The router bit extraction technique for removing a well-fixed humeral stem in revision shoulder arthroplasty

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.

Cement-within-cement technique in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review of biomechanical data, and clinical outcomes

Background

The purpose of this research was to systematically review and summarize the existent literature on the use of the cement-within-cement technique for revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA).

Methods

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant studies. We included clinical studies in which patients underwent RSA revision using the cement-within-cement method for the humeral component, and studies that evaluated the biomechanical performance or described the surgical technique. The methodological risk of bias was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies scale.

Results

The search yielded 516 records, of which two clinical and one biomechanical study met the inclusion criteria, involving 133 patients and 20 synthetic humeri. The intraoperative complication rate was 18%, all of which involved humeral fractures. The postoperative complication rate was 18% among 35 patients. The combined re-revision rate was 9%, with a reported humeral component survival rate of 100% at 2 years and 96% at 5 years. Periprosthetic fractures (1.5%) and humeral stem loosening (1.5%) led to re-revision surgeries in all cases. All studies reported improved patient-reported outcomes and range of motion. The biomechanical study demonstrated increased rotational stability in models that used larger humeral stems.

Conclusions

The cement-within-cement method is a viable option for revision RSA, showing positive outcomes in terms of stability, range of motion, and clinical functional scores. The complication rate is similar to that of other revision strategies; however, the prevalence of intraoperative humeral fractures may be higher. Nevertheless, future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to refine patient selection, determine the efficacy of long-term use, and identify factors that may influence outcomes after the cement-within-cement revision technique. Further research on an optimized stem fixation strategy is needed to improve outcomes and reduce avoidable complications.

Level of evidence

Level IV, Systematic reviews.

Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Anatomical Glenoid Component Loosening Was Not Universally Successful: A Detailed Analysis of 127 Consecutive Shoulders

BACKGROUND

Glenoid component loosening is a primary cause of failure of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and is commonly associated with glenoid bone loss. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the outcome and survival following revision to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for the treatment of loosening of a polyethylene cemented glenoid component in the setting of failed TSA.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2017, 151 shoulders underwent revision to RSA for the treatment of loosening of an anatomical polyethylene glenoid component. Shoulders with staged reconstruction for the treatment of infection were excluded. One hundred and twenty-seven patients (67 women and 60 men) had a single-stage reconstruction and were available for follow-up. The mean age at the time of surgery was 70 years (range, 41 to 93 years). In all cases, the humeral component was revised and a standard glenoid baseplate was utilized. Bone graft was used at the discretion of the treating surgeon. Medical records and radiographs were reviewed to collect demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data; to quantify glenoid bone loss; and to determine the radiographic outcome. The mean duration of follow-up was 35 months (range, 24 to 84 months).

RESULTS

Revision to RSA resulted in significant improvements in terms of pain and motion. Sixteen shoulders (13%) underwent revision surgery for the treatment of baseplate loosening. Radiographic baseplate loosening was present in 6 additional shoulders (overall rate of baseplate loosening, 17%). Intraoperative fracture or fragmentation of the greater tuberosity occurred in 30 shoulders (24%). Other reoperations included resection for deep infection (3 shoulders), arthroscopic biopsies for unexplained persistent pain (2 shoulders), humeral tray exchange for dislocation (2 shoulders), revision for humeral loosening (1 shoulder), irrigation and debridement for hematoma (1 shoulder), and internal fixation of periprosthetic fracture (1 shoulder) (overall reoperation rate, 20%). Among shoulders with surviving implants at the time of the most recent follow-up, pain was rated as none or mild in 83 shoulders (65.4%) and the average active elevation and external rotation were 132° and 38°, respectively. With the numbers available, no risk factors for failure could be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision RSA for the treatment of loosening of an anatomical polyethylene component was associated with a 17% glenoid mechanical failure rate. Although this procedure resulted in improvements in terms of pain and function, it was not universally successful and thus needs further refinement in order to improve outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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