Survivorship of autologous structural bone graft at a minimum of 2 years when used to address significant glenoid bone loss in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasty: a computed tomographic and clinical review

Yoke procedure as a salvage treatment option for failed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with irreconstructible glenoid

BACKGROUND

Glenoid bone loss is a known challenge in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. In severe deficiency, even placing the baseplate in alternative centerline or using an augmented baseplate may be insufficient. This study reports on the use of a soft tissue resurfacing technique using Achilles tendon allograft, coined Yoke procedure, for salvage treatment of glenoid deficient shoulder requiring reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent the Yoke procedure between 2014 and 2020 by a single surgeon at a single academic center were identified and had their charts retrospectively reviewed. Demographics and surgical information were recorded. Preoperative X-rays and 3D-computed tomography scans were reviewed to classify patient glenoid types, evaluate glenoid medialization, and measure shoulder angles. Preoperative and postoperative range of motions and patient-reported outcome scores were evaluated, including anterior elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, visual analog scale, subjective shoulder value score, Simple Shoulder Test, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. Postoperative radiographs and follow-up notes were reviewed to evaluate postoperative complication profiles at 1 year.

RESULTS

Seven patients with a median age of 69 years (range, 54-77 years) underwent Yoke procedure and had a median 12-month follow-up (range, 9-56 months). All patients were female and had a median of 2 prior shoulder surgeries (range, 0-13). Of all the patients, the most common comorbidity was osteoporosis (6) followed by rheumatoid arthritis (3). Of the 5 patients who had previous arthroplasty, the most common indications were baseplate failure (4), followed by instability (3) and infection (3). The median visual analog scale score improved from 8 (range, 3-9) to 2 (range, 1-4). The median Simple Shoulder Test improved from 8% (range, 0%-42%) to 33% (range, 17%-83%). The median ASES score improved from 15 (range, 5-38) to 52 (range, 40-78). The median anterior elevation and external rotation improved from 20° (range, 0°-75°) to 100° (range, 40°-145°) and 10° (range, 0°-20°) to 20° (range, 0°-55°), respectively. There was no change in median internal rotation. As of the last follow-up, one patient reported postoperative complications of anterior-superior implant escape, heterotopic ossification, and scapular notching.

CONCLUSION

The Yoke procedure is a promising salvage treatment that can offer patients consistent pain reduction and moderate functional improvements at short-term follow-up. In the setting of poor bone quality and severe glenoid deficiency, glenoid baseplate implantation may not be absolutely necessary for a pain-relieving, functionally acceptable outcome.

Clinical and radiologic outcomes of Lima ProMade custom 3D-printed glenoid components in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with severe glenoid bone loss: a minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiologic outcomes of patients undergoing primary or revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using custom 3D-printed components to manage severe glenoid bone loss with a minimum of 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

Following ethical approval, patients were identified and invited to participate. Inclusion criteria were (1) severe glenoid bone loss necessitating the need for custom implants and (2) patients with definitive glenoid and humeral components implanted more than 2 years prior. Included patients underwent clinical assessment using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Constant-Murley score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and the quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Radiographic assessment included anteroposterior and axial projections. Patients were invited to attend a computed tomography (CT) scan to confirm osseointegration. Statistical analysis used descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation [SD]) and paired t test for parametric data.

RESULTS

Eleven patients declined to participate. Five patients were deceased prior to study commencement, leaving 42 remaining patients in this analysis. Three patients had revision surgery before the 2-year follow-up; of these, 2 retained their custom glenoid components. Mean follow-up was 31.6 months from surgery (range 24-52 months). All 4 scores improved: OSS from a mean 15 (SD 8.4) to 36 (SD 12) (P < .001), Constant-Murley score from a mean 15 (SD 11.2) to 52 (SD 20.1) (P < .001), QuickDASH from a mean 70 (SD 21) to 31 (SD 24.8) (P = .004), and the ASES score from a mean 22 (SD 17.8) to 71 (SD 23.3) (P = .007). Radiologic evaluation demonstrated good osseointegration in all but 1 included patient.

CONCLUSION

The utility of custom 3D-printed components for managing severe glenoid bone loss in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty yields significant clinical improvements in this complex cohort. Large complex glenoid bone defects can be managed successfully with custom 3D-printed glenoid components.

Treatment of Glenoid Wear with the Use of Augmented Glenoid Components in Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Scoping Review

» Treatment of glenoid bone loss continues to be a challenge in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Although correcting glenoid wear to patient's native anatomy is desirable in TSA, there is lack of consensus regarding how much glenoid wear correction is acceptable and necessary in both anatomic and reverse TSA.» Use of augmented glenoid components is a relatively new treatment strategy for addressing moderate-to-severe glenoid wear in TSA. Augmented glenoid components allow for predictable and easy correction of glenoid wear in the coronal and/or axial planes while at the same time maximizing implant seating, improving rotator cuff biomechanics, and preserving glenoid bone stock because of off-axis glenoid reaming.» Augmented glenoid components have distinct advantages over glenoid bone grafting. Glenoid bone grafting is technically demanding, adds to the surgical time, and carries a risk of nonunion and graft resorption with subsequent failure of the glenoid component.» The use of augmented glenoid components in TSA is steadily increasing with easy availability of computed tomography-based preoperative planning software and guidance technology (patient-specific instrumentation and computer navigation).» Although different augment designs (full wedge, half wedge, and step cut) are available and a particular design may provide advantages in specific glenoid wear patterns to minimize bone removal (i.e. a half wedge in B2 glenoids), there is no evidence to demonstrate the superiority of 1 design over others.

A prospective radiostereometric analysis of the stability of a metal-backed glenoid component/autograft composite in reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Aims

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) can be used in complex cases when the glenoid requires reconstruction. In this study, a baseplate with composite bone autograft and a central trabecular titanium peg was implanted, and its migration was assessed for two years postoperatively using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Methods

A total of 14 patients who underwent a rTSA with an autograft consented to participate. Of these, 11 had a primary rTSA using humeral head autograft and three had a revision rTSA with autograft harvested from the iliac crest. The mean age of the patients was 66 years (39 to 81). Tantalum beads were implanted in the scapula around the glenoid. RSA imaging (stereographic radiographs) was undertaken immediately postoperatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months. Analysis was completed using model-based RSA software. Outcomes were collected preoperatively and at two years postoperatively, including the Oxford Shoulder Score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Score, and a visual analogue score for pain. A Constant score was also obtained for the assessment of strength and range of motion.

Results

RSA analysis showed a small increase in all translation and rotational values up to six months postoperatively, consistent with settling of the implant. The mean values plateaued by 12 months, with no evidence of further migration. In four patients, there was significant variation outside the mean, which corresponded to postoperative complications. There was a significant improvement in the clinical and patient-reported outcomes from the preoperative values to those at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

These findings show, using RSA, that a glenoid baseplate composite of a trabecular titanium peg with autograft stabilizes within the glenoid about 12 months after surgery, and reinforce findings from a previous study of this implant/graft with CT scans at two years postoperatively, indicating that this type of structural composite results in sound early fixation.

Comparison of glenoid bone grafting vs. augmented glenoid baseplates in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Management of bone loss and glenoid deformity can present a significant challenge to surgeons. The purpose of this review was to compare outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using either bone graft or augmented baseplates for the management of glenoid bone loss and deformity.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane indices was performed for studies reporting clinical outcomes following primary RSA with bone grafting or use of augmented baseplates. Pooled and frequency-weighted means, standard deviations, and ranges were calculated and reported for comparison.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 studies and 652 patients with bone grafting (n = 401) and augmented baseplates (n = 251) were included in the study. Mean patient age and gender were 70.3 ± 3.1 years and 47% female in the bone grafting group and 72.9 ± 3.7 years and 59.0% female in the augmented baseplate group. Mean follow-up for the augmented baseplate group was 23.1 ± 8.2 months and 29.5 ± 10.1 months for the bone grafting group. Overall complication and revision rates were 11.7% and 4.5% for the bone grafting group and 11.8% and 3.7% for the augmented baseplate group. Range of motion as well as patient-reported and functional outcome scores were similar between both techniques. Infections, component loosening, and notching were 1.9%, 3.6%, and 24.6% in the bone grafting group and 0.7%, 1.6%, and 4.7% in the augmented baseplate group.

CONCLUSIONS

Glenoid bone grafting and augmented baseplates are effective treatment options for the management of bone loss and glenoid deformity. Both treatments improve overall clinical outcomes with relatively low complication rates and revision rates.

[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.

Survivorship of Allologous Structural Bone Graft at a Minimum of 2 Years When Used to Address Significant Glenoid Bone Loss in Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Computed Tomographic and Clinical Review

Background

This study assesses outcomes in revision shoulder replacements where the glenoid bone loss was managed using a structural allograft (donated femoral head) in combination with a trabecular titanium (TT) implant.

Methods

We contacted patients who had undergone revision shoulder arthroplasty using the Lima Axioma TT metal-backed glenoid with an allologous bone graft as a composite who were over 2 years since surgery. Patients underwent computerd tomography evaluation, clinical review, and scoring preoperatively, at 6 months and the latest follow-up.

Results

Fifteen patients were included with a mean age of 59 (33-76). The average follow-up period was 40.5 months (24-51). 80% showed satisfactory bone graft incorporation and peg integration at the latest follow-up. Three had signs of significant bone graft resorption, although in 2 patients the pegs were still soundly fixed in the host bone. Clinically all patients showed a statistically significant improvement in pain relief, movement, and function. No unusual complications were reported.

Conclusion

Results show femoral head structural allograft in combination with TT metal-backed glenoid baseplate is a viable option for revision total shoulder replacement in the context of massive glenoid bone loss. We do, however, acknowledge that this resorption rate is higher than in other reported series where autograft is used.

Management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Aims

Rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continue to grow. Glenoid bone loss and deformity remains a technical challenge to the surgeon and may reduce improvements in patients’ outcomes. However, there is no consensus as to the optimal surgical technique to best reconstruct these patients’ anatomy. This review aims to compare the outcomes of glenoid bone grafting versus augmented glenoid prostheses in the management of glenoid bone loss in primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated study-level data in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We performed searches of Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed from their dates of inception to January 2022. From included studies, we analyzed data for preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported functional outcomes, and complication rates.

Results

A total of 13 studies (919 shoulders) were included in the analysis. The mean age of patients at initial evaluation was 72.2 years (42 to 87), with a mean follow-up time of 40.7 months (24 to 120). Nine studies with 292 rTSAs evaluated the use of bone graft and five studies with 627 rTSAs evaluated the use of augmented glenoid baseplates. One study was analyzed in both groups. Both techniques demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures and ROM assessment, with augmented prostheses outperforming bone grafting on improvements in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score. There was a higher complication rate (8.9% vs 3.5%; p < 0.001) and revision rate among the bone grafting group compared with the patients who were treated with augmented prostheses (2.4% vs 0.6%; p = 0.022).

Conclusion

This review provides strong evidence that both bone graft and augmented glenoid baseplate techniques to address glenoid bone loss give excellent ROM and functional outcomes in primary rTSA. The use of augmented base plates may confer fewer complications and revisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1334–1342.

Hemi-reverse revision arthroplasty in the setting of severe glenoid bone loss

BACKGROUND

Glenoid bone loss is one of the main challenges in revision of failed shoulder arthroplasties. The concept of a hemi-reverse procedure is to implant a glenoid baseplate and glenosphere to protect the glenoid reconstruction to allow it to heal and to preserve the joint space for a potential second-stage humeral component implantation. The purpose of this study was to report the results of hemi-reverse procedures.

METHODS

Revision to a hemi-reverse procedure was performed in 15 patients: 8 with a failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, 3 with a failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty, 3 with a failed humeral hemiarthroplasty, and 1 with placement of a cement spacer owing to sepsis after a total shoulder arthroplasty. After complete removal of the initial prosthesis, all patients underwent glenoid reconstruction with bone grafting and implantation of a reverse arthroplasty baseplate and glenosphere. A humeral implant was not placed in any case. The patients were prospectively followed up and underwent complete clinical and radiologic studies preoperatively and postoperatively at a minimum of 2 years after the surgical procedure.

RESULTS

Thirteen hemi-reverse implants and glenoid bone grafts healed (86%) and remained radiographically stable. One hemi-reverse construct migrated and became mechanically loose, which was attributed to absent fixation of the central post in the native glenoid bone. In 1 patient, an implant-related infection developed; irrigation and debridement were performed, in addition to revision to a resection arthroplasty. After documented radiographic healing of the hemi-reverse glenoid reconstruction, 5 patients underwent a second-stage revision to a reverse procedure with insertion of a humeral component at a median of 6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6-8 months). In this group, the median follow-up period was 73 months (IQR, 45-153 months), the median Constant score was 48 (IQR, 41-56), median active forward elevation was 135° (IQR, 100°-150°), and the median Subjective Shoulder Value was 50% (IQR, 50%-60%). In the group of 9 patients with remaining hemi-reverse implants, the median follow-up period was 38 months (IQR, 29-60 months), the median Constant score was 41 (IQR, 38-46), median active forward elevation was 100° (IQR, 80°-100°), and the median Subjective Shoulder Value was 50% (IQR, 40%-60%).

CONCLUSION

The hemi-reverse procedure is an effective revision procedure to reconstruct a severely deficient glenoid. The hemi-reverse procedure may function as the definitive procedure, with satisfactory outcomes. Additionally, in patients who undergo the hemi-reverse procedure, second-stage revision to a total reverse procedure can be performed once imaging confirms bone graft and construct stability.

Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with Bony and Metallic versus Standard Bony Reconstruction for Severe Glenoid Bone Loss. A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study

There are different techniques to address severe glenoid erosion during reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study assessed the clinical and radiological outcomes of RSA with combined bony and metallic augment (BMA) glenoid reconstruction compared to bony augmentation (BA) alone. A review of patients who underwent RSA with severe glenoid bone loss requiring reconstruction from January 2017 to January 2019 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: BMA versus BA alone. Clinical outcome measurements included two years postoperative ROM, Constant score, subjective shoulder value (SSV), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder (ASES) score. Radiological outcomes included radiographic evidence of scapular complications and graft incorporation. The BMA group had significantly different glenoid morphology (p < 0.001) and greater bone loss thickness than the BA group (16.3 ± 3.8 mm vs. 12.0 ± 0.0 mm, p = 0.020). Both groups had significantly improved ROM (anterior forward flexion and external rotation) and clinical scores (Constant, SSV and ASES scores) at 2 years. Greater improvement was observed in the BMA group in terms of anterior forward flexion (86.3° ± 27.9° vs. 43.8° ± 25.6°, p = 0.013) and Constant score (56.6 ± 10.1 vs. 38.3 ± 16.7, p = 0.021). The BA group demonstrated greater functional and clinical improvements with higher postoperative active external rotation and ASES results (active external rotation, 49.4° ± 17.0° vs. 29.4° ± 14.7°, p = 0.017; ASES, 89.1 ± 11.3 vs. 76.8 ± 11.0, p = 0.045). The combination use of bone graft and metallic augments in severe glenoid bone loss during RSA is safe and effective and can be considered in cases of severe glenoid bone loss where bone graft alone may be insufficient.