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

Functional Outcomes and a Review of Management Options for Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty

Introduction

Increase in the number of primary shoulder arthroplasty has led to an increase in the number of revisions which presents many complex challenges and often has inferior outcomes.

Materials and Methods

Data was collected retrospectively, and patients were classified using Dines classification. Comprehensive case reviews were done to identify preoperative and intra-operative challenges. The primary outcome measure was Oxford shoulder score (OSS). The secondary measures were range of motion (ROM) and patient satisfaction (very satisfied, satisfied, not satisfied or worse).

Results

A total of 32 patients were identified with a mean age of 67.64 years and the most common cause of revision was a combination of bone and soft tissue failure (39.3%). All patients (n=8) with hemiarthroplasty had rotator cuff deficiency while patients with resurfacing had both rotator cuff failure and bony erosion. Four patients needed a proximal humeral osteotomy and six patients needed allograft reconstruction of the glenoid for bone loss. Twenty-one shoulders were revised to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), 2 to anatomical TSA and 5 were left with cement spacer in situ. Mean duration of follow-up was 41.6 months. Mean OSS at the last follow-up was 26.88 with statistically significant improvement in ROM. There was no statistical difference in clinical outcomes (p>0.05) based on the type of primary prosthesis or cause of revision. A total of 70% patients were pain free. Patients with infection had inferior outcomes with a mean OSS of 17.

Conclusion

Management of patients with failed shoulder arthroplasty is often challenging but has good clinical outcome except in infections.

How common is nerve injury after reverse shoulder arthroplasty? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Nerve injury following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a known risk factor with wide ranging incidences reported. This systematic review evaluates the overall incidence of nerve injury following primary and revision RSA and summarizes the characteristics of the nerve injuries reported in the current literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using separate database searches (Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane) following the PRISMA guidelines. Search criteria included the title terms "reverse shoulder," "reverse total shoulder," "inverted shoulder," and "inverted total shoulder" with publication dates ranging from 01/01/2010 to 01/01/2022. Studies that reported neurological injuries and complications were included and evaluated for primary RSA, revision RSA, number of nerve injuries, and which nerves were affected.

RESULTS

After exclusion, our systematic review consisted of 188 articles. A total of 40,146 patients were included, with 65% female. The weighted mean age was 70.3 years. The weighted mean follow-up was 35.4 months. The rate of nerve injury after RSA was 1.3% (510 of 40,146 RSAs). The rate of injury was greater in revision RSA compared to primary RSA (2.4% vs. 1.3%). Nerve injury was most common in RSAs done for a primary diagnosis of acute proximal humerus fracture (4.0%), followed by cuff tear arthropathy (3.0%), DJD (2.6%), and inflammatory arthritis (1.7%). Massive rotator cuff tears and post-traumatic arthritis cases had the lowest nerve injury rates (1.0% and 1.4%, respectively). The axillary nerve was the most commonly reported nerve that was injured in both primary and revision RSA (0.6%), followed by the ulnar nerve (0.26%) and median nerve (0.23%). Brachial plexus injury was reported in 0.19% of overall RSA cases.

CONCLUSION

Based on current English literature, nerve injuries occur at a rate of 1.3% after primary RSA compared with 2.4% after revision RSA. The most common nerve injury was to the axillary nerve (0.64%), with the most common operative diagnosis associated with nerve injury after RSA being acute proximal humerus fracture (4.0%). Surgeons should carefully counsel patients prior to surgery regarding the risk of nerve injury.

Outcome and complications following revision shoulder arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores.

CONCLUSION

Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618-630.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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