Literature DB >> 24929746

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as salvage for failed prior arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age or younger.

Eric M Black1, Susanne M Roberts2, Elana Siegel3, Paul Yannopoulos2, Laurence D Higgins3, Jon J P Warner4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study examined outcomes and complications in young patients undergoing revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for failed prior total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty and compared them with those of an age-matched cohort undergoing primary RTSA.
METHODS: RTSA as a revision for failed shoulder arthroplasty was performed on 36 patients younger than 65 years. Follow-up was available for 32 patients at an average of 55.3 months. Results were compared with those of an age-matched cohort of 37 patients (33 available for follow-up; average, 54.7 months) undergoing primary RTSA. Average age for both groups was 59.3 years. Outcomes were compared before and after revision surgery and between cohorts.
RESULTS: Preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and subjective shoulder value (SSV) scores were similar in both groups, 7.3 of 10 and 24%, respectively, before revision, and 7.0 of 10 and 19% before primary RTSA (P = .3). Postrevision VAS and SSV scores improved to 1.4 of 10 and 60% (P < .0001). Average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Simple Shoulder Test scores after revision were 69.7 and 58.8, with 9 complications (28.1%; 6 major and 3 minor). VAS and SSV scores improved to 2.1 of 10 and 76% after primary RTSA (P < .0001). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Simple Shoulder Test scores after primary RTSA were 74 and 67.3, with 6 complications (18.2%; 5 major and 1 minor). Only the postoperative SSV score was statistically different in comparing primary and revision RTSA (P < .05).
CONCLUSION: RTSA is effective in reducing pain and improving function after failed arthroplasty in young patients, but complication rates are high and expectations should be managed appropriately. Subjective outcome scores are worse than those for age-matched patients undergoing primary RTSA, but pain, functional scores, and complication rates are similar.
Copyright © 2014 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Revision; failed shoulder arthroplasty; reverse; reverse in young; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24929746     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  22 in total

1.  Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty in failed shoulder arthroplasties for rotator cuff deficiency.

Authors:  Pietro Randelli; Filippo Randelli; Riccardo Compagnoni; Paolo Cabitza; Vincenza Ragone; Luca Pulici; Giuseppe Banfi
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2015-06-08

2.  CORR Insights®: Primary Monoblock Inset Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Resulted in Decreased Pain and Improved Function.

Authors:  Eric T Ricchetti
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Short term results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Aditya K Agrawal; Carlos Wigderowitz; Bruno Ribeiro; Amar Malhas; Abhishek Vaish; Rami Abboud
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-08-12

4.  Exposure of the brachial plexus in complex revisions to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jorge Rojas; Filippo Familiari; Amrut U Borade; Jacob Joseph; E Gene Deune; Jack V Ingari; Edward G McFarland
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-06-15       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Functional Outcomes of Modular Conversion of Hemiarthroplasty or Total to Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Phillip N Williams; Samir K Trehan; Nicholas Tsouris; Joshua S Dines; David M Dines; Edward V Craig; Lawrence V Gulotta; Russell F Warren
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2017-03-15

Review 6.  Advances and Update on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Stephen G Thon; Adam J Seidl; Jonathan T Bravman; Eric C McCarty; Felix H Savoie; Rachel M Frank
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2020-02

Review 7.  [Posttraumatic arthritis of the glenohumeral joint. Joint-preserving therapy options].

Authors:  M Petri; R Meller; U J Spiegl; C Krettek; P J Millett
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.000

8.  [Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus in revision shoulder arthroplasty].

Authors:  M Friedrich; D Cucchi; S Walter; S Gravius; D C Wirtz; J Schmolders
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 1.154

9.  CORR Insights®: A Comparison of Revision Rates for Osteoarthritis of Primary Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Primary Anatomic Shoulder Arthroplasty with a Cemented All- polyethylene Glenoid: Analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  Eric T Ricchetti
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 4.755

10.  Revision shoulder arthroplasty: Patient-reported outcomes vary according to the etiology of revision.

Authors:  Kelvin Kim; Ameer Elbuluk; Nathan Jia; Feroz Osmani; Joseph Levieddin; Joseph Zuckerman; Mandeep Virk
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-08-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.