subject. Demographic and surgical details were reviewed and analyzed with descriptive statistics. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) including active forward elevation and active external rotation were evaluated. Patient-reported outcome surveys including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons survey, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain were collected and analyzed. Improvement in ROM and outcome survey measures was assessed with 2-sample t tests. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients (32 men and 43 women) were available for analysis at a mean of 22.3 months. The subjects were aged 60.3 ± 11.3 years at the time of TSA and 64.6 ± 9.7 years at the time of RTSA. The average period between TSA and RTSA was 4.3 years. The 3 most common indications for revision RTSA were painful arthroplasty (n = 62, 82.7%), rotator cuff failure (n = 56, 74.7%), and unstable arthroplasty (n = 25, 33.3%), but the majority of patients had multiple indications for surgery (n = 69, 92%). Significant improvements were found in all outcome measures from the time of failed TSA diagnosis to most recent follow-up after salvage RTSA with the exception of active external rotation: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 39 ± 15 preoperatively vs. 62 ± 25 postoperatively; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, 27 ± 23 vs. 60 ± 30; visual analog scale pain score, 5 ± 2 vs. 3 ± 3; and active forward elevation, 79° ± 41° vs. 128° ± 33°. Major complications occurred in 21 patients (28.4%) after salvage RTSA, and 9 (12%) underwent reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

RTSA for failed TSA can improve pain, function, and quality-of-life measures in patients with various TSA failure etiologies. However, postoperative ROM and patient-reported outcomes do not reach the values seen in the primary RTSA population.

Safety and Effectiveness of Shoulder Arthroplasties in Spain: A Systematic Review

The effectiveness and safety of shoulder arthroplasties in the general context of a Spanish patient population remains unclear. The aim of this study was to ascertain both the effectiveness and safety of primary shoulder arthroplasties and the prosthesis types used in Spain. A systematic review of all the available literature evaluating the effectiveness and safety of primary shoulder arthroplasties in Spain was performed. A narrative synthesis was performed, and evidence tables were created in four dimensions: study design, arthroplasty characteristics, safety, and effectiveness. Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) scores were used to evaluate prosthesis types. Twenty-one studies were selected that included a total of 1293 arthroplasties. The most common indication was fractures, while the prosthesis most frequently used was the Delta Xtend (ODEP 10A). The most common complication was scapular notching. Prosthesis revision rate was approximately 6% for follow-ups between 12 and 79 months. In addition, significant improvements were observed in the Constant-Murley test score after the intervention. Currently in Spain, shoulder arthroplasty can be considered a safe and effective procedure with functional recovery and pain reduction for eligible patients with humeral fracture, rotator cuff arthropathy, fracture sequelae and malunion of the proximal humerus, and degenerative disease. Future longitudinal research and population-based studies could serve to confirm these results and identify points of improvement.