Literature DB >> 28699147

What Are the Complications, Survival, and Outcomes After Revision to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Older Than 80 Years?

Eduard Alentorn-Geli1, Nicholas J Clark1, Andrew T Assenmacher1, Brian T Samuelsen1, Joaquín Sánchez-Sotelo1, Robert H Cofield1, John W Sperling2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: By the time patients with a failed shoulder arthroplasty require revision surgery, a substantial number are older than 80 years. The risk of complications of revision arthroplasty in this elderly population is largely unknown and needs to be considered when contemplating whether these patients are too frail for revision surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the 90-day medical and surgical complications after revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients older than 80 years? (2) What are the 2- and 5-year survival rates after revision? (3) Was there an improvement in pain at rest or with activity, range of motion (ROM), and strength after revision surgery?
METHODS: Between 2004 and 2013, 38 patients who were older than 80 years (84 ± 3 years) underwent revision surgery to a RSA. Of those, five were lost to followup before 2 years, and two had died within 2 years of revision surgery, leaving 31 for analysis of our survivorship, pain, ROM, and strength endpoints at a minimum of 2 years or until revision surgery had occurred (mean, 28 months; range, 1-77 months); all 38 patients were included for purposes of evaluating medical and surgical complications at 90 days. During the period in question, our general indication for using RSA included failure of previous shoulder arthroplasty because of instability, glenoid loosening with bone loss, or rotator cuff insufficiency. The indication for revision to RSA did not change during the study period. The index procedure (revision to RSA at the age of 80 years or older) was the first revision arthroplasty in 33 (87%) patients and the second in five (13%) patients. We tallied 90-day medical and surgical complications by performing a retrospective chart and institutional joint registry review. The cumulative incidence of implant loosening (implant migration or tilting, or complete radiolucent lines present) and revision surgery was calculated at 2 and 5 years using competing risk of death method. Pain levels at rest or with activity (rated in a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale) were collected through a retrospective chart review and values before and after surgery were compared.
RESULTS: Medical complications occurred in three of 38 (8%) patients and surgical complications occurred in five of 38 (13%) patients. The 90-day mortality was 3% (one of 38 patients), and the total mortality was 26% (10 of 38 patients). The cumulative incidence of revision was 11% (95% CI, 0%-20%) at 2 years and 16% (95% CI, 1%-30%) at 5 years; the cumulative incidence of loosening was 8% (95% CI, 0%-20%) at 2 years and 16% (95% CI, 1%-30%) at 5 years. Pain at rest or with activity improved from pre- to postoperation (preoperative: median, 4 [range, 2-5]; postoperative: median, 1 [range, 1-4]; median difference: -2, 95% CI -3 to 0; p < 0.000). The active ROM improved during the preoperative compared with postoperative periods: mean ± SD forward flexion of 52° ± 40° to 109° ± 44°, respectively (mean difference: 56; 95% CI, 40-72; p < 0.000), and mean ± SD external rotation of 15° ± 22° to 31° ± 21°, respectively (mean difference: 16; 95% CI, 8-25; p < 0.000).
CONCLUSIONS: Age should not be used as a reason to not consider revision surgery to RSA in patients older than 80 years. Further studies with a prospective design, larger sample size, investigating risk factors for complications or poor outcome, and incorporation of functional scores are required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28699147      PMCID: PMC5638731          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5406-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  25 in total

Review 1.  Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators.

Authors:  T A Gooley; W Leisenring; J Crowley; B E Storer
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1999-03-30       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Age-related differences in the use of total shoulder arthroplasty over time: use and outcomes.

Authors:  J A Singh; R Ramachandran
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.082

3.  Total shoulder arthroplasty in older patients: increased perioperative morbidity?

Authors:  Eric T Ricchetti; Joseph A Abboud; Andrew F Kuntz; Matthew L Ramsey; David L Glaser; Gerald R Williams
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Total shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis in patients 80 years of age and older.

Authors:  A M Foruria; J W Sperling; H K Ankem; L S Oh; R H Cofield
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-07

5.  Long term functional outcome following reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the elderly.

Authors:  J-F Cazeneuve; D-J Cristofari
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 2.256

6.  Total shoulder arthroplasty with an all-polyethylene pegged bone-ingrowth glenoid component: a clinical and radiographic outcome study.

Authors:  Michael A Wirth; Rebecca Loredo; Glen Garcia; Charles A Rockwood; Carleton Southworth; Joseph P Iannotti
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid.

Authors:  Naoko Mizuno; Patrick J Denard; Patric Raiss; Gilles Walch
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Patient and physician-assessed shoulder function after arthroplasty.

Authors:  Adam M Smith; Sunni A Barnes; John W Sperling; Christopher M Farrell; Joel D Cummings; Robert H Cofield
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders.

Authors:  F Sirveaux; L Favard; D Oudet; D Huquet; G Walch; D Molé
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-04

10.  Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology.

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

View more
  9 in total

1.  The Surgical Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures in Elderly Patients.

Authors:  Josef Stolberg-Stolberg; Jeanette Köppe; Robert Rischen; Moritz Freistühler; Andreas Faldum; J Christoph Katthagen; Michael J Raschke
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Thirty-day morbidity and mortality following revision total shoulder arthroplasty in octogenarians.

Authors:  Puneet Gupta; Theodore Quan; Zachary R Zimmer
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2021-06-26

3.  Surgical Complications After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Gabrielle C Ma; Kendall E Bradley; Hayley Jansson; Brian T Feeley; Alan L Zhang; C Benjamin Ma
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2021-07-20

Review 4.  Safety and Effectiveness of Shoulder Arthroplasties in Spain: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jorge Arias-de la Torre; Xavier Garcia; Kayla Smith; Arantxa Romero-Tamarit; Elisa Puigdomenech; Laura Muñoz-Ortiz; Jonathan P Evans; Vicente Martín; Antonio J Molina; Carles Torrens; Miquel Pons-Cabrafiga; Francesc Pallisó; Jose María Valderas; Mireia Espallargues
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-11-23       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 5.  The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part II.

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

6.  Revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients 65 years old and younger: outcome comparison with older patients.

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

7.  Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection and All-Cause Mortality: A Worrisome Association.

Authors:  Daniel C Austin; Sarah H Townsley; Thomas H Rogers; Jonathan D Barlow; Mark E Morrey; John W Sperling; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2022-02-23

8.  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

9.  Prevalence of Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States and the Increasing Burden of Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kevin X Farley; Jacob M Wilson; Anjali Kumar; Michael B Gottschalk; Charles Daly; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Eric R Wagner
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2021-07-14
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.