Five-year outcome after conversion of a hemiarthroplasty when used for the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Converting to reverse shoulder arthroplasty from primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and fracture hemiarthroplasty: a radiographic and clinical outcome analysis at 8-years

INTRODUCTION

Revision shoulder arthroplasty can be challenging. One of the main considerations for surgeons is the type of implant that was placed in the initial surgery. Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (ASA) is used for cases of osteoarthritis as well as for fractures of the humeral head. Hemiarthroplasty can be used for complex proximal humerus fractures. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients that failed primary fracture hemiarthroplasty (FHA), or ASA for osteoarthritis and then required reoperation with a conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

METHODS

Patients with failed anatomic shoulder replacement, who had undergone conversion to RSA, were enrolled after a mean follow-up of 107 (85-157) months. Two different groups, one with failed ASA implanted for osteoarthritis and one with failed FHA, were created. At follow-up patients were assessed with standard radiographs and clinical outcome scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (f = 17, m = 12; 51%) suffered from a failed ASA (Group A), while the remaining 28 patients (f = 21, m = 74; 49%) had been revised due to a failed FHA (Group B). Patients of Group B had a poorer Constant score (Group A: 60 vs. Group B: 46; p = 0.02). Abduction (Group A: 115° vs. Group B: 89°; p = 0.02) was worse after conversion of a failed FHA to RSA in comparison to conversions of failed ASA. The mean bone loss of the lateral metaphysis was higher in patients with failed FHA (Group A: 5 mm vs. Group B: 20 mm; p = 0.0).

CONCLUSION

The initial indication for anatomic shoulder arthroplasty influences the clinical and radiological outcome after conversion to RSA. Conversion of failed FHA to RSA is related to an increased metaphyseal bone loss, decreased range of motion and poorer clinical outcomes when compared to conversions of failed ASA implanted for osteoarthritis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III Retrospective Cohort Comparison Study.

Mid-term Results Following Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty and the Role of Navigation in the Management of Glenoid Bone Loss

Background Inaccurate positioning of the glenoid component has been well described as the most common cause of early failure following a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Among the latest developments in operative technique, three-dimensional preoperative planning and navigation intraoperative systems have been developed to improve the accuracy of the baseplate positioning during RSA. The primary purpose of this retrospective analysis was to investigate the mid-term results of patients who underwent an elective RSA or for acute highly comminuted proximal humerus fractures. The secondary goal was to investigate the role of navigation in the execution of preoperative planning, especially in the management of glenoid bone loss. Methodology In total, 101 cases were included in this study. Patients were divided into the following two groups: 88 cases of RSA performed without the use of navigation (conventional RSA) and 13 cases performed using intraoperative navigation (navigated RSA). For all patients included in the study, preoperative planning software was employed. Patient demographics, gender, past medical history, indication of procedure, operated site, type of glenoid component used, length of baseplate screws, and clinical assessment scores (Oxford Shoulder Score, OSS) were reported for all patients. Cases of revision shoulder arthroplasty were excluded from this study. Results The postoperative clinical assessment of patients revealed that following RSA, all patients improved significantly with a consistently upward trend of the OSS noted for both groups (conventional and navigated RSA) throughout the postoperative assessment. Despite no statistically significant difference detected, the clinical scores of the navigated RSA group outperformed those of the conventional RSA group in the postoperative period. A higher incidence of augmented baseplate use was noted in the navigated RSA group than in the conventional group (23.07% vs. 5.68%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Our results indicate that the use of intraoperative navigation appears to be a valuable tool in preoperative planning, providing accurate positioning of the baseplate, a better understanding of the glenoid anatomy, and real-time monitoring of the length and direction of the baseplate screws. It is difficult to conclude if the use of navigation leads to superior clinical outcomes, and the cost-effectiveness of its use needs to be further analyzed. Prospective randomized trials are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of routine use of navigation in RSA.

Comparative efficacy and safety of medical treatments for proximal humerus fractures: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various surgical techniques and conservative therapies are useful tools for treating proximal humerus fractures (PHFs), but it is important to understand how to properly utilize them. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of medical treatments for PHF.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception until June 2022. Conservative therapy-controlled or head-to-head RCTs of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), intramedullary nailing (IMN), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) used for the treatment of adult patients with PHF were included. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities were applied to compare and rank the effects of medical treatments for PHF.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs involving 1,182 patients with PHF were selected for the final analysis. Mostly baseline characteristics among groups were well balanced, and the imbalanced factors only included age, injury type, medial comminution, blood loss, and cognitive function in single trial. The SUCRA probabilities found that RTSA provided the best effect on the Constant-Murley score (SUCRA: 100.0%), and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) score (SUCRA: 99.0%). Moreover, HA (SUCRA: 85.5%) and RTSA (SUCRA: 68.0%) had a relatively better effect on health-related quality of life than the other treatment modalities. Furthermore, conservative therapy (SUCRA: 84.3%) and RTSA (SUCRA: 80.7%) were associated with a lower risk of secondary surgery. Finally, the best effects on the risk of complications are varied, including infection was observed with conservative therapy (SUCRA: 94.2%); avascular necrosis was observed in HA (SUCRA: 78.1%), nonunion was observed in RTSA (SUCRA: 69.6%), and osteoarthritis was observed in HA (SUCRA: 93.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that RTSA was associated with better functional outcomes, while the comparative outcomes of secondary surgery and complications varied. Optimal treatment for PHF should consider patient-specific factors.

Outcomes after salvage reverse shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary fixation or hemiarthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: A systematic review

Background

Salvage reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for failed proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) fixation and hemiarthroplasty (HA) may maximize outcomes in the absence of tuberosity healing or a chronically torn rotator cuff. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the improvement in clinical outcomes for patients after revision RSA was performed for failed PHFs fixation or HA.

Methods

An electronic database search of SCOPUS, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. A meta-analysis was carried out to determine weighted mean outcome differences between two primary intervention cohorts (failed fixation: open reduction and internal fixation, intramedullary nail, or K-wire vs. failed HA).

Results

Fifteen studies were included (primary fixation: 208 patients; HA: 162 patients). Patients improved meaningfully in all clinical outcomes after revision surgery (constant: 18.5-48.3; abduction: 44-95; forward flexion: 47-107; external rotation: 5-10), with a 16.2% complication and 9.4% revision rate. The failed fixation group performed significantly better than the failed HA group in postoperative constant (fixation: 53.3 vs. HA: 45.1, p = 0.016) and shoulder abduction (fixation: 102 vs. HA: 87, p = 0.026).

Conclusions

RSA is a successful revision intervention for primary PHF operative failures with the greatest benefit for failures of primary fixation versus HA.

Is there still a place for anatomic hemiarthroplasty in patients with high functional demands in primary, nonreconstructable proximal humeral fractures? A clinical and radiographic assessment

BACKGROUND

Vitality-threatening proximal humerus fractures often provide an indication for prosthetic treatment. We investigated the issue of how anatomic hemiprostheses perform in younger, functionally challenging patients with the use of a specific fracture stem and systematic tuberosity management in medium-term follow-up.

METHODS

Thirteen skeletally mature patients with a mean age of 64 ± 9 years and a minimum follow-up of 1 year after primary open-stem hemiarthroplasty for 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures were included. All patients were followed up regarding their clinical course. Radiologic follow-up included fracture classification, healing of tuberosities, proximal migration of the humeral head, evidence of stem loosening, and glenoid erosion. Functional follow-up included range of motion, pain, objective and subjective performance scores, complications, and return to sports rates. We statistically compared treatment success based on the Constant score between the cohort with proximal migration and the cohort with regular acromiohumeral distance by means of the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

After an average follow-up period of 4.8 years, satisfactory results were obtained. The absolute Constant-Murley score was 73.2 ± 12.4 points. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand score was 13.2 ± 13.0 points. Patients reported their mean subjective shoulder value as 86.6% ± 8.5%. Pain was reported as 1.1 ± 1.3 points on a visual analog scale. Flexion, abduction, and external rotation values were 138 ± 31°, 134 ± 34°, and 32 ± 17°, respectively. 84.6% of the referred tuberosities healed successfully. Proximal migration was observed in 38.5% of cases and was associated with worse Constant score results (P = .065). No patient showed signs of loosening. Mild glenoid erosion was apparent in 4 patients (30.8%). All patients who were interviewed and participated in sports before surgery were able to return to their primary sport after surgery and continued to do so during the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

With narrow indications, use of a specific fracture stem and adequate tuberosity management, successful radiographic and functional results are presented after a mean follow-up of 4.8 years after hemiarthroplasty for primary nonreconstructable humeral head fractures. Accordingly, open-stem hemiarthroplasty appears to remain a possible alternative to reverse shoulder arthroplasty in younger, functionally challenging patients with primary 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures.

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.

Development of a framework to assess the biomechanical impact of reverse shoulder arthroplasty placement modifications

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty biomechanics can be improved by modifying the placement of prosthesis. Biomechanical studies have quantified the impact of placement modifications on the mobility and stability of the reverse shoulder. While these studies have provided detailed insights, direct comparisons between their finding are obfuscated by their use of differing methodologies. The aim of our study was to develop an assessment framework which used musculoskeletal simulations to consistently evaluate the biomechanics of various placement modifications. We conducted musculoskeletal simulations of humeral elevations and rotations using 15 reverse shoulder models. For each model, these simulations were conducted for a reference configuration of the prosthesis, established using surgical guidelines, and 34 modified configurations, which were based on commonplace adaptations to the placement of the glenosphere and humeral tray. The effect of each modified configuration on deltoid elongation, deltoid moment arm (DMA), joint stability, and impingement-free range of motion (IFROM) was determined relative to the reference configuration. We found that 16 of the 34 modified placements had an overall beneficial impact on reverse shoulder biomechanics. Within this subset, we identified two biomechanical trade-offs. First, there is an antagonistic relationship between IFROM and both the DMA and joint stability. Second, functional requirements differ between humeral elevations and rotations. Furthermore, we found that posteromedial translation of the humeral tray had the most beneficial impact on joint stability and inferior translation of the glenosphere had the most beneficial impact on IFROM and DMA.

Patient-specific instrumentation improves the reproducibility of preoperative planning for the positioning of baseplate components with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative clinical study in 39 patients

BACKGROUND

The application of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) for reverse total shoulder replacement has been rapidly increasing, which could reduce errors in implant positioning. Although PSI theoretically holds promise, evidence of the accuracy and reliability of PSI in shoulder replacement surgery is limited.

METHODS

Thirty-nine shoulders that underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were included in this study and categorized into two groups: the conventional (n = 20) and PSI (n = 19) groups. Screw (length and angle) and baseplate (version, inclination, translation, and rotation) positioning were calculated based on postoperative computed tomography images using a three-dimensional measurement tool. The difference between the values of the preoperative target and postoperative measurement was calculated to evaluate the reproducibility of preoperative planning. Screw involvement in the suprascapular and spinoglenoid notches was assessed. Thus, the correlation between the position of the baseplate and the screws was assessed.

RESULTS

The mean differences between the planned length and angle (anteroposterior and superoinferior angles) and postoperative measurement in the PSI group were significantly smaller than those in the conventional group. Similarly, the mean difference in baseplate rotation between the planned and postoperative measurements in the PSI group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group (4.5° vs 10.6°; P < .001). The spinoglenoid notch was involved in 10 cases in the conventional group and 2 cases in the PSI group, and this difference was significant (P = .014). Overall, the mean difference between the preoperative and postoperative version, inferior inclination, and rotation values for the baseplate position was significantly correlated with the values for screw position (length and angle).

CONCLUSIONS

PSI improves the reproducibility of preoperative planning for baseplate and screw positioning and reduces the risk of neurovascular injury in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Complications and Intraoperative Fractures in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Introduction

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty is nowadays a treatment option for a variety of shoulder problems. As its incidence rose, also the number of complications increased, including intraoperative fractures.

Significance

We performed a systematic review and critical analysis of the current literature following the PRISMA guidelines. Our purpose was to: 1) determine incidence, causes, and characteristics of intraoperative fractures; 2) evaluate their current treatment options, possible related complications, reoperation rates, and the patients’ outcome; and 3) determine the overall incidence of each complication related to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The articles were selected from PubMed medical database in April 2020 using a comprehensive search strategy. Rayyan software was used to support the selection process of the records. A descriptive and critical analysis of the results was performed.

Results

The study group included a total of 13,513 reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures. The total number of complications was 1647 (rate 12.1%). The most common complication was dislocation (340 cases, rate 2.5%). Forty-six studies reported a total of 188 intraoperative fractures among the complications (rate 1.4%). The intraoperative fracture rate was 2.9% and 13.6% in primary and revision settings, respectively. There were 136 humeral fractures, 60% of them occurred in revision RSAs, during the removal of the previous implant, and involved the shaft in the majority of cases (39%). Glenoid fractures were 51 and occurred mostly during the reaming of the glenoid. We observed 7 further related complications (rate of 4%) and 3 reoperations (rate of 1.5%). The outcome was satisfactory in the majority of cases.

Conclusions

A comprehensive review on intraoperative fractures in reverse shoulder arthroplasties is presented. Results suggest favorable outcomes for all treatment methods, with a modest further complication rate. This investigation may aid in the treatment decision-making for these complications.

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.

Are Arthroplasty Procedures Really Better in the Treatment of Complex Proximal Humerus Fractures? A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis and systematic review was performed to compare outcomes of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for complex proximal humerus fractures. Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were screened. Search terms included reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, open reduction internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, and proximal humerus fracture.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies published within the past 15 years evaluating outcomes of ORIF, rTSA, or HA for complex proximal humerus fractures with minimum of 1-year follow-up were included, resulting in 51 studies with 3064 total patients. Review articles, basic science studies, biomechanical studies, and cadaveric studies were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

The methodological quality of evidence was assessed using the Jadad scale and methodological index for nonrandomized studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Demographic data were compared using the χ2 test. Mean data were weighted by study size and used to calculate composite mean values and confidence intervals. Continuous data were compared using the Metan module with fixed effects. Count data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Alpha was set at 0.05 for all tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing rTSA had lower risks of complication (relative risk 0.41) and reoperation (relative risk 0.28) than HA patients. rTSA resulted in higher Constant scores (standard mean difference 0.63) and improved active forward flexion when compared with HA (standard mean difference 0.76). Pooled mean data demonstrated better outcome scores and active forward flexion of ORIF versus HA and rTSA, although the patients were younger and had more simple fracture patterns.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Cost-effectiveness of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Does indication affect outcome?

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in a prospective cohort of patients over a two-year post-operative period.

METHODS

Patients who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were prospectively monitored for 24 months post-operatively using the Oxford Shoulder Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire and EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire. Any complications or use of health care resources were recorded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to express the cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients were analysed, 46 primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for cuff arthropathy and 21 revisions from previous arthroplasty. Both indications had comparable peri-operative shoulder scores without significant difference. Using the mean change of EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire at one year, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated at £16,827.43 per quality-adjusted life year, decreasing to £8313.48 per quality-adjusted life year at two years. Primary was associated with a lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at two years (primary £7596.76 vs. revision £11,748.51). The estimated post-operative life expectancy of the cohort was 6.9 years with a projected cost per quality-adjusted life year of £2438.78.

CONCLUSIONS

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides a cost-effective intervention with excellent patient outcomes at two years post-operatively.

Prospective comparison of functional outcomes of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute fractures versus rotator cuff deficiencies

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to determine whether there were long-term differences in outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) undertaken for acute proximal humeral fracture versus rotator cuff deficiency with a minimum follow-up of five years.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study comparing 67 patients with acute complex proximal humeral fracture and 64 patients with irreparable rotator cuff deficiency who underwent primary RSA. In the fracture group, there were 52 (77.6%) females and 15 (22.4%) males, with a mean age of 73.5 years (51 to 85), while in the arthropathy group, there were 43 (67.1%) females and 21 (32.9%) males, with a mean age of 70.6 years (50 to 84). Patients were assessed by the Constant score, University of California Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLA), short version of the Disability of the Arm Shoulder and Hand score (QuickDASH), and visual analogue scales (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. Radiological evaluation was also performed.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 8.4 years (5 to 11). There were no significant differences in mean absolute (p = 0.125) or adjusted (p = 0.569) Constant, UCLA (p = 0.088), QuickDASH (p = 0.135), VAS-pain (p = 0.062), or range of movement at the final follow-up. However, patient satisfaction was significantly lower in the fracture group (p = 0.002). The complication rate was 1.5% (one patient) versus 9.3% (six patients), and the revision rate was 1.5% (one patient) versus 7.8% (five patients) in the fracture and arthropathy groups, respectively. The ten-year arthroplasty survival was not significantly different (p = 0.221).

CONCLUSION

RSA may be used not only for patients with irreparable rotator cuff deficiencies, but also for those with acute complex proximal humeral fractures. We found that RSA provided similar functional outcomes and a low revision rate for both indications at long-term. However, satisfaction is lower in patients with an acute fracture. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1555-1559.

Primary Versus Salvage Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty for Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is currently no established consensus on best treatment for complex proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in the elderly. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a viable option in this population but many times is used as a salvage procedure.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies comparing RTSA as a primary treatment for PHF versus as a salvage procedure following failed open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), humeral intramedullary nailing, hemiarthroplasty (HA) or non-operative treatment was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. Pooled outcomes and sub-group analyses assessing range of motion, patient reported outcomes and complications were examined using RevMan.

RESULTS

Five articles were included in final analysis with 104 patients in the primary RTSA group and 147 in the salvage RTSA group compromising 251 total patients. Primary RTSA had a statistically significant advantage in range of motion (forward flexion and external rotation), patient reported outcomes, and complications compared to salvage RTSA.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the best available evidence, primary RTSA may result in slightly better patient reported outcomes, range of motion and a lower rate of complication when compared to salvage RTSA. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm the findings of the current review.

The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part II

Background

Globally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has moved away from the Grammont design to modern prosthesis designs. The purpose of this study was to provide a focused, updated systematic review for each of the most common complications of RSA by limiting each search to publications after 2010. In this part II, the following were examined: (1) instability, (2) humerus/glenoid fracture, (3) acromial/scapular spine fractures (AF/SSF), and (4) problems/miscellaneous.

Methods

Four separate PubMed database searches were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Overall, 137 studies for instability, 94 for humerus/glenoid fracture, 120 for AF/SSF, and 74 for problems/miscellaneous were included in each review, respectively. Univariate analysis was performed with chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

Results

The Grammont design had a higher instability rate vs. all other designs combined (4.0%, 1.3%; P < .001), and the onlay humerus design had a lower rate than the lateralized glenoid design (0.9%, 2.0%; P = .02). The rate for intraoperative humerus fracture was 1.8%; intraoperative glenoid fracture, 0.3%; postoperative humerus fracture, 1.2%; and postoperative glenoid fracture, 0.1%. The rate of AF/SSF was 2.6% (371/14235). The rate for complex regional pain syndrome was 0.4%; deltoid injury, 0.1%; hematoma, 0.3%; and heterotopic ossification, 0.8%.

Conclusions

Focused systematic reviews of recent literature with a large volume of shoulders demonstrate that using non-Grammont modern prosthesis designs, complications including instability, intraoperative humerus and glenoid fractures, and hematoma are significantly reduced compared with previous studies. As the indications continue to expand for RSA, it is imperative to accurately track the rate and types of complications in order to justify its cost and increased indications.

The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I

Background

Globally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has moved away from the Grammont design to modern prosthesis designs. The purpose of this 2-part study was to systematically review each of the most common complications of RSA, limiting each search to publications in 2010 or later. In this part (part I), we examined (1) scapular notching (SN), (2) periprosthetic infection (PJI), (3) mechanical failure (glenoid or humeral component), and (4) neurologic injury (NI).

Methods

Four separate PubMed database searches were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Overall, 113 studies on SN, 62 on PJI, 34 on mechanical failure, and 48 on NI were included in our reviews. Univariate analysis was performed with the χ² or Fisher exact test.

Results

The Grammont design had a higher SN rate vs. all other designs combined (42.5% vs. 12.3%, P < .001). The onlay humeral design had a lower rate than the lateralized glenoid design (10.5% vs. 14.8%, P < .001). The PJI rate was 2.4% for primary RSA and 2.6% for revision RSA. The incidence of glenoid and humeral component loosening was 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively. The Grammont design had an increased NI rate vs. all other designs combined (0.9% vs. 0.1%, P = .04).

Conclusions

Focused systematic reviews of the recent literature with a large volume of RSAs demonstrate that with the use of non-Grammont modern prosthesis designs, complications including SN, PJI, glenoid component loosening, and NI are significantly reduced compared with previous studies. As the indications for RSA continue to expand, it is imperative to accurately track the rates and types of complications to justify its cost and increased indications.

Rotator cuff to deltoid and pectoralis tendon to anatomic neck distances: methods for anatomic restoration of humeral height and tuberosity position in proximal humerus fractures for operative fixation and arthroplasty

Introduction

Proper anatomic tuberosity reduction and restoration of humeral height during surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures leads to fewer complications and better outcomes. In the presence of significant displacement and comminution in proximal humerus fractures, the assessment of the correct tuberosity position and humeral height can be challenging. The goal of this cadaveric study was to provide new and useful measurements for intraoperative guidance of proper tuberosity position and humeral height when treating proximal humerus fractures with open reduction internal fixation, anatomic hemiarthroplasty, or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods

A total of 28 cadaveric shoulders were dissected with a deltopectoral approach. The distance between the insertion of the supraspinatus tendon and the superior aspect of the deltoid tendon was measured (cuff to deltoid distance [CDD]). Secondly, the distance between the superior aspects of the pectoralis major tendon to the medial aspect of the anatomic neck (PND) was measured. Further, we sought to determine if these measurements would correlate to patient height and differ between gender.

Results

The average age of the donors was 65.3 years (64% male). The CDD and PND were 87.6 ± 10.6 and 16.6 ± 6.9 mm, respectively (mean ± standard deviation). There were no differences between females and males for the CDD (86.9 ± 9.4 vs. 87.2 ± 15.2 mm, P = .96) and PND (16.3 ± 9.1 vs. 17.1 ± 5.9 mm, P = .76). There was no correlation between the cadaver height and CDD (R2 = 0.1) and PND (R2 = 0.3).

Discussion

In this study, we describe 2 new measurement tools that can readily be applied intraoperatively during surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures to aid in tuberosity reduction and humeral height assessment. These measurements were found to be independent of patient height and gender and can be used as a reference tool for most patients.

Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Conversion to Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty is increasing dramatically for primary arthroplasty but also for revision arthroplasty. Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is increasingly the salvage operation for failed primary arthroplasty. The purpose of this review is to explore the indications for and results of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite relatively high complication and reoperation rates with revision shoulder replacement, revision of failed hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty improves outcomes for many patients. A failed hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty is frequently disabling for the patient and because the surgical revision options are often limited only to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the potential improvement is often worth the higher surgical complication or reoperation rate. Due to the challenges inherent in revision arthroplasty, revision of primary arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, outcomes are poorer than primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Despite these limitations, patient postoperative pain and function do increase from preoperative levels making conversion of hemiarthroplasty or anatomic total shoulder to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty an important option for a challenging problem.

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

BACKGROUND

The purposes of this study were to evaluate patient outcomes after revision of hemiarthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) based on initial pathology, to determine the re-revision rate, and to identify characteristics that may predict subsequent re-revision.

METHODS

A total of 207 shoulder hemiarthroplasty, bipolar prosthesis, and humeral resurfacing cases revised to RSA between January 2004 and January 2017 were reviewed. Outcome measures included shoulder motion and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores. Sixteen RSAs underwent re-revision. A case-control study with each revised RSA matched to 4 controls based on age, sex, and minimum 2-year follow-up was performed to evaluate for factors predicting re-revision.

RESULTS

The mean time from initial hemiarthroplasty to RSA was 3.6 years (range, 0.1-20 years). There were 114 patients with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up (mean, 57 months; range, 24-144 months). The most common initial diagnoses for hemiarthroplasty were fracture (n = 72), cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (n = 22), and osteoarthritis (OA) (n = 20). Overall mean scores and range-of-motion values were as follows: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 59 (95% confidence interval [CI], 54-64); SST score, 4 (95% CI, 4-5); forward flexion, 106° (95% CI, 96°-116°); and abduction, 95° (95% CI, 85°-105°). Compared with fracture cases, CTA cases had better forward flexion (P = .01) and abduction (P = .006) and OA cases had better SST scores (P = .02) and abduction (P = .04). The re-revision rate was 7.7% at a mean of 31 months (range, 0-116 months), with the most common diagnosis being fracture (10 of 16 cases). Humeral loosening (8 of 16 cases) was the most common failure mechanism, and larger glenosphere sizes were more likely to be revised.

CONCLUSION

Functional outcome scores of hemiarthroplasty cases revised to RSA were better for patients with OA than for patients with CTA or fracture. Cases of hemiarthroplasty for fracture had decreased motion after revision to RSA compared with CTA and OA. Humeral loosening was the most common failure mechanism.

Revision shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and comparison of North American vs. European outcomes and complications

BACKGROUND

Joint registries provide invaluable data on primary arthroplasties with revision as the endpoint; however, the revision outcomes are often excluded. Therefore, a PROSPERO registered review (CRD42015032531) of all revision studies in North America and Europe was conducted to evaluate demographics, etiologies and indications, implant manufacturer, and complications by geographic region.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for revision arthroplasty clinical studies with a minimum mean 24-month follow-up. There were no language exclusions. Articles published in German, French, and Italian were reviewed by research personnel proficient in each language.

RESULTS

The mean age at revision was 66 ± 5 years (male = 759, female = 1123). The male-female ratio in North American and Europeans studies was 43:57 and 34:66, respectively. The most common etiology for primary surgery in both regions was osteoarthritis or glenoid arthrosis (38%). The most common revision indication overall was rotator cuff tear, deficiency, or arthropathy (26%). The most common implant type used in revisions was a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (54%). The complication rate for all revisions was 17%. There were a total of 465 complications, and of those, 74% lead to a reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Generally, shoulder arthroplasties are designed to last 10-15 years; however, revisions are being performed at a mean 3.9 years from the primary procedure, based on the published studies included in this systematic review. Additionally, of the complications, a large number (74%) went on to a reoperation. Further insight into the reasons for early revisions and standardized reporting metrics and data collection on revisions is needed.

Risk factors for heterotopic ossification in operatively treated proximal humeral fractures

AIMS

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a potentially devastating complication of the surgical treatment of a proximal humeral fracture. The literature on the rate and risk factors for the development of HO under these circumstances is lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for the development of HO in these patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 170 patients who underwent operative treatment for a proximal humeral fracture between 2005 and 2016, in a single institution, was undertaken. The mean follow-up was 18.2 months (1.5 to 140). The presence of HO was identified on follow-up radiographs.

RESULTS

The incidence of HO was 15% (n = 26). Our multivariate model revealed that male sex (odds ratio (OR) 3.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 9.80 compared to female) and dislocation as the initial injury (OR 5.01, 95% CI 1.31 to 19.22) were significantly associated with the formation of HO (p < 0.05) while no significant associations were seen for the age of the patient, the characteristics of the injury, or the type of operative treatment.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective radiological study is the first to investigate the association between the method of surgical treatment for a proximal humeral fracture and the formation of HO postoperatively. We found that male sex and dislocation as the initial injury were risk factors for HO formation, whereas the method of surgical treatment, the age of the patient, and the pattern of the fracture were not predictive of HO formation. While additional studies are needed, these findings can help to identify those at an increased risk for HO formation under these circumstances. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):539-544.

Does time to surgery affect patient-reported outcome in proximal humeral fractures? A subanalysis of the PROFHER randomized clinical trial

Aims

The aim of this study was to explore whether time to surgery affects functional outcome in displaced proximal humeral fractures

Methods

A total of 250 patients presenting within three weeks of sustaining a displaced proximal humeral fracture involving the surgical neck were recruited at 32 acute NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom between September 2008 and April 2011. Of the 125 participants, 109 received surgery (fracture fixation or humeral head replacement) as per randomization. Data were included for 101 and 67 participants at six-month and five-year follow-up, respectively. Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS) collected at six, 12, and 24 months and at three, four, and five years following randomization was plotted against time to surgery. Long-term recovery was explored by plotting six-month scores against five-year scores and agreement was illustrated with a Bland-Altman plot.

Results

The mean time from initial trauma to surgery was 10.5 days (1 to 33). Earlier surgical intervention did not improve OSS throughout follow-up, nor when stratified by participant age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years) and fracture severity (one- and two-part vs three- and four-part fractures). Participants managed later than reported international averages (three days in the United States and Germany, eight days in the United Kingdom) did not have worse outcomes. At five-year follow-up, 50 participants (76%) had the same or improved OSS compared with six months (six-month mean OSS 35.8 (SD 10.0); five-year mean OSS 40.1 (SD 9.1); r = 0.613). A Bland-Altman plot demonstrated a positive mean difference (3.3 OSS points (SD 7.92)) with wide 95% limits of agreement (-12.2 and 18.8 points).

Conclusion

Timing of surgery did not affect OSS at any stage of follow-up, irrespective of age or fracture type. Most participants had maximum functional outcome at six months that was maintained at five years. These findings may help guide providers of trauma services on surgical prioritization. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(1):33–41

Advances and Update on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a procedure that has been increasingly utilized since its inception over 20 years ago. The purpose of this review is to present the most up to date practice and advances to the RTSA literature from the last 5 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent literature on RTSA has focused on identifying complications, maximizing outcomes, and determining its cost-effectiveness. RTSA has become a valuable tool in the treatment of various shoulder pathologies from fractures to massive-irreparable rotator cuff tears. Maximizing outcomes, proper patient counseling, and limiting complications are vital to a successful procedure. RTSA can be a difficult procedure; however, when utilized appropriately, it can be an invaluable tool in the orthopedic surgeon's armament. Recent evidence suggests, more and more, that RTSA not only provides value to the patient, but it is also cost-effective.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of 17 reverse shoulder arthroplasty cases performed after failed humeral head resurfacing

INTRODUCTION

Despite the good outcomes with shoulder resurfacing procedures reported by some authors, our team has documented several failures caused by glenoid erosion and rotator cuff rupture, likely due to implant overstuffing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) performed after failed humeral head resurfacing (HHR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center study of 17 patients who underwent RSA after failed HHR between January 2011 and February 2016. The mean patient age was 69.4 years and the mean time between HHR and surgical revision was 41 months (14.7-73.5±18.8). Preoperative ultrasonography and CT were used to evaluate the condition of the rotator cuff, extent of glenoid erosion and to look for signs of humeral cup loosening. The clinical outcomes were evaluated pre- and postoperatively using the simple shoulder test (SST), DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) and the Constant-Murley score. Pain was estimated using a visual analog scale (VAS). The range of motion (ROM) was determined pre- and postoperatively. All patients had standard AP and lateral X-ray views of the shoulder taken as part of their postoperative follow-up protocol to look for implant loosening.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 35.9 months (24-59±10.7). There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. All the functional scores were improved after RSA. The median weighted Constant score preoperatively was 46% (36; 62) while it was 92% postoperatively (78; 100) (p<0.0001). The active ROM improved by 65° in forward flexion (p=0.0003) and by 30° in external rotation (p=0.002). On X-rays, we identified one patient with Sirveaux stage 4 glenoid notching and one patient with a humeral periprosthetic radiolucent line less than 2mm thick in zone 6, with no clinical consequences.

CONCLUSION

The excellent outcomes after RSA for failed HHR in our study are similar to the ones reported when RSA is performed for cuff tear arthropathy.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has a higher risk of revision due to infection than anatomical shoulder arthroplasty

Aims

The aim of this study was to use national registry database information to estimate cumulative rates and relative risk of revision due to infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Patients and Methods

We included 17 730 primary shoulder arthroplasties recorded between 2004 and 2013 in The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data set. With the Kaplan–Meier method, we illustrated the ten-year cumulative rates of revision due to infection and with the Cox regression model, we reported the hazard ratios as a measure of the relative risk of revision due to infection.

Results

In all, 188 revisions were reported due to infection during a mean follow-up of three years and nine months. The ten-year cumulative rate of revision due to infection was 1.4% overall, but 3.1% for reverse shoulder arthroplasties and 8.0% for reverse shoulder arthroplasties in men. Reverse shoulder arthroplasties were associated with an increased risk of revision due to infection also when adjusted for sex, age, primary diagnosis, and year of surgery (relative risk 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 5.59); p = 0.001).

Conclusion

The overall incidence of revision due to infection was low. The increased risk in reverse shoulder arthroplasty must be borne in mind, especially when offering it to men. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:702–707.

Preoperative bisphosphonate treatment may adversely affect the outcome after shoulder arthroplasty

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of preoperative bisphosphonate treatment on the intra- and postoperative outcomes of arthroplasty of the shoulder. The hypothesis was that previous bisphosphonate treatment would adversely affect both intra- and postoperative outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving patients undergoing arthroplasty of the shoulder, at a single institution. Two patients with no previous bisphosphonate treatment were matched to each patient who had received this treatment preoperatively by gender, age, race, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), and type of arthroplasty. Previous bisphosphonate treatment was defined as treatment occurring during the three-year period before the arthroplasty. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of intraoperative complications and those occurring at one and two years postoperatively. A total of 87 patients were included: 29 in the bisphosphonates-exposed (BP⁺) group and 58 in the non-exposed (BP^-) group. In the BP⁺ group, there were 26 female and three male patients, with a mean age of 71.4 years (51 to 87). In the BP^- group, there were 52 female and six male patients, with a mean age of 72.1 years (53 to 88).

RESULTS

Previous treatment with bisphosphonates was positively associated with intraoperative complications (fracture; odds ratio (OR) 39.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.42 to 6305.70) and one-year postoperative complications (OR 7.83, 95% CI 1.11 to 128.82), but did not achieve statistical significance for complications two years postoperatively (OR 3.45, 95% CI 0.65 to 25.28). The power was 63% for complications at one year.

CONCLUSION

Patients who are treated with bisphosphonates during the three-year period before shoulder arthroplasty have a greater risk of intraoperative and one-year postoperative complications compared with those without this previous treatment.

Can a reverse shoulder arthroplasty be used to revise a failed primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty?: Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for failed reverse prosthesis

AIMS

Patients with a failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have limited salvage options. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of revision RSA when used as a salvage procedure for a failed primary RSA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed all revision RSAs performed for a failed primary RSA between 2006 and 2012, excluding patients with a follow-up of less than two years. A total of 27 revision RSAs were included in the study. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (58 to 82). Of the 27 patients, 14 (52% were female). The mean follow-up was 4.4 years (2 to 10).

RESULTS

Six patients (22%) developed complications requiring further revision surgery, at a mean of 1.7 years (0.1 to 5.3) postoperatively. The indication for further revision was dislocation in two, glenoid loosening in one, fracture of the humeral component in one, disassociation of the glenosphere in one, and infection in one. The five-year survival free of further revision was 85%. Five additional RSAs developed complications that did not need surgery, including dislocation in three and periprosthetic fracture in two. Overall, patients who did not require further revision had excellent pain relief, and significant improvements in elevation and external rotation of the shoulder (p < 0.01). The mean postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and simple shoulder test (SST) scores were 66 and 7, respectively. Radiological results were available in 26 patients (96.3%) at a mean of 4.3 years (1.5 to 9.5). At the most recent follow-up, six patients (23%) had glenoid lucency, which were classified as grade III or higher in three (12%). Smokers had a significantly increased risk of glenoid lucency (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Revision RSA, when used to salvage a failed primary RSA, can be a successful procedure. At intermediate follow-up, survival rates are reasonable, but dislocation and glenoid lucency remain a concern, particularly in smokers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1493-98.