» Articles » PMID: 32939503

Effect of Complications on Outcomes After Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Overview
Journal JSES Int
Date 2020 Sep 17
PMID 32939503
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) reliably improves shoulder pain and function in patients with failed shoulder arthroplasty, although it can lead to significant postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of postoperative complications on shoulder pain and function after revision RTSA.

Methods: We evaluated 36 patients at an average of 4.3 years (range, 2-8.6 years) after revision of a shoulder arthroplasty to RTSA. Of these patients, 9 had a failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, 23 had a failed hemiarthroplasty, and 4 had a failed RTSA. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score were evaluated postoperatively, and patients with and without postoperative complications were compared.

Results: The final ASES score and VAS pain score were 61 ± 23 and 2.4 ± 2.3, respectively. A major postoperative complication occurred in 7 patients (19%) (infection in 3, hematoma in 1, instability in 1, and acromial and/or scapular spine fracture in 2). Further surgical treatment was required in 5 patients (14%) (irrigation and débridement and component exchange for infection in 3, irrigation and débridement for hematoma in 1, and open reduction-internal fixation of scapular spine fracture in 1). On comparison of clinical outcomes between patients with and patients without complications, the ASES score and VAS pain score were significantly worse in patients with complications vs. those without them (ASES score, 43 ± 24 vs. 66 ± 21 [ = .04]; VAS pain score, 4.3 ± 2 vs. 2 ± 2.2 [ = .03]).

Conclusion: Revision RTSA resulted in postoperative pain and shoulder function comparable to primary RTSA reported in the literature, although postoperative complications led to clinically significant declines in function and increases in pain.

Citing Articles

Mid-Term Outcomes of a Rectangular Stem Design with Metadiaphyseal Fixation and a 135° Neck-Shaft Angle in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Ameziane Y, Audige L, Schoch C, Flury M, Schwyzer H, Scaini A J Clin Med. 2025; 14(2).

PMID: 39860550 PMC: 11765783. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14020546.


Outcomes of revision versus re-revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A case-control-matched cohort study.

OKeefe D, Teurlings T, Hao K, Saengchote S, Schoch B, Wright T Shoulder Elbow. 2024; 16(5):543-550.

PMID: 39473473 PMC: 11514115. DOI: 10.1177/17585732231202214.


Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with an inverted-bearing prosthesis as revision procedure for failed anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a long-term multicenter study.

Reuther F, Irlenbusch U, Kohut G, Joudet T, Kaab M JSES Int. 2024; 8(5):1063-1068.

PMID: 39280146 PMC: 11401573. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.05.006.


Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Patients Younger Than 60 Years Old Exhibit Lower Clinically Significant Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) Scores Compared to Older Patients.

Stewart B, Hawthorne B, Dorsey C, Wellington I, Cote M, Mazzocca A Cureus. 2023; 15(10):e46492.

PMID: 37927713 PMC: 10624330. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46492.


Octogenarian With Acromion Stress Fracture Nonunion With Reverse Total Shoulder Prosthesis Reconstructed With Plates and Screws: A Case Report.

Walker J, Richards B, Cronin J, Skedros J Cureus. 2023; 15(8):e42865.

PMID: 37664248 PMC: 10473861. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42865.


References
1.
Merolla G, Wagner E, Sperling J, Paladini P, Fabbri E, Porcellini G . Revision of failed shoulder hemiarthroplasty to reverse total arthroplasty: analysis of 157 revision implants. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017; 27(1):75-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.06.038. View

2.
De Biase C, Ziveri G, De Caro F, Roberts N, Delcogliano M . Reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a "L" shaped allograft for glenoid reconstruction in a patient with massive glenoid bone loss: case report. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014; 18(1 Suppl):44-9. View

3.
Holcomb J, Cuff D, Petersen S, Pupello D, Frankle M . Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid baseplate failure after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(5):717-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.017. View

4.
Stephens S, Paisley K, Giveans M, Wirth M . The effect of proximal humeral bone loss on revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015; 24(10):1519-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.020. View

5.
von Engelhardt L, Manzke M, Filler T, Jerosch J . Short-term results of the reverse Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS) in cuff tear arthropathy and revision arthroplasty cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015; 135(7):897-904. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-015-2218-6. View