M Holschen1, B Franetzki2, K-A Witt2, D Liem3, J Steinbeck2. 1. Orthopedic Practice Clinic (OPPK), Von-Vincke-Str. 14, 48143, Münster, Germany. holmal@web.de. 2. Orthopedic Practice Clinic (OPPK), Von-Vincke-Str. 14, 48143, Münster, Germany. 3. Orthopedic Department of the University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Abstract
Is reverse total shoulder arthroplasty a feasible treatment option for failed shoulder arthroplasty? A retrospective study of 44 cases with special regards to stemless and stemmed primary implants. BACKGROUND: Due to humeral or glenoid bone-loss and rotator cuff insufficiency reverse total shoulder arthroplasty often means the only remaining treatment option in revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study investigates the clinical outcome of patients treated with a reverse total shoulder in revision cases with special regard to stemless and stemmed primary implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2010 to 2012 60 failed shoulder arthroplasties were converted to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Forty-four patients were available for follow-up after a mean of 24 months. Patients were assessed with X-rays, Constant- and ASES Score and a questionnaire about their subjective satisfaction. RESULTS: The total number of observed complications was seven (16%). Ninety-eight percent of the patients were satisfied with their clinical result. Patients achieved a mean normalized constant score of 70.2% and a mean ASES Score of 65.3. Patients with stemless primary implants achieved a higher normalized constant score than patients with stemmed primary implants (82 vs. 61.8%; p = 0009). CONCLUSION: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides satisfactory clinical results and a high patient satisfaction in revision shoulder arthroplasty. The complication rate needs to be considered and discussed with the patient prior to surgery. Presence or absence of a stem of revised shoulder arthroplasties interferes with the outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: (Retrospective study).
Is reverse total shoulder arthroplasty a feasible treatment option for failed shoulder arthroplasty? A retrospective study of 44 cases with special regards to stemless and stemmed primary implants. BACKGROUND: Due to humeral or glenoid bone-loss and rotator cuff insufficiency reverse total shoulder arthroplasty often means the only remaining treatment option in revision shoulder arthroplasty. This study investigates the clinical outcome of patients treated with a reverse total shoulder in revision cases with special regard to stemless and stemmed primary implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2010 to 2012 60 failed shoulder arthroplasties were converted to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Forty-four patients were available for follow-up after a mean of 24 months. Patients were assessed with X-rays, Constant- and ASES Score and a questionnaire about their subjective satisfaction. RESULTS: The total number of observed complications was seven (16%). Ninety-eight percent of the patients were satisfied with their clinical result. Patients achieved a mean normalized constant score of 70.2% and a mean ASES Score of 65.3. Patients with stemless primary implants achieved a higher normalized constant score than patients with stemmed primary implants (82 vs. 61.8%; p = 0009). CONCLUSION: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides satisfactory clinical results and a high patient satisfaction in revision shoulder arthroplasty. The complication rate needs to be considered and discussed with the patient prior to surgery. Presence or absence of a stem of revised shoulder arthroplasties interferes with the outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: (Retrospective study).
Authors: Oliver Rühmann; Stephan Schmolke; Michael Bohnsack; Christian Flamme; Carl Joachim Wirth Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2005 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Alessandro Castagna; Marco Delcogliano; Francesca de Caro; Giovanni Ziveri; Mario Borroni; Stefano Gumina; Franco Postacchini; Carlo Felice De Biase Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-05-18 Impact factor: 3.075
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: 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
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
Authors: Maciej J K Simon; Jennifer A Coghlan; Jeff Hughes; Warwick Wright; Richard J Dallalana; Simon N Bell Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Cameron R Guy; Bradley S Schoch; Robert Frantz; Thomas W Wright; Aimee M Struk; Kevin W Farmer; Joseph J King Journal: JSES Int Date: 2021-12-23