Adham Abdelfattah1, Randall J Otto2, Peter Simon3, Kaitlyn N Christmas3, Gregory Tanner1, Joey LaMartina1, Jonathan C Levy4, Derek J Cuff5, Mark A Mighell1, Mark A Frankle6. 1. Florida Orthopaedic Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. 2. Premier Care Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Foundation for Orthopaedic Research and Education, Tampa, FL, USA. 4. Holy Cross Orthopedic Institute, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA. 5. Suncoast Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Venice, FL, USA. 6. Florida Orthopaedic Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. Electronic address: mfrankle@floridaortho.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revision of unstable reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) remains a significant challenge. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of a new treatment-guiding classification for instability after RSA, to describe the clinical outcomes of patients stabilized operatively, and to identify those with higher risk of recurrence. METHODS: All patients undergoing revision for instability after RSA were identified at our institution. Demographic, clinical, radiographic, and intraoperative data were collected. A classification was developed using all identified causes of instability after RSA and allocating them to 1 of 3 defined treatment-guiding categories. Eight surgeons reviewed all data and applied the classification scheme to each case. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was used to evaluate the classification scheme. Preoperative clinical outcomes were compared with final follow-up in stabilized shoulders. RESULTS: Forty-three revision cases in 34 patients met the inclusion for study. Five patients remained unstable after revision. Persistent instability most commonly occurred in persistent deltoid dysfunction and postoperative acromial fractures but also in 1 case of soft tissue impingement. Twenty-one patients remained stable at minimum 2 years of follow-up and had significant improvement of clinical outcome scores and range of motion. Reliability of the classification scheme showed substantial and almost perfect interobserver and intraobserver agreement among all the participants (κ = 0.699 and κ = 0.851, respectively). DISCUSSION: Instability after RSA can be successfully treated with revision surgery using the reliable treatment-guiding classification scheme presented herein. However, more understanding is needed for patients with greater risk of recurrent instability after revision surgery.
BACKGROUND: Revision of unstable reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) remains a significant challenge. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of a new treatment-guiding classification for instability after RSA, to describe the clinical outcomes of patients stabilized operatively, and to identify those with higher risk of recurrence. METHODS: All patients undergoing revision for instability after RSA were identified at our institution. Demographic, clinical, radiographic, and intraoperative data were collected. A classification was developed using all identified causes of instability after RSA and allocating them to 1 of 3 defined treatment-guiding categories. Eight surgeons reviewed all data and applied the classification scheme to each case. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was used to evaluate the classification scheme. Preoperative clinical outcomes were compared with final follow-up in stabilized shoulders. RESULTS: Forty-three revision cases in 34 patients met the inclusion for study. Five patients remained unstable after revision. Persistent instability most commonly occurred in persistent deltoid dysfunction and postoperative acromial fractures but also in 1 case of soft tissue impingement. Twenty-one patients remained stable at minimum 2 years of follow-up and had significant improvement of clinical outcome scores and range of motion. Reliability of the classification scheme showed substantial and almost perfect interobserver and intraobserver agreement among all the participants (κ = 0.699 and κ = 0.851, respectively). DISCUSSION: Instability after RSA can be successfully treated with revision surgery using the reliable treatment-guiding classification scheme presented herein. However, more understanding is needed for patients with greater risk of recurrent instability after revision surgery.
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
Authors: Margaret A Sinkler; Joshua D Dolan; Drew Henderson; Michael J Steflik; Frank D Lewis; Stephen A Parada; Lynn A Crosby Journal: J Orthop Date: 2022-09-29
Authors: Carlos Garcia-Fernandez; Yaiza Lopiz; Camilla Arvinius; Virginia Ponz; Borja Alcobía-Diaz; Pablo Checa; Maria Galán-Olleros; Fernando Marco Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2021-09-30
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