Revision shoulder arthroplasty for failed surface replacement hemiarthroplasty

Revision Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The number of shoulder replacements performed each year continues to increase, and the need for revision replacements has grown accordingly. The outcome of a revision replacement may influence which primary implant is selected and the timing of primary surgery, particularly in younger patients. The aim of this study was to establish the expected improvement in shoulder function and implant survival following revision of a hemiarthroplasty and revision of an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of all studies reporting shoulder scores or implant survival following revision hemiarthroplasty or revision TSA. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and National Joint Registry reports were searched. 15 studies were included, reporting on 593 revision anatomical shoulder replacements. There was large variation in the magnitude of improvement in shoulder scores following revision surgery. Over 80% of revision replacements last 5 years and over 70% last 10 years. There was no significant difference in shoulder scores or implant survival according to the type of primary implant. The belief that revision of a shoulder hemiarthroplasty may lead to improved outcomes compared to revision of a TSA is not supported by the current literature.

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.

Fracture of pyrocarbon humeral head resurfacing implant: a case report

We report a case of a pyrocarbon humeral head resurfacing implant fracture, occurring 6 years after its implantation, without any obvious trauma or dislocation. Initial radiographs showed a proud and oversized pyrocarbon resurfacing implant. On clinical examination, the patient had a painful and pseudoparalyzed shoulder with subscapularis insufficiency. Imaging studies confirmed implant fracture and severe fatty infiltration (Goutallier, grade 4) of the subscapularis muscle. Intraoperatively, the implant was found to be fractured with multiple pyrocarbon debris in the glenohumeral joint. The implant was loose, and gross inspection showed no visible bony adhesion or ongrowth. Histologic analysis showed multiple seats of metallosis in the synovial tissue and cancellous bone of the humeral head. Successful management of this complication was managed with a thorough débridement and irrigation and revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Our observation put into question the use of pyrocarbon as a humeral head resurfacing implant. The material seems to be too fragile to be used as a resurfacing implant and cannot achieve fixation of the implant to bone.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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