Birgit S Werner1, Ayman F Abdelkawi2, Dorota Boehm3, Robert Hudek2, Piet Plumhoff4, Klaus J Burkhart2, Frank Gohlke2. 1. Clinic for Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Bad Neustadt/Saale, Germany. Electronic address: birgitwerner@hotmail.com. 2. Clinic for Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Bad Neustadt/Saale, Germany. 3. Center for Orthopedic Surgery, Würzburg, Germany. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Koenig-Ludwig-Haus, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty is often associated with poor results and a high rate of complications. Significant humeral bone loss after removal of long stems poses a considerable surgical challenge. Therefore, the aim of our study was the evaluation of the clinical and radiologic outcome of cemented long-stem humeral components in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a minimum 5 years' follow-up. METHODS: Between June 2001 and June 2009, revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty using long-stem cemented humeral components was performed in 124 patients. Mean age at time of surgery was 69.6 years (range, 42-87 years). Complete clinical and radiographic data were available in 50 patients at a mean of 7 years (range, 5-11.6 years). Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for radiolucent lines, implant migration, fracture, and glenoid notching. RESULTS: The mean Constant score improved from 11.1 points (range, 0-27 points) to 39.5 points (range, 14-73 points) at the latest follow-up. Progressive humeral radiolucency was present in 24 patients, including 6 patients demonstrating complete loosening or progressive distal migration of the humeral stem. We noted an overall of 12 additional complications in 8 patients, necessitating revision surgery in 16. CONCLUSION: The use of long-stem humeral components is a beneficial treatment in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Nevertheless, the high percentage of patients with humeral loosening is concerning. Modular cementless revision stems that are adapted to the distal humeral medullary canal and additional distal screw and cable fixation might enhance durable distal fixation in case of advanced bone loss.
BACKGROUND: Revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty is often associated with poor results and a high rate of complications. Significant humeral bone loss after removal of long stems poses a considerable surgical challenge. Therefore, the aim of our study was the evaluation of the clinical and radiologic outcome of cemented long-stem humeral components in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a minimum 5 years' follow-up. METHODS: Between June 2001 and June 2009, revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty using long-stem cemented humeral components was performed in 124 patients. Mean age at time of surgery was 69.6 years (range, 42-87 years). Complete clinical and radiographic data were available in 50 patients at a mean of 7 years (range, 5-11.6 years). Postoperative radiographs were evaluated for radiolucent lines, implant migration, fracture, and glenoid notching. RESULTS: The mean Constant score improved from 11.1 points (range, 0-27 points) to 39.5 points (range, 14-73 points) at the latest follow-up. Progressive humeral radiolucency was present in 24 patients, including 6 patients demonstrating complete loosening or progressive distal migration of the humeral stem. We noted an overall of 12 additional complications in 8 patients, necessitating revision surgery in 16. CONCLUSION: The use of long-stem humeral components is a beneficial treatment in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Nevertheless, the high percentage of patients with humeral loosening is concerning. Modular cementless revision stems that are adapted to the distal humeral medullary canal and additional distal screw and cable fixation might enhance durable distal fixation in case of advanced bone loss.
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
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
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