PURPOSE: To compare outcomes after conversion of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and a matched cohort. METHODS: Patients converted from aTSA to RTSA for rotator cuff failure or component loosening and a primary RTSA matched cohort were retrospectively identified from a prospective database. Demographics and preoperative and postoperative outcomes were obtained and compared. RESULTS: Age, sex, body mass index, follow-up length, and preoperative function were similar between revision (n = 35) and primary (n = 70) groups. At final follow-up, visual analog scale pain (2.4 ± 2.8 versus 1.7 ± 2.8; P = 0.24) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (68 ± 26 versus 76 ± 24; P = 0.14) scores were similar. The revision group had worse subjective shoulder value scores (63 ± 30 versus 79 ± 21; P = 0.002), satisfaction (74% versus 90%; P = 0.03), and more complications (31% versus 13%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Revision of aTSA to RTSA for component loosening or rotator cuff failure results in function comparable to primary RTSA; however, more complications, worse subjective shoulder value scores, and lower patient satisfaction should be expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative.
PURPOSE: To compare outcomes after conversion of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and a matched cohort. METHODS:Patients converted from aTSA to RTSA for rotator cuff failure or component loosening and a primary RTSA matched cohort were retrospectively identified from a prospective database. Demographics and preoperative and postoperative outcomes were obtained and compared. RESULTS: Age, sex, body mass index, follow-up length, and preoperative function were similar between revision (n = 35) and primary (n = 70) groups. At final follow-up, visual analog scale pain (2.4 ± 2.8 versus 1.7 ± 2.8; P = 0.24) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (68 ± 26 versus 76 ± 24; P = 0.14) scores were similar. The revision group had worse subjective shoulder value scores (63 ± 30 versus 79 ± 21; P = 0.002), satisfaction (74% versus 90%; P = 0.03), and more complications (31% versus 13%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Revision of aTSA to RTSA for component loosening or rotator cuff failure results in function comparable to primary RTSA; however, more complications, worse subjective shoulder value scores, and lower patient satisfaction should be expected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative.
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; 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: 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