Does the etiology of a failed hemiarthroplasty affect outcomes when revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Do preoperative scapular fractures affect long-term outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Postoperative scapular stress fractures (SSFs) are a formidable problem after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Less is known about patients who have these fractures preoperatively. The primary aim of this study was to examine postoperative satisfaction in patients undergoing primary RSA who have preoperative SSF and compared to a matched cohort without preoperative fracture. The secondary aim was to examine the differences in patient-reported outcomes between and within study cohorts.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of primary RSAs performed by a single surgeon from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Patients diagnosed with cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), massive cuff tear (MCT), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were included. Five hundred twenty-five shoulders met inclusion criteria. Fractures identified on preoperative computed tomography scans were divided into 3 groups: (1) os acromiale, (2) multifragments (MFs), and (3) Levy types. Seventy-two shoulders had an occurrence of SSF. The remaining 453 shoulders were separated into a nonfractured cohort. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were compared pre- and postoperatively in the total fracture group and the nonfractured group cohort. The multifragment subgroup was also compared to the pooled Os/Levy subgroup.

RESULTS

The total incidence of SSF in all shoulders was 13.7%. There was a difference in satisfaction scores at all time points between the nonfracture (7.9 ± 2.8) and total fracture group (5.4 ± 3.6, P < .001, at last visit). There was also a greater ASES total score in the nonfractured group vs the total fracture group at the final visit (69.4 ± 23.4 and 62.1 ± 24.2; P = .02). The MF group had worse ASES functional or VAS functional scores than the Os/Levy group at all time points: at 1 year, ASES function: MF 24.2 ± 14.5 and Os/Levy 30.7 ± 14.2 (P = .045); at 2 years, ASES function: MF 21.4 ± 14.4 and Os/Levy 35.5 ± 10.6 (P < .001); and at last follow-up, VAS function: MF 4.8 ± 2.8 and Os/Levy 6.4 ± 3.2 (P = .023).

DISCUSSION

Scapular fractures were proportionally most common in patients diagnosed with CTA (16.3%) compared with a 9.2% and 8.6% incidence in patients diagnosed with MCT and RA, respectively. Patients with preoperative SSF still see an improvement in ASES scores after RSA but do have lower satisfaction scores compared with the nonfractured cohort. The multifragment fracture group has lower functional and satisfaction scores at all postoperative time points compared with both the nonfracture and the Os/Levy fracture group.

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.

Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review

Background

Thus, the purpose of the present study was to (1) characterize common postoperative complications and (2) quantify the rates of revision in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revisional surgery. We hypothesize that hardware loosenings will be the most common complication to occur in the sample, with the humeral component being the most common loosening.

Methods

This systematic review adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. For our inclusion criteria, we included any study that contained intraoperative and/or postoperative complication data, and revision rates on patients who had undergone revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to a failed hemiarthroplasty. Complications include neurologic injury, deep surgical site infections, hardware loosening/prosthetic instability, and postoperative fractures (acromion, glenoid, and humeral fractures).

Results

The study contained 22 studies that assessed complications from shoulders that had revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from a hemiarthroplasty, with a total sample of 925 shoulders. We found that the most common complication to occur was hardware loosenings (5.3%), and of the hardware loosenings, humeral loosenings (3.8%) were the most common. The revision rate was found to be 10.7%.

Conclusion

This systematic review found that revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed hemiarthroplasty has a high overall complication and reintervention rates, specifically for hardware loosening and revision rates.

Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients 65 Years Old and Younger: Outcome Comparison to Older Patients

Background

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a procedure growing in prevalence among younger populations. Consequently, its use in revision arthroplasty is growing in this demographic. However, studies examining the functional outcomes of revision RTSA in younger populations compared with older populations are lacking. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the functional outcomes of revision RTSA in patients 65 years old and younger compared with older patients who underwent revision RTSA. We hypothesized that younger patients would have similar outcomes to older patients and both groups would demonstrate improvement in outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on a prospectively collected research database at a single tertiary referral center of all patients who underwent RTSA between 2007 and 2018. Patients 65 years old or younger who underwent a revision RTSA and had minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. A control group of patients ≥70 years old who underwent revision RTSA were also evaluated. Demographics, surgical factors, active range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared. The ROM parameters measured were forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and level of internal rotation. The PROMs collected included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, University of California–Los Angeles score, Constant score, normalized Constant, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index 130. The differences in outcomes were compared against the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit reported for primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Results

A total of 81 patients undergoing revision RTSA were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years with 42 patients in the study group and 39 patients in the control group. Both groups demonstrated similar demographics and rates of prior surgeries. Preoperative outcome scores were lower in the study group (≤65 years old) than those in the older control group with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index 130 remaining worse postoperatively. Both groups experienced statistically significant improvements in ROM from before operation to after operation, with slightly higher improvements in overhead motion in the younger cohort. Both the study group and the control group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all PROMs with improvement above the substantial clinical benefit for the Constant and Simple Shoulder Test scores. Despite lower functional outcomes reported in the study group postoperatively, the improvement from before operation to after operation in all PROMs was similar between groups.

Conclusion

Revision RTSA is a viable option for patients ≤65 years old with a poorly functioning shoulder arthroplasty. ROM and outcome improvements are similar compared with older patients undergoing revision RTSA, but the preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes are worse in the younger patients.

Outcome and complications following revision shoulder arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618-630.

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.