Eric R Wagner1, Michelle J Chang2, Kathryn M Welp2, Muriel J Solberg2, Tyler J Hunt2, Jarret M Woodmass2, Laurence D Higgins3, Jon J P Warner4. 1. Shoulder Service, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Upper Extremity Surgery, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Shoulder Service, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, King Edward VII Memorial Hospital, Paget, Bermuda. 4. Shoulder Service, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Shoulder Institute, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: jwarner@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the approval of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in 2004, the use of shoulder arthroplasty increased dramatically. Although the success of RSA in the revision setting has been demonstrated, there remains a paucity of studies examining the epidemiology of RSA in revision arthroplasty. This study describes trends of revision arthroplasty during the "era of the reverse," from 2005 through 2016. METHODS: In a multicenter retrospective analysis, we analyzed 274 revision shoulder arthroplasties converted to a RSA (n = 182), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, n = 68), or hemiarthroplasty (n = 24) from 2005 to 2016. Demographics, surgical indications, and types of prosthesis were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of revision arthroplasties increased over 12 years. From 2005 to 2010, TSA (33%) or hemiarthroplasty (16%) were used in similar rates as RSA (51%). From 2011 to 2016, there was a much higher incidence of revision arthroplasty with RSA (78%) compared with TSA (19%) or hemiarthroplasty (3%). Specifically, the number of RSAs increased in 2011 to 2016 compared with 2005 to 2010 in patients aged younger than 60 years, obese patients, patients with indications of glenoid loosening, and those with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus or rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RSA for revision arthroplasty increased over the "era of the reverse" and became the majority by 2016. The reverse prosthesis has had expanding indications regarding both patient demographics and pathology. This study demonstrates the reverse prosthesis has had a similar and even more profound effect on revision shoulder arthroplasty than what has previously been well documented in the primary setting.
BACKGROUND: Since the approval of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in 2004, the use of shoulder arthroplasty increased dramatically. Although the success of RSA in the revision setting has been demonstrated, there remains a paucity of studies examining the epidemiology of RSA in revision arthroplasty. This study describes trends of revision arthroplasty during the "era of the reverse," from 2005 through 2016. METHODS: In a multicenter retrospective analysis, we analyzed 274 revision shoulder arthroplasties converted to a RSA (n = 182), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, n = 68), or hemiarthroplasty (n = 24) from 2005 to 2016. Demographics, surgical indications, and types of prosthesis were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of revision arthroplasties increased over 12 years. From 2005 to 2010, TSA (33%) or hemiarthroplasty (16%) were used in similar rates as RSA (51%). From 2011 to 2016, there was a much higher incidence of revision arthroplasty with RSA (78%) compared with TSA (19%) or hemiarthroplasty (3%). Specifically, the number of RSAs increased in 2011 to 2016 compared with 2005 to 2010 in patients aged younger than 60 years, obesepatients, patients with indications of glenoid loosening, and those with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus or rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RSA for revision arthroplasty increased over the "era of the reverse" and became the majority by 2016. The reverse prosthesis has had expanding indications regarding both patient demographics and pathology. This study demonstrates the reverse prosthesis has had a similar and even more profound effect on revision shoulder arthroplasty than what has previously been well documented in the primary setting.
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: 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: 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