Literature DB >> 26704360

Revision for a failed reverse: a 12-year review of a lateralized implant.

Brent C Stephens1, Peter Simon2, Rachel E Clark2, Kaitlyn N Christmas2, Geoffrey P Stone1, Adam J Lorenzetti1, Mark A Frankle3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the rates of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) revisions during a 12-year period, (2) to assess the influence of primary diagnosis and the impact of implant modifications on revisions, (3) to describe surgical management of failed RSA, and (4) to analyze outcomes of patients with minimum 24-month follow-up.
METHODS: A retrospective database review identified primary diagnosis for 1418 patients who underwent RSA from 2000 to 2012. A subgroup of 85 patients required return to the operating room for removal or exchange of components. Indication to reoperate, intraoperative management, and outcomes were reviewed. Indications were grouped into 7 categories: baseplate failure, humeral component dissociation, glenosphere dissociation, glenohumeral dislocation, aseptic humeral loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. During the study, design modifications were made to the baseplate, humeral socket, and glenosphere. Surgical strategies were analyzed through operative reports. Range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and Simple Shoulder Test scores were collected before and after surgery and compared for 58 patients with 2-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Overall revision rate was 6%. Patients undergoing RSA for failed hemiarthroplasty had the highest revision rate (10%). Indications for revision included baseplate failure (2.5%), infection (1.3%), humeral dissociation (0.7%), glenosphere dissociation (0.6%), periprosthetic fracture (0.4%), glenohumeral dislocation (0.4%), and aseptic humeral loosening (0.3%). Baseplate modifications reduced the incidence of baseplate failure to 0.3%. Range of motion and the Simple Shoulder Test and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved.
CONCLUSION: Although revision RSA is challenging, with higher risk for complications compared with primary RSA, patients still exhibit significant clinical improvements.
Copyright © 2016 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; baseplate failure; failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty; glenosphere dissociation; humeral loosening; revision shoulder arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26704360     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.027

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


  13 in total

1.  Primary Monoblock Inset Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Resulted in Decreased Pain and Improved Function.

Authors:  Jonathan C Levy; Derek Berglund; Rushabh Vakharia; Paul DeVito; Dimitri S Tahal; Dragomir Mijc; Bijan Ameri
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

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.  Revision to Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Restores Stability for Patients With Unstable Shoulder Prostheses.

Authors:  Nicholas M Hernandez; Brian P Chalmers; Eric R Wagner; John W Sperling; Robert H Cofield; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Management of painful reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Anders L Ekelund
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2017-04-09

Review 5.  Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Arjun K Reddy; Jake X Checketts; B Joshua Stephens; J Michael Anderson; Craig M Cooper; Tyler Hunt; Keith Fishbeck; Marshall Boose; Byron Detweiler; Brian Chalkin; Brent L Norris
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2021-06-13

6.  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

Review 7.  The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I.

Authors:  Sarav S Shah; Benjamin T Gaal; Alexander M Roche; Surena Namdari; Brian M Grawe; Macy Lawler; Stewart Dalton; Joseph J King; 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:  2020-09-07

8.  Revision of reversed shoulder arthroplasty: Is a reoperation possible?

Authors:  Stijn Casier; Bart Middernacht; Alexander Van Tongel; Lieven De Wilde
Journal:  Obere Extrem       Date:  2017-03-07

9.  Effect of complications on outcomes after revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Robert Z Tashjian; Erin Granger; Kortnie Broschinsky; Jun Kawakami; Peter N Chalmers
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-06-10

10.  The Anatomical Variation of the Scapular Spine in A Chinese Population.

Authors:  Yimu Lin; Kaifeng Gan; Lei Zhang; Hongrui Wei; Xin Zhou; Hengshu Chen
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2019-11-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.