Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Research Articles

Outcomes following revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for infection

BackgroundIn comparison to primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) procedures, revision arthroplasty can be a longer and more complex procedure leading to an increased risk of complications. The reported rates of infection in primary RSA range from 1% to 19% and the cost impact on patients and healthcare systems is significant, leading to multiple revision surgeries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, complications, and revision rates for revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rRSA) due to infection compared to rRSA for non-infectious causes. MethodsPatients who underwent rRSA between 2009 and 2020 by a single fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeon at a single institution were retrospectively identified through a prospectively collected database. Patients were separated into two cohorts based on revision diagnosis: (1) rRSA due to infection (rRSAi), and (2) rRSA due to non-infectious causes (rRSAn). Patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), including the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score (SAS), and active range of motion (ROM) were collected preoperatively and at a minimum one year follow-up. Postoperative complications and revision rates were also collected. ResultsA total of 93 patients (n=19 rRSAi group, n=74 rRSAn group) with a mean age of 68 years were included in this analysis. All baseline demographics were comparable between groups. No significant differences were found in preoperative or postoperative PROs and ROM between the two groups. Postoperative complication rates and revision rates were comparable between the groups. ConclusionRevision reverse shoulder arthroplasty due to infection results in similar patient-reported outcome scores, range of motion, and revision rates when compared to rRSA for non-infectious causes. Our results suggest that despite the unique challenges associated with rRSA for infection, patient outcomes do not differ from cases attributed to non-infectious causes. Further efforts are warranted to further validate and contextualize these findings, considering the protentional influence of patient-specific and implant-specific factors.

Two-Stage Exchange Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Infection Provides Comparable Functional Outcomes to Primary Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

This study aimed to compare functional outcomes after two-stage revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with the results of primary RSA. Patients affected by PJI and treated by means of two-stage revision RSA were 1:1 matched with a group of patients who were treated electively with RSA without developing any complications. Out of 1477 RSAs performed between 2009 and 2021, 16 patients developed a PJI. Each matched cohort comprised 16 patients (3 females, 13 males). The mean age was 69.13 ± 5.43 years old in the PJI group and 70.28 ± 5.04 (p = 0.543) in the matched cohort. The mean follow-up was 41.23 ± 26.9 months in the PJI group and 28.5 ± 20.2 (p = 0.142) in the matched group. Only one patient showed recurrent PJI five years after revision RSA. Comparison between the PJI patients and matched patients did not show any significant differences at the latest follow-up, nor for subjective shoulder value (SSV) (p = 0.101) or Constant score (p = 0.134). Two-stage exchange RSA for PJI allows for appropriate control of the disease and good functional outcomes. Comparison with an age- and sex-matched cohort of uninfected patients showed no significant differences, thus confirming the idea that revision surgeries may lead to satisfactory functional outcomes, as expected after primary surgery.

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

BackgroundShoulder arthroplasty is a successful procedure that provides pain relief and improvements in function and range of motion. Anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty are both effective procedures, and their indications continue to expand. We look at the outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and compare it to the outcomes of primary reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. MethodsWe identified patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty at our institution between the years of 2010 and 2020. Data was prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for post-operative range of motion and strength in patients with revision surgery and compared to controls. Measurements were collected preoperatively and postoperatively including range of motion and strength in the affected and unaffected shoulder. We collected patient reported outcome measures in person and via phone to identify subjective outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty. Average final follow-up was 5.27 years. ResultsOur total patient sample was split between three groups: those with primary anatomic arthroplasty those who underwent primary reverse arthroplasty, and those who were revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. All three groups had significant improvements in abduction and forward elevation from their pre-operative baseline to two years follow-up. Primary reverse had a significant improvement over revision reverse in abduction at one year follow-up. For all other range of motion measurements, there was no statistically significant difference at 2 years between primary and revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Patient reported outcomes had a significant increase from pre-op to most recent follow-up in all three groups. ConclusionOverall, our data suggest there is an improvement in outcomes with both primary and revision surgeries, and that results after revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty may be comparable to primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

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

Baseplate failure in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a rare but potentially catastrophic complication owing to poor patient outcomes and significant glenoid bone loss. The purpose of this study was to report on the prevalence, causes, and outcomes of revision RSA (rRSA) for baseplate failure or loosening. A retrospective review of our institutional database was performed to identify all patients treated for a failed RSA from 2006 to 2021 who required revision to another RSA (rRSA) performed by a single surgeon. A total of 676 failed RSA procedures were identified, and further analysis identified 46 patients (6.8%) who underwent rRSA for baseplate failure with a confirmed loose baseplate at the time of rRSA. The primary outcome was repeated failure of the reimplanted baseplate following rRSA. The mode of failure associated with baseplate failure was stratified into 1 of 3 groups: aseptic, septic, or traumatic. Twenty-four patients underwent primary revision, and 22 had undergone >1 previous arthroplasty prior to undergoing re-revision. Five patients underwent previous rRSA for baseplate failure performed by an outside surgeon. The criteria for secondary outcome analysis of final American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and range of motion were met by 32 patients and 23 patients at 1- and 2-year follow-up, respectively. Three patients (6.5%) had repeated baseplate failure requiring re-revision; 2 had baseplate failure at <1year with associated periprosthetic infections and underwent conversion to hemiarthroplasty. The third patient experienced traumatic failure at 10 years and underwent successful rRSA. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores at 1 and 2 years were 62.3 and 61.7, respectively. There was no significant difference in outcomes based on mode of baseplate failure (P=.232) or total arthroplasty burden (P=.305) at 1 year. There were 13 total complications in 11 patients, 5 of which required reoperation for reasons other than baseplate failure. In this study, rRSA for baseplate failure constituted 6.8% of all revisions performed over a period of 15 years. Re-revision for recurrent baseplate failure was required in 3 of 46 patients (6.5%). Complications and reoperation rates were higher than those for primary RSA but outcomes were comparable for revision of failed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty.

Predictors of dislocations after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a study by the ASES complications of RSA multicenter research group

Instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is one of the most frequent complications and remains a clinical challenge. Current evidence is limited by small sample size, single-center, or single-implant methodologies that limit generalizability. We sought to determine the incidence and patient related risk factors for dislocation after RSA, using a large, multicenter cohort with varying implants. A retrospective, multicenter study was performed involving fifteen institutions and 24 ASES members across the United States. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients undergoing primary or revision RSA between January 2013 and June 2019 with minimum 3-month follow-up. All definitions, inclusion criteria, and collected variables were determined using the Delphi method, an iterative survey process involving all primary investigators requiring at least 75% consensus to be considered a final component of the methodology for each study element. Dislocations were defined as complete loss of articulation between the humeral component and the glenosphere and required radiographic confirmation. Binary logistic regression was performed to determine patient predictors of postoperative dislocation following RSA. We identified 6,621 patients who met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of 19.4 months (range 3-84). The study population was 40% male with an average age of 71.0 years (range 23-101). The rate of dislocation was 2.1% (n=138) for the whole cohort, 1.6% (n=99) for primary RSAs, and 6.5% (n=39) for revision RSAs (P<.001). Dislocations occurred at a median of 7.0 weeks (IQR 3.0-36.0) after surgery with 23.0% (n=32) following a trauma. Patients with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with an intact rotator cuff had an overall lower rate of dislocation than patients with other diagnoses (0.8% vs. 2.5%; P<.001). Patient-related factors independently predictive of dislocation, in order of the magnitude of effect, were history of postoperative subluxations prior to radiographically confirmed dislocation (Odds Ratio [OR] 19.52, P<.001), primary diagnosis of fracture nonunion (OR 6.53, P<.001), revision arthroplasty (OR 5.61, P<.001), primary diagnosis of rotator cuff disease (OR 2.64, P<.001), male sex (OR 2.21, P<.001), and no subscapularis repair at surgery (OR 1.95, P=.001). The strongest patient-related factors associated with dislocation were a history of postoperative subluxations and having a primary diagnosis of fracture non-union. Notably, RSAs for osteoarthritis showed lower rates of dislocations than RSAs for rotator cuff disease. This data can be used to optimize patient counseling prior to RSA, particularly in male patients undergoing revision RSA.

Outcomes of Femoral Head Allograft for the Management of Glenoid Bone Defects in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Case-Controlled Study.

Revision shoulder arthroplasty often requires management of glenoid bone defects. Options include using allograft, harvesting iliac crest autograft, or using augmented metal components. The purpose of this study is to report outcomes of revision shoulder arthroplasty requiring management of glenoid bone defects with femoral head allograft in a large cohort of patients using a single reverse shoulder implant system and compare them to a matched cohort based on the indication for surgery. Outcomes of patients who had successful glenoid reconstruction were compared to those that required a re-revision, and to a control group that was revised without the need for bone graft. This was a retrospective review of data collected from 2009 to 2018. There were 36 patients in the bone graft group and 52 in the control group. All patients underwent revision to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty to manage a failed total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 29 and 11), hemiarthroplasty (n = 1 and 24), or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n = 6 and 17). All patients had a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow-up. The primary endpoint was survival of baseplate fixation. Secondary outcomes included range of motion and functional outcome scores. Patients that had recurrent baseplate failure and were re-revised were compared to patients with bone graft that did not require additional surgery, and to patients who were revised without the need for bone graft. Patients who required revisions for reasons other than recurrent baseplate failure were also recorded. Five of 36 (14%) patients had recurrent baseplate failure. Mean time to failure was 12 months. Three of 5 had successful re-implantation of another baseplate. Two of 5 were revised to a hemi arthroplasty after failure of their revisions. Preoperative ASES scores were 31 in the grafted patients that did not require re-revision, 39 in the grafted patients that required re-revision, and 33 in the control group. Final ASES scores were 64, 36, and 56, respectively. One patient required revision surgery not related to baseplate failure. There were no baseplate failures in the control group. The use of femoral head allograft to manage glenoid bone defects in the revision setting produces predictable improvement in functional outcomes that is not inferior to those in patients revised without bone graft. However, there is a 14% rate of baseplate failure.

Revision for instability following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: outcomes and risk factors for failure.

Revision of unstable reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is significantly challenging with recurrence rates ranging 20-40%. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with recurrent instability. The factors studied included 1) indication for the revision RSA (failed primary RSA vs failed revision RSA), 2) previous attempts at stabilization, 3) mechanisms of instability, 4) clinical history of instability, and 5) surgical technique. Outcomes were reported in patients with 2-year follow-up. All patients undergoing RSA for instability were identified at our institution. A total of 43 surgeries in 36 patients were included. Arthroplasty indication prior to instability (14 failed primary RSA vs 22 failed revision RSA), instances of prior attempts at stabilization (14 patients treated outside), mechanism of instability classification, clinical history of instability (17 recurrent, 26 chronic), and surgical technique were collected. Stability at final follow-up (min.12 months), and clinical outcomes at 2-year follow-up were assessed. Overall, 32/36 patients (89%) required 38 revisions to achieve stability at final follow-up (average 53±47 months; range: 12-210 months). When comparing stability to indication, 13/14 (93%) patients in the failed primary group were stable (average 65±59 months; range 12-210 months compared to 19/22 (86%) in the failed revision group (45±36 months; range: 12-148 months, p=0.365). Average number of procedures per patient was 3 in the failed primary group (range: 2-10) compared to 4.5 in the failed revision group (range: 3-7; p = 0.008). Stability was achieved in 12/14 (86%) patients with history of failed stabilization procedures. The mechanism leading to persistent instability was loss of compression. Stability was achieved in 14/16 patients treated for recurrent instability compared to 18/20 treated for chronic/locked dislocation (p = 0.813). Continued instability occurred in 33% of patients managed glenoid-sided only, 33% humeral-sided only, and 10% of bipolar revision tactics performed. At 2-year follow-up, 18/21 patients evaluated were found to be stable with improvements in ASES, FF, ABD, ER, and SST (p=0.016, <0.01, 0.01, <0.01, and 0.247 respectively). Patients who had multiple revisions after failed previous arthroplasty will require more surgical attempts to achieve stability compared to patients who had a revision after a failed primary RSA. Loss of compression was the most common mechanism for persistent instability. Recurrent instability was more reliably stabilized than chronic/locked dislocations. Continued instability was noted in 1/3 of patients with humeral-sided only or glenoid-sided only revisions and in 10% of patients undergoing bipolar revisions. Successfully stabilized patients had improved clinical outcomes.

Humeral Loosening in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 2,000 Cases.

Humeral loosening is a rare complication in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) representing approximately 1% of total complications. The purpose of this study is to identify patients who underwent RSA and were revised due to loosening of the humeral component, identify patients who are at increased risk, and report on their surgical outcomes. A retrospective review of all patients who received a primary RSA or revision RSA (rRSA) by a single surgeon from 2002-2021 identified a total of 1,591 primary RSA and 751 rRSA procedures. These procedures were then organized based on indication for surgery. Further analysis was performed to identify RSAs that were subsequently revised due to aseptic loosening of the humeral component. A total of 41 surgeries met inclusion criteria for the study, which was any RSA or rRSA that was revised due to loosening of the humeral component. Exclusion criteria was revision for a reason other than humeral loosening, neurogenic arthritis, or revision for loosening that was not originally implanted by the senior author (9 surgeries). Ultimately, 32 surgeries met criteria for further analysis. These 32 surgeries were organized by indication for preceding RSA or rRSA and were assessed for an association between indication for RSA/rRSA and eventual revision for humeral loosening. Additionally, these procedures were compared to a "control cohort" of procedures that were not revised and that had minimum 2-years follow-up. To assess outcomes for these patients, pre- and postoperative SST, ASES, and ranges of motion were compared. Twenty procedures had sufficient data for outcomes analysis and were followed for an average of 54 months (range: 24-132 months). In primary RSAs, procedures performed for fracture or fracture sequelae were associated with revision for humeral-sided loosening (p = 0.009). In rRSAs, procedures performed for failed hemiarthroplasty for CTA were associated with re-revision for humeral-sided loosening (p = 0.009). Nine percent of patients revised for humeral loosening required re-revision for recurrent humeral loosening. Analysis of patients with 2-year clinical follow-up for humeral-sided loosening showed improvement in ASES pain (p = 0.014), ASES function (p = 0.042), and total ASES scores (p = 0.007). Humeral loosening is rare in RSA. In our cohort, 0.7% of primary RSAs performed and 2.8% of rRSAs performed were eventually revised for humeral loosening. Revisions of RSA for humeral loosening yield modest clinical improvements. Re-revision for humeral loosening was 6.3% of patients in our cohort.

Low acromial insufficiency fracture rate in reverse shoulder arthroplasty with distal clavicle excision.

This study investigated the rate of acromial insufficiency fractures (AIF) in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with concomitant distal clavicle excision (DCE). Patients who underwent primary RSA with DCE by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2021 were identified. Exclusion criteria included revision RSA, RSA for fracture, or cases utilizing an augmented baseplate or bone graft. AIF was defined as a radiographically proven acromion or scapular spine fracture. Pain without an identifiable fracture on imaging was defined as an acromial insufficiency reaction. Patient demographics, implant information, and radiograph measurements were compared between patients with and without acromial pathology. One hundred and seventy-five patients were included. Mean age was 72.8 years, and 67% of patients were female. There were 3/174 acromial insufficiency fractures (1.7%). AIF occurred at a mean of 9.3 months after surgery. Twelve patients had insufficiency reactions (6.9%). Patients with acromial pathology were more likely to be female (p = .003) and have a diagnosis of osteoporosis (p = .047) and inflammatory arthritis (p = .049). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of other factors. The AIF rate in patients who underwent RSA with DCE was 1.7%. These findings suggest that DCE in the setting of RSA may have a protective role against AIF.

Single-Stage Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Preoperative Planning, Surgical Technique, and Mixed Reality Execution.

Revision shoulder arthroplasty is increasing with the number of primary shoulder replacements rising globally. Complex primary and revisions of shoulder arthroplasties pose specific challenges for the surgeon, which must be addressed preoperatively and intraoperatively. This article aimed to present strategies for the management of revision of shoulder arthroplasties through a single-stage approach. Preoperatively, patient factors, such as age, comorbidities, and bone quality, should be considered. The use of planning software can aid in accurately evaluating implants in situ and predict bony anatomy that will remain after explantation during the revision surgery. The planning from such software can then be executed with the help of mixed reality technology to allow accurate implant placement. Single-stage revision is performed in two steps (debridement as first step, implantation and reconstruction as the second step), guided by the following principles: adequate debridement while preserving key soft tissue attachments (i.e., rotator cuff, pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi, deltoid), restoration of glenoid joint line using bone grafting, restoration of humeral length, reconstruction and/or reattachment of soft tissues, and strict compliance with the postoperative antibiotic regimen. Preliminary results of single-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty show improvement in patient outcomes (mean 1 year), successful treatment of infection for those diagnosed with periprosthetic joint infection, and improved cost-benefit parameters for the healthcare system.

Risk factors and reasons for revision after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundAs the indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) continue to expand, the need for revision surgery after RSA will become more frequent. The objective of this study was to characterize patient-related risk factors for revision RSA and to compare reasons for early vs. late revision after RSA. MethodsPatients who underwent primary and revision RSA from 2015 to 2019 were identified in a national insurance database. Subgroups of early revision (defined as revision within 1 year postoperatively) and late revision (more than 1 year postoperatively) were also identified. The primary outcome of interest was patient-related risk factors for revision RSA. Secondary outcomes of interest were patient-related risk factors for early vs. late revision RSA and to compare surgical diagnoses for early vs. late revision RSA. Univariate analysis using chi-square tests was performed to analyze any differences in reasons for revision. Multivariate regression was subsequently utilized to control for any confounding variables when identifying risk factors for revision. ResultsA total of 28,880 patients were identified who underwent RSA, with 553 (1.9%) patients undergoing revision RSA. Three hundred eighty-five patients (69.6%) were classified as early revision (within one year), while 141 (30.4%) underwent late revision more than a year postoperatively. Risk factors for overall revisions included age <65 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23, P = .032), male sex (OR = 2.21, P < .001), type I diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.44, P = .039), congestive heart failure (CHF) (OR = 1.79, P < .001), and depression (OR = 1.33, P = .002) in addition to RSAs performed for fracture (OR = 1.63, P < .001) and glenohumeral instability (OR = 2.25, P < .001) compared to RSA performed for arthritis. Risk factors for early revision RSA included male sex (OR = 2.54, P < .001) and CHF (OR = 1.81, P < .001) in addition to RSAs performed for fracture (OR = 1.84, P < .001) and glenohumeral instability (OR = 2.44, P < .001). Risk factors for late revision RSA included male sex (OR = 1.62, P = .004), CHF (OR = 1.83, P = .005), steroid use (OR = 1.79, P = .036), human immunodeficiency virus (OR = 3.50, P = .038), and RSA performed for glenohumeral instability (OR = 1.92, P = .004). Early revision RSA was more commonly performed for instability (63.1% vs. 25.0%, P < .001) and stiffness (5.5% vs. 1.2%, P = .021) than late revisions. ConclusionRevision RSA is uncommon at early follow-up. Overall patient-related risk factors for revision include male sex, age <65 years, type I diabetes mellitus, CHF, and depression in addition to RSAs performed for fracture and glenohumeral instability. Instability and stiffness were more common indications for early compared to late revision. Instability remained the most common reason for overall revision followed by periprosthetic infection.

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

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

Survivorship of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty According to Indication, Age and Gender.

Background. The indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been widely expanded, but only a few studies report the long-term survival of these implants. Our objective was to report the long-term survivorship of a large series of RSAs implanted for different etiologies. Methods. A retrospective multicenter study including all the RSAs was performed in six shoulder-specialized centers with at least 2 years of follow up. We reviewed 1611 RSAs, operated between 1993 and 2010, including 497 cuff-tear arthropathies (CTA), 239 revision RSAs, 188 massive cuff tears (MCT), 185 fracture sequelae (FS), 183 failed previous cuff repairs (FCR), and 142 primary osteoarthritis (POA). The mean follow-up was 5.6 ± 3.9 years (range 2–20). Results. Overall, 266 RSAs (16.5%) had at least one complication leading to 64 reoperations (4.0%) and 110 revision surgeries (6.8%). The most frequent complications were infection (3.8%), instability (2.8%), and humerus-related complications (2.8%). At 10 years, the survival without revision surgery was 91.0% in primary RSAs and 80.9% in revision RSAs for failed arthroplasty (p < 0.001). In the primary RSA group, MCT and FCR led to 10-year survivals for over 95% but fracture sequelae and tumors had the lowest 10-year survivals (83.9% and 53.1%). Younger patients had a lower 10-year survival. In revision RSAs, male patients had a significantly lower survival than females (72.3% vs. 84.5% at 10 years, p = 0.020). Discussion. Primary RSA for cuff-deficient shoulders or POA leads to a high 10-year survival, but revision RSA or primary RSA for FS and tumors are at high-risk for revision. Surgeons should be aware of high rates of complications and lower survival rates of RSA in younger patients, in males, and in RSAs for revision surgery.

Patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a minimum of 10 years' follow-up.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has been shown to reliably improve pain and functional outcomes for multiple pathologies. Despite its increasing use in the United States since its introduction in 2004, few studies have investigated long-term outcomes of this procedure. This information is vital in many ways, including durability of functional outcomes, complication profiles, and implant survivorship. Our prospectively collected shoulder arthroplasty registry included 471 patients who had undergone RSA prior to December 31, 2010, by a single surgeon at a high-volume shoulder arthroplasty center. The study sample included 94 patients with a minimum of 10 years' follow-up, and we evaluated the indications for RSA, complications, pain, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and patient satisfaction on these patients at baseline, 2-5 years, and 10 or more years of follow-up. Prosthesis survivorship was determined by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis performed with revision for any reason as the end point for all 471 patients in the study period regardless of follow-up interval. The 93 patients with at least 10 years of follow-up were 63% female (60) and 37% male (34), with an average age of 66±10 years at the time of RSA. There were 70 (75%) primary RSAs and 23 (25%) revision RSAs. Patient-reported outcome measures at 10 years or more included a current pain rating averaging 2±3 on a 0-10 scale and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) of 73±28. There was no deterioration in function or pain from midterm to long-term follow-up, as the SANE and pain score changed by less than the minimal clinically important difference or improved in 87% and 90% of patients, respectively. Overall, patients were satisfied with the RSA procedure, with 52 (56%) very satisfied, 24 (26%) satisfied, 13 (14%) dissatisfied, and 4 (4%) very dissatisfied. For the subset of 68 patients who were contacted for follow-up, 64 (94%) would have the procedure again and 4 (6%) would not. Kaplan-Meier prosthesis survival rate for all 471 RSA patients was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84%-92%) at 5 years and 81% (95% CI 74%-86%) at 10 years. This study presents the largest American cohort of Grammont design RSA at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Although RSA provided clinically significant and durable improvements in pain and function, the complication and revision rates were higher than prior reports. Despite this, the vast majority of patients were satisfied and would have the procedure again.

Functional and Radiological Outcomes after Treatment with Custom-Made Glenoid Components in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Glenoid implant position and fixation are challenging in severe glenoid defects in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Custom-made glenoid implants are metal augmented implants that are specially produced for a certain defect. They provide the restoration of the joint line and proper fixation. This retrospective data analysis investigated the clinical and radiological outcomes after revision using custom-made glenoid implants. Between 2018 and 2020, nine patients (10 shoulders) with severe glenoid defects underwent revision rTSA using a custom-made glenoid implant (Materialise Glenius or Lima ProMade). The pre- and postoperative Constant Murley Score (CMS), UCLA Score and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) were assessed. Postoperative CT scans and X-rays in two planes were available. The minimum follow-up was 12 months, with a mean follow-up of 23.1 months. The mean preoperative CMS, UCLA Score and SSV were 10.9, 4.1 and 11.0, respectively. The mean postoperative CMS, UCLA Score and SSV showed significant increases of 51.7 (<0.001), 22.9 (<0.001) and 52.0 (<0.001), respectively. There were no signs of loosening implants or scapular notching, and no revision was necessary. This trial showed promising clinical and radiological short-term outcomes for custom-made glenoid components in revision rTSA.

Opioid requirements in primary versus revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the inpatient pain medication use of patients who had a revision shoulder arthroplasty procedure performed and compare them to a cohort of patients who had a primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) performed to determine whether revision shoulder arthroplasty requires more pain medication.. A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing revision arthroplasty (n = 75) and primary rTSA (n = 340). Inpatient medication records were reviewed to tabulate the visual analog pain (VAS) all narcotic medication use, and total morphine equivalent units (MEUs) were calculated for the duration of the inpatient stay. There was no significant difference between groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative narcotic pain medication use, tobacco use, postoperative VAS scores or hospital length of stay. There were no predictors of total postoperative MEUs identified. Overall, patients in the revision arthroplasty group received significantly less total MEUs than those in the primary rTSA group, 134.96 MEUs vs. 69.79 MEUs, respectively (p < .0005). The perceived notion that revision shoulder arthroplasty is more painful may cause providers to be more inclined to increase narcotic use, or use more invasive pain control techniques. Based on these data, we found that revision shoulder arthroplasty did not require an increased opioid requirement, longer length of stay or increase VAS, suggesting that these patients can often be managed similarly to primary rTSA.

Is Bone Grafting Always Necessary in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with Eccentric Glenoid Bone Defects?

Is Bone Grafting Always Necessary in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty with Eccentric Glenoid Bone Defects?

Management of periprosthetic infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Periprosthetic shoulder infection (PSI) remains a devastating complication after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Currently, scientific data related to the management of PSI are limited, and the optimal strategy and related clinical outcomes remain unclear. Guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America for the management of periprosthetic joint infection are mainly based on data from patients after hip and knee arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether these guidelines are also valid for patients with PSI after RSA. In addition, the functional outcome according to the surgical intervention was assessed. An RSA database was retrospectively reviewed to identify infections after primary and revision RSAs, diagnosed between 2004 and 2018. Data collected included age, sex, indication for RSA, causative pathogen, surgical and antimicrobial treatment, functional outcome, and recurrence. Thirty-six patients with a PSI were identified. Surgical treatment was subdivided into débridement and implant retention (DAIR) (n = 6, 17%); 1-stage revision (n = 1, 3%); 2-stage revision (n = 16, 44%); multiple-stage revision (>2 stages) (n = 7, 19%); definitive spacer implantation (n = 2, 6%); and resection arthroplasty (n = 4, 11%). The most common causative pathogens were Staphylococcus epidermidis (n = 11, 31%) and Cutibacterium acnes (n = 9, 25%). Recurrence was diagnosed in 4 patients (11%), all of whom were initially treated with a DAIR approach. The median follow-up period was 36 months (range, 24-132 months). PSI is typically caused by low-virulence pathogens, which often are diagnosed with a delay, resulting in chronic infection at the time of surgery. Our results indicate that treatment of patients with chronic PSI with DAIR has a high recurrence rate. In addition, implant exchange (ie, 1- and 2-stage exchange) does not compromise the functional result as compared with implant retention. Thus, patients with chronic PSI should be treated with implant exchange. Future research should further clarify which surgical strategy (ie, 1-stage vs. 2-stage exchange) has a better outcome overall.

Predictors of acromial and scapular stress fracture after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a study by the ASES Complications of RSA Multicenter Research Group.

Acromial (ASF) and scapular spine (SSF) stress fractures are well-recognized complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), but much of the current data are derived from single-center or single-implant studies with limited generalizability. This study from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Complications of Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Multicenter Research Group determined the incidence of ASF/SSF after RSA and identified preoperative patient characteristics associated with their occurrence. Fifteen institutions including 21 ASES members across the United States participated in this study. Patients undergoing either primary or revision RSA between January 2013 and June 2019 with a minimum 3-month follow-up were included. All definitions and inclusion criteria were determined using the Delphi method, an iterative survey process involving all primary investigators. Consensus was achieved when at least 75% of investigators agreed on each aspect of the study protocol. Only symptomatic ASF/SSF diagnosed by radiograph or computed tomography were considered. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with ASF/SSF development. We identified 6755 RSAs with an average follow-up of 19.8 months (range, 3-94). The total stress fracture incidence rate was 3.9% (n = 264), of which 3.0% (n = 200) were ASF and 0.9% (n = 64) were SSF. Fractures occurred at an average 8.2 months (0-64) following RSA with 21.2% (n = 56) following a trauma. Patient-related factors independently predictive of ASF were chronic dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 3.67, P = .04), massive rotator cuff tear without arthritis (OR 2.51, P < .01), rotator cuff arthropathy (OR 2.14, P < .01), self-reported osteoporosis (OR 2.21, P < .01), inflammatory arthritis (OR 2.18, P < .01), female sex (OR 1.51, P = .02), and older age (OR 1.02 per 1-year increase, P = .02). Factors independently associated with the development of SSF included osteoporosis (OR 2.63, P < .01), female sex (OR 2.34, P = .01), rotator cuff arthropathy (OR 2.12, P = .03), and inflammatory arthritis (OR 2.05, P = .03). About 1 in 26 patients undergoing RSA will develop a symptomatic ASF or SSF, more frequently within the first year of surgery. Our results indicate that severe rotator cuff disease may play an important role in the occurrence of stress fractures following RSA. This information can be used to counsel patients about potential setbacks in recovery, especially among older women with suboptimal bone health. Strategies for prevention of ASF and SSF in these at-risk patients warrant further study. A follow-up study evaluating the impact of prosthetic factors on the incidence rates of ASF and SSF may prove highly valuable in the decision-making process.

Revision of failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty to revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty leads to significant clinical and functional improvement

BackgroundReverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is rapidly growing in the United States. As the number of procedures increases, the number of complications and need for additional surgeries correspondingly continues to grow. The purpose of this study was to describe clinical and functional outcomes of revision of RSA to RSA. MethodsA retrospective review of 29 patients from 2 centers who underwent revision surgery following RSA to RSA from 2007 to 2017 was conducted. The reasons for revision were recorded. Clinical outcome measures including shoulder range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score, simple shoulder test and Visual analog scale scores were collected for all patients at an average follow-up of 29 months. Postoperative complications were also recorded. ResultsA total of 29 patients were identified. The average time between index RSA and revision was 2.3 years (30 days – 7 years). Mean follow-up duration for clinical outcome measures was 29.1 months (12-114 months). The most common indication for revision surgery was aseptic loosening (13/29, 44.8%), followed by instability (7/29, 24.1%), fracture (5/29, 17.2%), and infection (4/29, 13.7%). The average Visual analog scale decreased from 7 to 3 (P< .001). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score scores improved from a mean of 30 to 58 (P < .001). Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score scores improved from 26 to 54 (P < .001), and Simple shoulder test improved from 2 to 6 (P = .001). Range of motion in both forward elevation from 76° to 131° (P < .001) and external rotation from 26 to 42 (P = .001). Complications were seen in 10 of 29 patients (34.5%). ConclusionA failed RSA can be managed with revision RSA with acceptable clinical outcomes although outcome is inferior to primary RSA with a high rate of complications. Level of EvidenceLevel IV; Retrospective Case Series