Bas Pieter Hartel1, Tjarco D Alta1, Miguel E Sewnath2, Willem J Willems1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Vlietland Hospital, Schiedam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The increase of shoulder replacements will lead to a higher revision rate of shoulder arthroplasties. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical results of revision surgery performed in our hospital, distinguish the differences in clinical outcome according to revision indication and differences between total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in hemiarthroplasty (HA) revision surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with an indication for revision of HA were retrospectively included. Clinical evaluation consisted of pre- and post-operative constant scores, disability of arm-shoulder-hand-score (DASH), Dutch translation of the simple shoulder test ((D)SST), Oxford shoulder score test (OSS), short form (SF-36) and the complication rate. RESULTS: From July 1994 to July 2008, 39 patients (40 shoulders) underwent revision arthroplasty. Of 19 patients (19 shoulders) we obtained a complete follow-up. The mean age at revision surgery 69 ± 10 years (range: 46-83) and the mean follow-up 41 ± 31 months (range: 10-113). In 7 cases TSA was used for revision when the cuff was intact, 12 times RSA was performed. The indications for the revision were glenoid erosion (n = 4), humeral component malposition (n = 2), cuff-pathology (n = 12) and infection (n = 1). Postoperative constant score 51.7 ± 11.4 for TSA and 31.1 ± 18.7 for RSA (P = 0.008). The DASH was 48.3 ± 25.1 and 68.7 ± 17.5, respectively (P = 0.09). DSST showed 6 ± 4 and 4 ± 4 (P = 0.414). OSS 41.3 ± 10.1 and 28.1 ± 10.3 (P = 0.017). SF-36 43.3 ± 22.1 and 24.5 ± 12.8 (P = 0.072). Four shoulders (21%) presented four complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, revision surgery showed poor to reasonable postoperative results and better clinical outcome for TSA. When a revision after HA was needed, and the soft-tissue component of the shoulder was intact, a TSA proved to be a preferable solution.
INTRODUCTION: The increase of shoulder replacements will lead to a higher revision rate of shoulder arthroplasties. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical results of revision surgery performed in our hospital, distinguish the differences in clinical outcome according to revision indication and differences between total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in hemiarthroplasty (HA) revision surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with an indication for revision of HA were retrospectively included. Clinical evaluation consisted of pre- and post-operative constant scores, disability of arm-shoulder-hand-score (DASH), Dutch translation of the simple shoulder test ((D)SST), Oxford shoulder score test (OSS), short form (SF-36) and the complication rate. RESULTS: From July 1994 to July 2008, 39 patients (40 shoulders) underwent revision arthroplasty. Of 19 patients (19 shoulders) we obtained a complete follow-up. The mean age at revision surgery 69 ± 10 years (range: 46-83) and the mean follow-up 41 ± 31 months (range: 10-113). In 7 cases TSA was used for revision when the cuff was intact, 12 times RSA was performed. The indications for the revision were glenoid erosion (n = 4), humeral component malposition (n = 2), cuff-pathology (n = 12) and infection (n = 1). Postoperative constant score 51.7 ± 11.4 for TSA and 31.1 ± 18.7 for RSA (P = 0.008). The DASH was 48.3 ± 25.1 and 68.7 ± 17.5, respectively (P = 0.09). DSST showed 6 ± 4 and 4 ± 4 (P = 0.414). OSS 41.3 ± 10.1 and 28.1 ± 10.3 (P = 0.017). SF-36 43.3 ± 22.1 and 24.5 ± 12.8 (P = 0.072). Four shoulders (21%) presented four complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, revision surgery showed poor to reasonable postoperative results and better clinical outcome for TSA. When a revision after HA was needed, and the soft-tissue component of the shoulder was intact, a TSA proved to be a preferable solution.
Authors: Michael Klein; Miriam Juschka; Bernd Hinkenjann; Bernhard Scherger; Peter A W Ostermann Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Bryan Wall; Laurent Nové-Josserand; Daniel P O'Connor; T Bradley Edwards; Gilles Walch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: S Fitschen-Oestern; P Behrendt; E Martens; J Finn; J Schiegnitz; C Borzikowsky; A Seekamp; M Weuster; S Lippross Journal: J Orthop Date: 2019-08-14
Authors: Matthias Koch; Christian Schmidt; Maximilian Kerschbaum; Tobias Winkler; Christian G Pfeifer; Stefan Greiner Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Sarav S Shah; Alexander M Roche; Spencer W Sullivan; Benjamin T Gaal; Stewart Dalton; Arjun Sharma; Joseph J King; Brian M Grawe; Surena Namdari; Macy Lawler; Joshua Helmkamp; Grant E Garrigues; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch; Kyle Flik; Randall J Otto; Richard Jones; Andrew Jawa; Peter McCann; Joseph Abboud; Gabe Horneff; Glen Ross; Richard Friedman; Eric T Ricchetti; Douglas Boardman; Robert Z Tashjian; Lawrence V Gulotta Journal: JSES Int Date: 2020-09-10