» Articles » PMID: 32147336

Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty: a Systematic Review and Comparison of North American Vs. European Outcomes and Complications

Overview
Date 2020 Mar 10
PMID 32147336
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Joint registries provide invaluable data on primary arthroplasties with revision as the endpoint; however, the revision outcomes are often excluded. Therefore, a PROSPERO registered review (CRD42015032531) of all revision studies in North America and Europe was conducted to evaluate demographics, etiologies and indications, implant manufacturer, and complications by geographic region.

Methods: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for revision arthroplasty clinical studies with a minimum mean 24-month follow-up. There were no language exclusions. Articles published in German, French, and Italian were reviewed by research personnel proficient in each language.

Results: The mean age at revision was 66 ± 5 years (male = 759, female = 1123). The male-female ratio in North American and Europeans studies was 43:57 and 34:66, respectively. The most common etiology for primary surgery in both regions was osteoarthritis or glenoid arthrosis (38%). The most common revision indication overall was rotator cuff tear, deficiency, or arthropathy (26%). The most common implant type used in revisions was a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (54%). The complication rate for all revisions was 17%. There were a total of 465 complications, and of those, 74% lead to a reoperation.

Conclusion: Generally, shoulder arthroplasties are designed to last 10-15 years; however, revisions are being performed at a mean 3.9 years from the primary procedure, based on the published studies included in this systematic review. Additionally, of the complications, a large number (74%) went on to a reoperation. Further insight into the reasons for early revisions and standardized reporting metrics and data collection on revisions is needed.

Citing Articles

Whether the Indications for Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Should Continue to Be Expanded? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Li H, Bao H, Yang Z, Hu B, Pan Y, Wang Y Orthop Surg. 2024; 17(2):313-332.

PMID: 39667948 PMC: 11787993. DOI: 10.1111/os.14311.


Patient-related risk factors for early unplanned reoperation following revision total shoulder arthroplasty.

Alberto R, Mehta A, Gupta P, Arciero E, Patel K, Trofa D Shoulder Elbow. 2024; :17585732241245377.

PMID: 39552657 PMC: 11568491. DOI: 10.1177/17585732241245377.


Use of pre-operative 3D planning software for revision shoulder arthroplasty: clinical experience data from a survey in a real-world setting.

Regling M, Patterson B JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2024; 4(4):783-789.

PMID: 39474189 PMC: 11514103. DOI: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2024.05.010.


Functional Outcomes and a Review of Management Options for Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Rai A, Kumar K Malays Orthop J. 2024; 18(2):18-26.

PMID: 39130509 PMC: 11315947. DOI: 10.5704/MOJ.2407.003.


Revising Failed Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Comprehensive Techniques for Precise Explantation of Well-Fixed Implants.

Lo E, Ouseph A, Sodl J, Garofalo R, Krishnan S JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2024; 14(3).

PMID: 39109244 PMC: 11299987. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.23.00051.