Literature DB >> 29759905

Analysis of 4063 complications of shoulder arthroplasty reported to the US Food and Drug Administration from 2012 to 2016.

Jeremy S Somerson1, Jason E Hsu2, Moni B Neradilek3, Frederick A Matsen4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Most of the literature on shoulder arthroplasty failure comes from high-volume centers. These reports tend to exclude the experience of community orthopedic surgeons, who perform most of the shoulder joint replacements.
METHODS: We analyzed the failure reports mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration for all hospitals. Each reported event from 2012 to 2016 was characterized by implant, failure mode, and year of surgery.
RESULTS: For the 1673 anatomic arthroplasties, the most common failure modes were glenoid component failure (20.4%), rotator cuff/subscapularis tear (15.4%), pain/stiffness (12.9%), dislocation/instability (11.8%), infection (9%), and humeral component loosening (5.1%). For the 2390 reverse arthroplasties, the most common failure modes were dislocation/instability (32%), infection (13.8%), glenosphere-baseplate dissociation (12.2%), failed/loosened baseplate (10.4%), humeral component dissociation/tray fracture (5.5%), difficulty inserting the baseplate (4.8%), and difficulty inserting the glenosphere (4.2%). Although the percentage distribution among the different failure modes was relatively consistent over the years of this study, the percentage distribution of these failure modes differed substantially among different implant manufacturers.
CONCLUSIONS: The Food and Drug Administration database reveals modes of shoulder arthroplasty failure that are not emphasized in the published literature, such as rotator cuff tear, infection, and postoperative pain/stiffness for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and implant dissociation and baseplate failure for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Knowledge of these failure modes may help inform surgical technique and implant design in ways that will lower the risk of implant failure in the future.
Copyright © 2018 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FDA; MAUDE; Shoulder arthroplasty; complications; failure; revision

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29759905     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.03.025

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


  15 in total

1.  Postoperative stiffness after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mohammad Ghoraishian; Brian W Hill; Thema Nicholson; Matthew L Ramsey; Gerald R Williams; Surena Namdari
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-10-25

2.  Comparing Relative Value Units among Shoulder Arthroplasty, Hemiarthroplasty, and ORIF for Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly: Which is Most Worth Your Time?

Authors:  Marine Coste; Vineet Aggarwal; Neil V Shah; David Kim; Omar K Hariri; Louis M Day; Scott C Pascal; Jaydev B Mistry; William P Urban; William R Aibinder; Arvind G Von Keudell; Nishant Suneja
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2021-07

3.  Intermediate to long term results of stemless metaphyseal reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A five to nine year follow-up.

Authors:  Siddharth Virani; Natalie Holmes; Mina Al-Janabi; Chris Watts; Chris Brooks; Jaikumar Relwani
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-10-04

Review 4.  [Posttraumatic and postoperative shoulder stiffness : Trauma, rotator cuff reconstruction, instability operations and shoulder arthroplasty].

Authors:  Felix Toft; Fabrizio Moro; Markus Scheibel
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  CORR Insights®: What Factors are Associated with Revision or Worse Patient-reported Outcomes after Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Cuff-tear Arthropathy? A Study from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry.

Authors:  Jason E Hsu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  Body mass index as a risk factor for dislocation of total shoulder arthroplasty in the first 30 days.

Authors:  David J Kusin; Joshua A Ungar; Kaeli K Samson; Matthew J Teusink
Journal:  JSES Open Access       Date:  2019-09-11

7.  Influence of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty baseplate design on torque and compression relationship.

Authors:  Miguel A Diaz; Jason E Hsu; Eric T Ricchetti; Grant E Garrigues; Sergio Gutierrez; Mark A Frankle
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-04-28

Review 8.  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

9.  The effect of radial mismatch on radiographic glenoid loosening.

Authors:  Bradley S Schoch; Thomas W Wright; Joseph D Zuckerman; Pierre-Henri Flurin; Charlotte Bolch; Chris P Roche; Joseph J King
Journal:  JSES Open Access       Date:  2019-11-18

10.  Current state of short-stem implants in total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Brandon J Erickson; Peter N Chalmers; Patrick J Denard; Reuben Gobezie; Anthony A Romeo; Evan S Lederman
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2020-01-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.