BACKGROUND: Glenoid component loosening has been a leading cause of failure of total shoulder arthroplasty. In the present study, we evaluated the outcome of reimplantation of a new glenoid component following removal of the previous glenoid component and placement of an allograft in order to determine the results, risk factors for an unsatisfactory outcome, and rate of failure associated with this procedure. METHODS: We reviewed the data on seven shoulders in seven patients. At the time of glenoid component reimplantation, two shoulders received a cemented all-polyethylene glenoid component, three received a bone-ingrowth metal-backed component with columns and screws, and two received a bone-ingrowth metal-backed component with columns and screws augmented with bone cement. The average duration of follow-up was seventy-nine months. At the time of the latest follow-up, all patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically, patient satisfaction was assessed, and the result was graded according to a modified Neer rating system. RESULTS: Two patients had positive growth of Propionibacterium acnes on culture of intraoperative specimens obtained at the time of revision surgery and had continuing pain, and both underwent repeat revision. The remaining five patients expressed satisfaction with the procedure and stated that they felt better following surgery. The mean preoperative pain score for these five patients (on a scale from 1 to 5) was 4.6, and the mean postoperative pain score was 2.4 (p = 0.0042). Range of motion, however, did not improve. The Neer rating of the result (determined for the five patients who did not undergo repeat revision) was excellent for one patient, satisfactory for one, and unsatisfactory (because of limitation of motion) for three. CONCLUSIONS: Reimplantation of a glenoid component into a previously grafted bed can provide pain relief for most patients, but motion cannot be reliably improved.
BACKGROUND: Glenoid component loosening has been a leading cause of failure of total shoulder arthroplasty. In the present study, we evaluated the outcome of reimplantation of a new glenoid component following removal of the previous glenoid component and placement of an allograft in order to determine the results, risk factors for an unsatisfactory outcome, and rate of failure associated with this procedure. METHODS: We reviewed the data on seven shoulders in seven patients. At the time of glenoid component reimplantation, two shoulders received a cemented all-polyethylene glenoid component, three received a bone-ingrowth metal-backed component with columns and screws, and two received a bone-ingrowth metal-backed component with columns and screws augmented with bone cement. The average duration of follow-up was seventy-nine months. At the time of the latest follow-up, all patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically, patient satisfaction was assessed, and the result was graded according to a modified Neer rating system. RESULTS: Two patients had positive growth of Propionibacterium acnes on culture of intraoperative specimens obtained at the time of revision surgery and had continuing pain, and both underwent repeat revision. The remaining five patients expressed satisfaction with the procedure and stated that they felt better following surgery. The mean preoperative pain score for these five patients (on a scale from 1 to 5) was 4.6, and the mean postoperative pain score was 2.4 (p = 0.0042). Range of motion, however, did not improve. The Neer rating of the result (determined for the five patients who did not undergo repeat revision) was excellent for one patient, satisfactory for one, and unsatisfactory (because of limitation of motion) for three. CONCLUSIONS: Reimplantation of a glenoid component into a previously grafted bed can provide pain relief for most patients, but motion cannot be reliably improved.
Authors: Kerryl E Piper; Melissa J Jacobson; Robert H Cofield; John W Sperling; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Douglas R Osmon; Andrew McDowell; Sheila Patrick; James M Steckelberg; Jayawant N Mandrekar; Marta Fernandez Sampedro; Robin Patel Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 5.948