Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Research Articles

Mid- to long-term outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as revision procedure for failed hemiarthroplasty after proximal humerus fracture

BackgroundInsufficient tuberosity healing is the most common reason for poor outcome after treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) using hemiarthroplasty (HA). In these cases, revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) can improve function and reduce pain in the short term, however, long-term results remain scarce. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological mid- to long-term results in patients with a revision RTSA after failed HA for PHF.MethodsIn this retrospective study all patients that received a revision to RTSA after failed fracture HA between 2006 and 2018 were included. A total of 49 shoulders in 48 patients (38 female, 10 male; mean age 82 ± 9 years) were identified in our database. A total of 20 patients (17 female, 3 male; mean age was 79 ± 9 years) were available for follow-up examination after a mean time period of approximately eight years (3–14 years) after revision surgery. At final follow-up, patients were assessed using a subjective shoulder value (SSV), range of motion (ROM), visual analogue score (VAS), the Constant Score (CS) and the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12).ResultsAt final follow-up, mean CS was 55 ± 19 (19–91), VAS averaged 3 ± 3 (0–8) and mean SSV was 61 ± 18% (18–90%). Mean SF-12 was 44 (28–57) with a mean physical component summary (PCS) of 38 (21–56) and a mean mental component summary (MCS) of 51 (29–67). On average active forward flexion (FF) was 104° (10–170°), active abduction (ABD) was 101° (50–170°), active external rotation (ER) was 19° (10–30°) and active internal rotation (IR) of the lumbosacral transition was reached. Three patients presented with a periprosthetic humeral fracture after RTSA implantation and underwent a reoperation (15%) during follow-up period.ConclusionsRevision RTSA results in promising clinical results in patients after initial failed HA after PHF. A complication and reoperation rate of 15% is tolerable in consideration of satisfactory functional and psychological outcome.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered.

Anatomic or Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty? How Fellowship Training Affects Selection of Arthroplasty Type

While both anatomic (ATSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) have been popularized as a means of treating individuals with degenerative shoulder conditions, the indications for each can vary widely amongst providers. While surgeons with differing fellowship training commonly perform these procedures, it is not understood how fellowship training influences choice of implant. A national database was queried to identify surgeons performing anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. For all surgeons who performed more than 10 cases between 2010-2022, fellowship data was individually collected via online search. For each fellowship group, rates of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) procedural codes. Those undergoing revision arthroplasty and those with a history of fracture, infection, or malignancy were excluded. Primary outcome measures included the proportion of primary and revision ATSA and RTSA by fellowship in addition to the rate of RTSA performed for a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. A total of 131,974 patients met the inclusion criteria and were retained for this study. RTSA increased from 50.1% of all primary shoulder arthroplasty cases in 2011 to 72.0% in 2022. After adjusting for age and comorbidities, Sports Medicine fellowship-trained (Sports) surgeons opted for primary RTSA over ATSA at a significantly higher rate than Shoulder and Elbow fellowship-trained (Shoulder) surgeons and surgeons who completed another type of fellowship or no fellowship (Other). Sports surgeons also chose RTSA more frequently for the diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis compared to Shoulder surgeons. Surgeons in the Other cohort were more likely to perform primary ATSA rather than RTSA in comparison to surgeons in the Shoulder and Sports cohorts. Sports surgeons were responsible for the greatest increase in percentage of all shoulder arthroplasty procedures from 2010-2022 (28.4% to 40.4%) while the Other group decreased by a comparable amount (45.9% to 32.4%) over the same period. Surgeons who have completed a Sports Medicine fellowship choose RTSA over ATSA at a higher rate than Shoulder and Elbow surgeons, both for all indications and also for a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Those who have no fellowship training or fellowship training outside of Sports Medicine and Shoulder and Elbow surgery have the highest percentage of ATSA in their arthroplasty practice. Revision anatomic and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty represents a larger percentage of overall case volume for Shoulder and Elbow surgeons.

Short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes with modular long stem for revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundWhen performing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with compromised proximal bone fixation, surgeons must consider using specialized stems with a distal press-fit design. In this study, the authors report on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who underwent surgical management with modular diaphyseal press-fit stems. MethodsIn 2017-2021, patients who underwent revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty reconstruction with diaphyseal press-fit stems (Aequalis Adjustable Stem [AS] or Aequalis Flex Revive Stem [RS]; Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) with minimum 1-year follow-up were identified. Patients with complex proximal humerus and scapula fractures, neurological injuries, and custom humeral replacements were excluded. Demographics and clinical follow-up data including range of motion, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed for aseptic humeral loosening, periprosthetic instability, stress shielding, periprosthetic fractures, and humeral stem failure. ResultsSixty-five patients (29 AS and 36 RS) had mean follow-up of 25 months (standard deviation ± 16). Mean anterior elevation improved from 57° ± 39 preoperative to 121° ± 31 postoperatively. Mean external rotation improved from 3° ± 17 to 34° ± 16. Mean internal rotation improved from 4° ± 13 to 35° ± 26. Mean VAS improved from 6.7 ± 2.2 to 2.9 ± 1.5. Mean SST improved from 13% ± 13% to 65% ± 22%. Mean ASES score improved from 19 ± 13 to 60 ± 18. Mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation improved from 25% ± 18% to 71% ± 17%. There were statistically significant differences in mean postoperative VAS (P = .0017), SST (P = .025), and ASES score (P = .0228) in favor of the RS group. There were no other notable differences between groups. The most common complications were aseptic humeral stem loosening (24% vs. 3%, P = .018) and periprosthetic instability (10% vs. 6%, P = .649) for the AS and RS cohorts, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between surgical revision rates between the AS and RS cohorts (24% vs. 8%, respectively. P = .096). DiscussionDiaphyseal press-fit modular humeral stem can provide a viable surgical alternative in compromised proximal humeral bone. At short-term follow-up, the clinical and radiographic outcomes are comparable to other stem designs. Further studies are necessary to identify risks and causes of failure associated with modular diaphyseal press-fit stems.

Cement-within-cement technique in revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: complications, reoperations, and revision rates at 5-year mean follow-up

Cement-within-cement technique in revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: complications, reoperations, and revision rates at 5-year mean follow-up

Defining the tipping point for revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Background This study sought to characterize the tipping point values (the functional scores that patients deem dysfunctional enough to warrant surgery) for patients undergoing first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Methods This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Tipping point evaluation utilized preoperative scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), raw and normalized Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) scores, and active range of motion including abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation score (IR) prior to elective revision rTSA. Results We included 125 revision rTSAs. Tipping points were 37.6 ASES score, 30.5 raw Constant score, 35.5 normalized Constant score, 68.1 SPADI, 3.7 SST, 13.2 UCLA score, 64° abduction, 69° FE, 23° ER, and 3.1 IR. Higher SST was found for older patients and patients with a lower body mass index. Lower abduction and FE tipping points were reported in patients undergoing revision rTSA for rotator cuff failure, unexplained pain, and implant wear. Discussion These tipping points can help surgeons counsel patients regarding when to undergo revision rTSA. Level of evidence Level III; retrospective cohort study; treatment study.

Revising Failed Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Comprehensive Techniques for Precise Explantation of Well-Fixed Implants.

With the increased utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), there has been a corresponding increase in the incidence of and demand for revision RTSA3. In cases in which the patient has undergone multiple previous surgeries and presents with well-fixed shoulder implants, even the most experienced shoulder surgeon can be overwhelmed and frustrated. Having a simple and reproducible treatment algorithm to plan and execute a successful revision surgery will ease the anxiety of a revision operation and avoid future additional revisions. The extraction techniques described here strive to preserve the humeral and glenoid anatomy, hopefully facilitating the reimplantation steps to follow. The main principles of implant removal include several consistent, simple steps. In order to revise a well-fixed humeral implant, (1) identify the old implants; (2) create a preoperative plan that systematically evaluates the glenoid and humeral deficiencies; (3) prepare consistent surgical tools, such as an oscillating saw, osteotomes, and/or a tamp; (4) follow the deltoid; (5) dissect the soft tissue with a sponge; (6) dissect the bone with use of an osteotome; and (7) remove the humeral stem in rotation. In cases in which there is also a well-fixed glenoid implant, the surgical procedure will require additional steps, including (8) exposure of the anteroinferior glenoid, (9) disengagement of the glenosphere, and (10) removal of the glenoid baseplate in rotation. Alternatives to revision RTSA include nonoperative treatment, implant retention with conversion of modular components, extensile revision surgical techniques, and/or mechanical implant removal. With the advent of modular humeral and glenoid components, surgeons may choose to change the implant components instead of removing the entire humeral and glenoid implants; however, repeat complications may occur if the previous implant or implant position was not completely revised. When confronted with a tough humeral explantation, an extensile surgical approach involves creating a cortical window or humeral osteotomy to expose the humeral implant. This approach can compromise the humeral shaft integrity, leading to alternative and less ideal reconstruction implant choices, the use of cerclage wires, and/or the use of a strut graft, all of which may complicate postoperative mobilization. If glenoid implant removal is necessary, the glenosphere is removed first, followed by the underlying baseplate component(s). If the glenosphere is stuck or if screws are cold-welded, the use of a conventional mechanical extraction technique with a burr or diamond saw may be required; however, this may lead to additional metal debris and intraoperative sparks. Revision RTSA can lead to high complication rates, ranging from 12% to 70%2, which will often require additional revision surgeries4. The first steps to all revision RTSA procedures include careful surgical exposure and component explantation. A simplified approach to expose the humerus and glenoid, coupled with a systematic and atraumatic approach to remove the implants without inadvertent injuries, will prevent surgical complications and the need for re-revision. The proposed comprehensive technique hopefully will allow precise removal of the humeral and glenoid implants while also preserving the remnant humerus or glenoid for future reconstruction. Few studies have evaluated postoperative patient outcomes in revision RTSA. Chalmers et al. performed a meta-analysis and found that patients were able to achieve a mean elevation of 106°, a mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 63, and a mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score of 522. Boileau showed very similar outcomes, with a mean elevation of 107° and a mean adjusted Constant score of 621. These outcomes are slightly inferior to those of primary RTSA, but patients remain satisfied with their improvement from their preoperative function. Preoperative preparation will reduce intraoperative reparation. Know the existing implant and the unique features of its design, understand the patient anatomy including bone defects, and anticipate all of the potential tools that may be needed.Know your anatomy. The anteromedial deltoid edge will help you identify the scarred-in humeral shaft.Da Vinci said that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Some of the most common surgical tools and instruments can be more effective than custom-designed ones.The implant should be removed in rotation.There are some company-specific explantation instruments that can be very helpful. Give the appropriate ones a try, but be prepared to consider alternative solutions. RTSA = reverse total shoulder arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyFE = forward elevation.

Glenoid structural bone grafting in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and radiographic outcomes

IntroductionCurrent options for reconstruction of large glenoid defects in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) include structural bone grafting, utilization of augmented components, or 3D printed custom implants. Given the paucity in the literature on structural bone grafts in RTSA, this study reflects our experience on clinical and radiographic outcomes of structural bone grafts utilized for glenoid defects in RTSA. MethodsWe identified 33 consecutive patients who underwent RTSA utilizing structural bone grafts for glenoid bone loss between 2008 and 2019. Twenty-six patients with mean clinical follow-up of 4.4 ± 3.9 years and mean radiographic follow-up of 2.7 ± 3.2 years were included. Patient demographic data, peri-operative functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes, complications, and re-operation rates were determined. ResultsBetween 2008 and 2019, 26 RTSAs were performed utilizing structural autograft or allograft for glenoid defects. There were 20 females (77%) and 6 males (23%), with mean presenting age of 68 years (range 41-86), mean BMI of 29 (range 21-44) and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 (range 0-8). There were 19 cases of central glenoid defects, and 7 were combined central and peripheral defects. Structural grafts included humeral head autograft (7), proximal humerus autograft (7), iliac crest autograft (7), distal clavicle autograft (2), and femoral head allograft (3). All eighteen revision RTSA cases had simultaneous humeral-sided revision. There was significant postoperative improvement in ASES scores (27.0 ± 12.6 preop vs. 59.8 ± 24.1 postop; p<0.001) and VAS scores (8.1 ± 3.6 preop vs. 3.0 ± 3.2 postop; p<0.001). Range of motion improved significantly for active forward elevation (63 ± 36º preop vs. 104 ± 36º postop; p<0.001) and external rotation (21 ± 20º preop vs. 32 ± 23º postop, p=0.036). Eighty-eight percent (23/26) of cases had successful reconstruction of the glenoid, defined as no visible radiolucent lines nor glenoid component migration at final follow-up. Re-operation rate was 19% (5/26) Postoperative complications included 2 cases of acromial stress fractures that were treated non-operatively, for a total complication rate (including re-operation) of 27% (7/26 cases). ConclusionsThe use of structural bone autografts and allografts in RTSA was associated with improved outcome scores and range of motion. A reoperation rate of 19% and total complication rate of 27% were reported for these challenging cases. However, 86% of these complications were not related to structural glenoid reconstruction failure. Structural grafts are a reasonable option for glenoid reconstruction in RTSA cases with glenoid bone loss.

Primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a patient-matched glenoid implant for severe glenoid bone deficiency

BackgroundSevere glenoid bone loss in the setting of both primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) continues to remain a significant challenge. The purpose of this study was to report on radiographic and clinical outcomes of primary and revision rTSA using a patient-matched, 3-dimensionally printed metal glenoid implant to address severe glenoid bone deficiency. This is a follow-up study to previously reported preliminary results. MethodsA retrospective review was performed on 62 patients with severe glenoid bone deficiency underwent either primary or revision rTSA using the Comprehensive Vault Reconstruction System (VRS) (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) at a single institution. Preoperative and postoperative values for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores as well as active range of motion (ROM) were collected and compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test with the level of statistical significance set at P < 0.05. Percentage of patients achieving minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) was also calculated. ResultsFifty-five of 62 (88.7%) shoulders were able to be contacted at a minimum of 2-years postoperatively, with 47/62 (75.8%), having complete clinical and radiographic follow-up with a mean age of 67.5 years (range, 48-85 years) and follow-up of 39.2 months (range, 25-56 months). There were 19 primary and 28 revision rTSAs. Significant improvements were seen in mean active forward flexion (63.1° ± 30.3° to 116.8° ± 35°), abduction (48.1° ± 16.1 to 76.2° ± 13.4°) (P < 0.001), external rotation (16° ± 23.7° to 32.1° ± 24.5°) (P < 0.005), DASH (59.9 ± 17.7 to 35.7 ± 24.3), Constant (23.4 ± 13.1 to 53.1 ± 17.4), ASES (27.8 ± 16.2 to 69.1 ± 25.2), SST (3.3 ± 2.5 to 7.6 ± 3.5), SANE (28.9 ± 18.3 to 66.7 ± 21.2), and VAS pain (7.1 ± 2.4 to 1.8 ± 2.6) scores (P < 0.001). MCID and SCB was achieved in a majority of patients postoperatively. Overall complication rate was 29.1% with only 1 baseplate failure. ConclusionThis study demonstrates promising evidence that the VRS implant can be used as a viable option to achieve clinically important improvement in a majority of patients treated for severe glenoid bone deficiency with rTSA in both the primary and revision setting.

Distal clavicle autograft for large glenoid defects during revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

IntroductionRevision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) can be complicated by significant glenoid bone loss and require augmented baseplates or structural bone grafts to fill the defect while optimizing glenosphere lateralization. Distal clavicle autografting is a newly described type of structural graft that has shown promising outcomes in revision reverse rTSA to address severe glenoid bone loss. Additionally, distal clavicle autografts are an option that is proposed to be more cost effective and have low morbidity in addressing glenoid bone defects. The technique for distal clavicle autografting during revision rTSA and the outcomes of a series of cases are contained within this report. Materials and MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted for 9 patients who underwent revision rTSA with a distal clavicle autograft for glenoid bone loss between January 2013 to January 2022. The primary outcome was component survivorship at two years postoperatively. Patient charts were reviewed for clinical and radiographic information, and any complications were recorded. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for evidence of component loosening or failure. Distal clavicle and glenoid defect dimensions were measured using preoperative CT scans and compared. Results9 patients were identified who underwent revision rTSA with distal clavicle autograft to address glenoid bone loss. All patients had clinical and radiographic data available two years postoperatively. There was significant improvement in active forward flexion and abduction, and no-significant change in external rotation compared to preoperative measurements. Patient-reported QuickDASH score improved significantly with non-significant improvements in VAS function, SANE, and ASES scores. 8 of 9 (88.9%) of patients had stable prostheses with no evidence of loosening or failure at two years. One patient experienced component failure and graft osteolysis requiring conversion to hemiarthroplasty. No other complications were noted. Dimensions of the distal clavicle are similar to the dimensions of contained glenoid vault defects and glenoid defects with minimal loss of containment. ConclusionUsing a distal clavicle autograft during revision rTSA is an effective technique that can address severe glenoid bone loss. This technique has excellent radiographic outcomes at short-term follow-up and is a fortuitous autograft option in revision rTSA due to its location, dimensions, and low cost.

Cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty implantation with humeral matchstick autograft augmentation: early radiographic outcomes

IntroductionHumeral-sided complications account for up to 21% of all revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (RTSA) surgeries.1 Stress shielding with large bulky stems can lead to proximal bone resorption per Wolff’s law, complicating further surgeries.14,28 Previously published studies suggest that lowering the metaphyseal implant fill ratio can lead to fewer adaptive radiographic changes and decreased bone resorption.25,26,29 Inspired by these studies, cementless primary RTSA implantation technique with humeral matchstick autografts was proposed to augment cementless humeral constructs, foster the use of a smaller size stem, and create primary stability of the humeral implant even in osteoporotic or in-between size medullary canals. In this study, retrospective review of this cementless RTSA technique with short term radiographic evaluation was performed. MethodsForty-six nonconsecutive patients underwent primary RTSA with a short-stem cementless prosthesis (Stryker Ascend Flex, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) augmented by matchstick bone grafting from January to July 2020. Patient demographics were recorded, and follow-up x-rays were retrospectively reviewed to assess metaphyseal fill ratios and incidence of stress shielding at minimum 1-year follow-up. Discrepancies between templated and final stem sizes were recorded, along with all intraoperative and postoperative complications. ResultsOf the 46 patients originally identified, there were 5 men and 41 women with a mean age of 71 years (SD ± 7, range 53-88). Mean templated stem size was 4 (SD ± 2, range 1-8), while mean final implant size was 2 (SD ± 1, Range 1-3). Mean fill ratios were 0.76 (SD ± 0.06, range 0.54-0.89) along the metaphysis and 0.67 (SD ± 0.09, range 0.49-0.83) along the diaphysis. There were no intraoperative humeral fractures from implantation. All patients were available for radiographic follow-up with a mean of 19 months (SD ± 8, range 12-40). There were three cases (7%) of proximal humeral stress shielding, with average fill ratios of 0.857 and 0.807 in the metaphysis and diaphysis, respectively. There were 3 patients (7%) who underwent revision surgeries for baseplate failure and periprosthetic humeral fracture. There were no cases of early humeral loosening. DiscussionMatchstick autograft humeral augmentation is a simple, promising surgical technique with low intraoperative complication rates and good short-term radiographic outcomes. When the implant fill ratio is successfully reduced, there is possible lower risk of humeral stress shielding. The authors believe this technique can help maximize implant stability in cementless shoulder arthroplasty and preserve humeral bone stock for future revision surgeries.

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.

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

The purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiologic outcomes of patients undergoing primary or revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using custom 3D-printed components to manage severe glenoid bone loss with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Following ethical approval, patients were identified and invited to participate. Inclusion criteria were (1) severe glenoid bone loss necessitating the need for custom implants and (2) patients with definitive glenoid and humeral components implanted more than 2 years prior. Included patients underwent clinical assessment using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Constant-Murley score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and the quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH). Radiographic assessment included anteroposterior and axial projections. Patients were invited to attend a computed tomography (CT) scan to confirm osseointegration. Statistical analysis used descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation [SD]) and paired t test for parametric data. Eleven patients declined to participate. Five patients were deceased prior to study commencement, leaving 42 remaining patients in this analysis. Three patients had revision surgery before the 2-year follow-up; of these, 2 retained their custom glenoid components. Mean follow-up was 31.6 months from surgery (range 24-52 months). All 4 scores improved: OSS from a mean 15 (SD8.4) to 36 (SD12) (P<.001), Constant-Murley score from a mean 15 (SD11.2) to 52 (SD20.1) (P<.001), QuickDASH from a mean 70 (SD21) to 31 (SD24.8) (P=.004), and the ASES score from a mean 22 (SD17.8) to 71 (SD23.3) (P=.007). Radiologic evaluation demonstrated good osseointegration in all but 1 included patient. The utility of custom 3D-printed components for managing severe glenoid bone loss in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty yields significant clinical improvements in this complex cohort. Large complex glenoid bone defects can be managed successfully with custom 3D-printed glenoid components.

Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state.

When patients require revision of primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Our purpose was to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for outcome scores and range of motion (ROM) after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success. This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcomes scores included the ASES, raw and normalized Constant, SPADI, SST, and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores. ROM measures included abduction, forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER), and internal rotation (IR) score. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate the MCID, SCB, and PASS. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed. Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n=47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n=21), rTSA (n=15), and resurfacing (n=10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n=24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n=23), subluxation and unexplained pain (n=11 for both). The anchor-based MCID thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES,20.1 (42%); normalized Constant,12.6 (80%); UCLA,10.2 (54%); SST,0.9 (78%); SPADI,-18.4 (58%); abduction,13° (83%); FE,18° (82%); ER,4° (49%); and IR,0.8 (34%). The SCB thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES,34.1 (25%); normalized Constant,26.6 (43%); UCLA,14.1 (28%); SST,3.9 (48%); SPADI,-36.4 (33%); abduction,20° (77%); FE,28° (71%); ER,15° (15%); and IR,1.0 (29%). The PASS thresholds (% of patients achieving) were as follows: ASES,63.5 (53%); normalized Constant,59.1 (61%); UCLA,25.4 (48%); SST,7.0 (55%); SPADI,42.4 (59%); abduction,98° (61%); FE,110° (56%); ER,19° (73%); and IR,3.3 (59%). This study establishes thresholds for the MCID, SCB, and PASS at minimum 2-years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to counsel patients and assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement

When patients require reoperation after primary shoulder arthroplasty, revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is most commonly performed. However, defining clinically important improvement in these patients is challenging because benchmarks have not been previously defined. Furthermore, while the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) are commonly utilized to assess clinically relevant success, these metrics are limited by ceiling effects which may cause inaccurate estimates of patient success. Our purpose was to define the minimal and substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement (MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI) for commonly utilized pain and functional outcome scores after revision rTSA and to quantify the proportion of patients achieving clinically relevant success. This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively collected single-institution database of patients undergoing first revision rTSA between August 2015 and December 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of periprosthetic fracture or infection were excluded. Outcomes scores included the ASES, raw and normalized Constant, SPADI, SST, and UCLA scores. We utilized an anchor-based method to calculate the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI. Additionally, we calculated the MCI-%MPI using a distribution-based method for historical comparison. The proportions of patients achieving each threshold were assessed. The influence of sex, type of primary shoulder arthroplasty, and reason for revision rTSA were also assessed by calculating cohort-specific thresholds. Ninety-three revision rTSAs with minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. Mean age was 67 years, 56% were female, and average follow-up was 54 months. Revision rTSA was performed most commonly for failed anatomic TSA (n=47), followed by hemiarthroplasty (n=21), rTSA (n=15), and humeral head resurfacing (n=10). The indication for revision rTSA was most commonly glenoid loosening (n=24), followed by rotator cuff failure (n=23), subluxation and unexplained pain (n=11 for both). The anchor-based MCI-%MPI thresholds (% of patients achieving) were: ASES=33% (49%), raw Constant=23% (64%), normalized Constant=30% (61%), UCLA=51% (53%), SST=26% (68%), SPADI=29% (58%). The anchor-based SCI-%MPI thresholds (% of patients achieving) were: ASES=55% (31%), raw Constant=41% (27%), normalized Constant=52% (22%), UCLA=66% (37%), SST=74% (25%), SPADI=49% (34%). This study is the first to establish thresholds for the MCI-%MPI and SCI-%MPI at minimum 2-years after revision rTSA, providing physicians an evidence-based method to assess patient outcomes postoperatively.

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

Glenoid bone loss is a known challenge in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. In severe deficiency, even placing the baseplate in alternative centerline or using an augmented baseplate may be insufficient. This study reports on the use of a soft tissue resurfacing technique using Achilles tendon allograft, coined Yoke procedure, for salvage treatment of glenoid deficient shoulder requiring reconstruction. All patients who underwent the Yoke procedure between 2014 and 2020 by a single surgeon at a single academic center were identified and had their charts retrospectively reviewed. Demographics and surgical information were recorded. Preoperative X-rays and 3D-CT scans were reviewed to classify patient glenoid types, evaluate glenoid medialization, and measure shoulder angles. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcome scores were evaluated, including anterior elevation (AE), external rotation (ER), internal rotation (IR), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Subjective Shoulder Score (SSV), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. Postoperative radiographs and follow-up notes were reviewed to evaluate postoperative complication profiles at 1 year. Seven patients with median age of 69 years (range 54-77) underwent Yoke procedure and had median 12-month follow-up (range 9 - 56). All patients were female and had median of 2 prior shoulder surgeries (range 0-13). Of all the patients, the most common comorbidity was osteoporosis (6) followed by rheumatoid arthritis (3). Of the 5 patients who had previous arthroplasty, the most common indications were baseplate failure (4), followed by instability (3) and infection (3). Median VAS score improved from 8 (range 3-9) to 2 (range 1-4). Median SST improved from 8% (range 0-42%) to 33% (range 17-83%). Median ASES score improved from 15 (range 5-38) to 52 (range 40-78). Median AE and ER improved from 20° (range 0°- 75°) to 100° (range 40°- 145°) and 10° (range 0°- 20°) to 20° (range 0°- 55°), respectively. There was no change in median IR. As of last follow-up, one patient reported postoperative complications of anterior superior implant escape, heterotopic ossification, and scapular notching. The Yoke procedure is a promising salvage treatment that can offer patients consistent pain reduction and moderate functional improvements at short-term follow-up. In the setting of poor bone quality and severe glenoid deficiency, glenoid baseplate implantation may not be absolutely necessary for a pain-relieving, functionally acceptable outcome.

Survivorship analysis of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

The expansion of indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has resulted in a rapid increase in the incidence of subsequent revision procedures. The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence and risk factors for re-revision shoulder arthroplasty after first revision RTSA. We retrospectively queried our institutional shoulder arthroplasty database of prospectively collected data from 2003 to 2019. To assess revision implant survival, patients were censored on the date of re-revision surgery or, if the revision arthroplasty was not revised, at the most recent follow-up or their date of death. Patients with a prior infection, concern for infection at the time of revision, antibiotic spacer, or oncologic indication for primary arthroplasty were excluded. A total of 186 revision RTSAs were included, with 32 undergoing re-revision shoulder arthroplasty. The Kaplan-Meier method and bivariate Cox regression were used to assess the relationship of patient and surgical characteristics on implant survivorship. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to identify independent predictors of re-revision. Re-revision shoulder arthroplasty was most commonly performed for instability (34%), infection (28%), and glenoid loosening (19%). Overall re-revision rates at 6months (7%), 1year (9%), and 2years (13%) were relatively low; however, the rate of re-revision increased at 5years (35%). Men underwent re-revision more often than women within the first 6months after revision RTSA (12% vs. 2%; P=.025), but not thereafter. On multivariate analysis, increased estimated blood loss was associated with a greater risk of undergoing re-revision shoulder arthroplasty (hazard ratio: 41.16 [3.34-506.50]; P=.004). The rate of re-revision after revision RTSA is low in the first 2years postoperatively (13%) but increases to 35% at 5years. Increased estimated blood loss, which may reflect greater operative complexity, was identified as a risk factor that may confer an increased chance of re-revision after revision RTSA. Knowledge of risk factors for re-revision after revision RTSA can aid surgeons and patients in preoperative counseling.

CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOMES OF CUSTOM 3D-PRINTED GLENOID COMPONENTS IN PRIMARY AND REVISION REVERSE POLARITY TOTAL SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY WITH SEVERE GLENOID BONE LOSS: A MINIMUM TWO-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

The purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing primary or revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using custom 3D printed components to manage severe glenoid bone loss with a minimum of 2-year follow-up.After ethical approval (reference: 17/YH/0318), patients were identified and invited to participate in this observational study. Inclusion criteria included: 1) severe glenoid bone loss necessitating the need for custom implants; 2) patients with definitive glenoid and humeral components implanted more than 2 years prior; 3) ability to comply with patient reported outcome questionnaires. After seeking consent, included patients underwent clinical assessment utilising the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), Constant-Murley score, American Shoulder and Elbow Society Score (ASES), and quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Score (quickDASH). Radiographic assessment included AP and axial projections. Patients were invited to attend a CT scan to confirm osseointegration. Statistical analysis utilised included descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and paired t test for parametric data.3 patients had revision surgery prior to the 2-year follow-up. Of these, 2/3 retained their custom glenoid components. 4 patients declined to participate. 5 patients were deceased at the time of commencement of the study. 21 patients were included in this analysis. The mean follow-up was 36.1 months from surgery (range 22–60.2 months). OSS improved from a mean 16 (SD 9.1) to 36 (SD 11.5) (p &lt; 0.001). Constant-Murley score improved from mean 9 (SD 9.2) to 50 (SD 16.4) (p &lt; 0.001). QuickDASH improved from mean 67 (SD 24) to 26 (SD 27.2) (p = 0.004). ASES improved from mean 28 (SD 24.8) to 70 (SD 23.9) (p = 0.007). Radiographic evaluation demonstrated good osseointegration in all 21 included patients.The utility of custom 3D-printed components for managing severe glenoid bone loss in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty yields significant clinical improvements in this complex patient cohort.

Success of staged revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in eradication of periprosthetic joint infection.

Management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in shoulder arthroplasty remains a challenge, with no established gold standard treatment. This study presents the unique experience of a high-volume single-surgeon, single-institution approach on staged revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for infection. The authors theorize that staged revision RTSA is an effective treatment for PJI. Between 2013 and 2018, 38 patients underwent a staged RTSA for treatment of PJI. Patient histories were collected and classified using Cierny-Mader classification. Infection workup for all patients included radiographs, laboratory indices, and computed tomographic aspiration arthrogram. PJI was identified based on high clinical and radiographic suspicion, elevated serologic markers, and/or aspirate culture results per 2018 International Consensus Meeting Shoulder guidelines on Orthopedic Infections. All patients underwent first stage with implant removal, irrigation and débridement, and antibiotic spacer placement. Next, intravenous antibiotics were administered by infectious disease consultants for a minimum of 6 weeks. Infection workup was then repeated and, if normalized, final-stage revision commenced with antibiotic spacer removal and revision to RTSA. If indices were persistently abnormal, an additional stage of débridement and spacer placement procedure was performed. Treatment failure was defined as recurrent periprosthetic infection after final prosthesis implantation or persistently elevated indices despite adequate débridement and spacer placement. Mean age of the cohort was 68(standard deviation [SD] 8.9) years and mean follow-up was 33(SD 14) months with 34 Cierny-Mader C hosts and 4 B hosts. Patients underwent a mean of 2(SD 1.1) previous surgeries. The staged revision protocol was successful in 34 (89.5%) patients for management of PJI. Four patients (10.5%) were considered failures with recurrent infections at a mean of 13 months (range 2-26 months) after the final RTSA implantation and underwent repeat staged revisions. Of the 34 patients who had successful infection eradication, 31 had 2-stage treatment and 3 had to undergo 3 stages. There were no treatment-associated mortalities and 10 major complications (26%), including permanent neuropathy, instability, and periprosthetic fractures. The most common cultured microorganism was Cutibacterium acnes (18%), with no polymicrobial infections detected. Although there are multiple treatment options for PJI management, staged revision remains an effective means of treatment. Although there were several patients who required an additional stage of treatment, and a significant complication rate, staged revision RTSA proved successful in the ultimate eradication of the PJI.

Complications and Reinterventions of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in a Korean Population: 14-Year Experience in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

There are few reports on the revision or reintervention of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in South Korea. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the true incidence of complications and reintervention of RTSA and clinical and radiological outcomes based on our 14-year experience in RTSA in a Korean population. Between March 2008 and June 2022, 412 consecutive cases of RTSA were performed in 388 patients with an average age of 74.4 years at our institute. Excluding 23 patients lost to follow-up, 365 patients (373 shoulders including 8 bilateral cases) who underwent primary RTSA with more than 6 months of follow-up were enrolled in this study. We evaluated those who had complications or reintervention including revision RTSA for failed RTSA. Patient charts were reviewed, and clinical outcomes including clinical scores, complications, and reintervention and radiologic outcomes were evaluated at the last follow-up. Among the 373 shoulders that underwent primary RTSA, complications were found in 50 patients (13.94%, 10 men and 40 women with a mean age of 75.9 ± 6.7 years [range, 51-87 years]). The causes of complications were as follows: 13 acromion, coracoid, or scapular spine fractures, 10 loosening (glenoid: 5, humeral stem: 5), 5 infections, 4 periprosthetic fractures, 2 instability, 2 neurologic complications, and 14 miscellaneous complications. Twenty patients (5.63%, 4 men and 16 women with a mean age of 74.2 ± 8.2 years [range, 51-87 years]) underwent reintervention. The interval to the first reintervention was 27.8 ± 23.1 months (range, 0.1-78 months). The causes of reintervention (20 cases) were 8 loosening (glenoid: 4, humeral stem: 4), 5 infections, 5 fractures, and 2 instability. Among them, 15 component revisions (4.02%) were performed. At the last follow-up, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California at Los Angeles, and Simple Shoulder Test scores were improved from 25.4, 12.4, and 1.6 preoperatively to 40.4, 16.2, and 3.2, respectively. Forward flexion (48° to 87°), abduction (52° to 79°), external rotation (18° to 22°), and internal rotation (buttock to L2) were improved. After primary RTSA in a Korean population, the complication, reintervention, and revision rates were 13.94%, 5.63%, and 4.02%, respectively. Careful evaluation of the complications and adequate treatments should be performed.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed primary anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty

Both anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are being increasingly performed. In the event of a complication necessitating revision, RTSA is more commonly performed in both scenarios. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. We performed a retrospective review of a prospective single-institution shoulder arthroplasty database. All revision RTSAs performed between 2007 and 2019 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were initially included. After excluding patients with a preoperative diagnosis of infection, an oncologic indication, or incomplete outcomes assessment, we included 45 revision RTSAs performed for failed primary aTSA and 15 for failed primary RTSA. Demographics, surgical characteristics, active range of motion (external rotation [ER], internal rotation, forward elevation [FE], abduction), outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, and University of California, Los Angeles score), and the incidence of postoperative complications was compared between groups. Primary aTSA was most often indicated for degenerative joint disease (82%), whereas primary RTSA was more often indicated for rotator cuff arthropathy (60%). On bivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in any range of motion or clinical outcome measure were found between revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA. On multivariate linear regression analysis, revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA was not found to significantly influence any outcome measure. Humeral loosening as an indication for revision surgery was associated with more favorable outcomes for all four range of motion measures and all five outcome scores assessed. In contrast, an indication for revision of peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with poorer outcomes for three of four range of motion measures (ER, FE, abduction) and four of five outcome scores (Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, University of California, Los Angeles). A preoperative diagnosis of fracture was associated with a poorer postoperative range of motion in ER, FE, and abduction, but was not found to significantly influence any outcome score. However, only two patients in our cohort had this indication. Complication and re-revision rates after revision RTSA for failed primary aTSA and RTSA were 27% and 9% vs. 20% and 14% (P=.487 and P=.515), respectively. Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly differ based on whether aTSA or RTSA was initially performed. However, larger studies are needed to definitively ascertain the influence of the primary construct on the outcomes of revision RTSA.