Functional Outcomes and Survivorship Following Aseptic Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty

Overview

Journal J Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Jul 22

PMID 39036809

Authors

Erryk S Katayama

Louis W Barry

John S Barnett

Amogh I Iyer

Akshar V Patel

Julie Y Bishop

Gregory L Cvetanovich

Ryan C Rauck

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Revision shoulder arthroplasty (SA) is a surgical procedure performed to address complications or failures of primary total SA. However, limited evidence exists regarding the functional outcomes and longevity of implants following revision.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent revision SA for failed primary arthroplasty at a single institution between 2009 and 2021 with a minimum of 2-years follow-up. Data was collected from medical records, including type of arthroplasty (anatomic total SA [TSA], reverse total SA [RSA], or hemi-SA [HSA]), demographics and patient-specific information, functional measurements, and implant survival. Patient reported outcomes were obtained during follow-up by phone.

Results: The mean age at index and revision surgeries was 60.5 ± 12.1 years and 64.8 ± 11.1 years, respectively, and average total follow-up was 5.5 ± 3.5 years. The average time to revision was 4.5 ± 5.2 years (range 0.01-24.5 years). Among 99 revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures, 28 were TSA/HA to TSA/HA, 51 were TSA/HA to RSA, 18 were RSA to RSA, and 2 were RSA to HA. Revision surgery significantly improved functional outcomes in forward elevation (preoperative: 79.8 ± 41.0 vs postoperative: 118.5 ± 38.3; p < 0.001), external rotation (preoperative: 27.8 ± 19.3 vs postoperative: 34.3 ± 16.2; p = 0.028), internal rotation (preoperative: glute vs postoperative: S1; p = 0.002), and forward elevation strength (preoperative: 4+/5 vs postoperative: 5/5; p = 0.002). Postoperative patient reported outcomes included: VAS pain (2.2 ± 2.9), SANE (72.6 ± 21.5), ASES (73.3 ± 20.4), and SST (7.7 ± 2.8) scores. The overall 2-, 5-, and 10-year post-revision implant survival rate was 85.48%, 83.06%, and 79.84%, respectively. Patients who had an initial RSA and were revised to RSA were at higher risk of implant failure and subsequent re-revision (RSA to RSA: 1.5 ± 2.5 years vs. TSA/HA to RSA: 2.5 ± 2.1 years vs. TSA/HA to TSA/HA: 4.0 ± 3.5 years; p = 0.0046).

Conclusion: Revision shoulder arthroplasty improved patient outcomes post-index arthroplasty failure. Revisions were more likely to be successful when revising from TSA/HA to RSA.

Level Of Evidence: Level III - retrospective comparative study.

References

Walker M, Willis M, Brooks J, Pupello D, Mulieri P, Frankle M . The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 21(4):514-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.006. View

Cvetanovich G, Gowd A, Liu J, Nwachukwu B, Cabarcas B, Cole B . Establishing clinically significant outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(5):939-948. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.013. View

Dillon M, Prentice H, Burfeind W, Singh A . Risk Factors for Re-Revision Surgery in Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020; 28(23):e1049-e1058. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00635. View

Padegimas E, Maltenfort M, Lazarus M, Ramsey M, Williams G, Namdari S . Future patient demand for shoulder arthroplasty by younger patients: national projections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(6):1860-7. PMC: 4418978. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4231-z. View

Barco R, Savvidou O, Sperling J, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Cofield R . Complications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev. 2017; 1(3):72-80. PMC: 5367530. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160003. View

Davies A, Selmi H, Sabharwal S, Vella-Baldacchino M, Liddle A, Reilly P . Revision Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Shoulder Elb Arthroplast. 2022; 6:24715492221095991. PMC: 9174976. DOI: 10.1177/24715492221095991. View

Gowd A, Charles M, Liu J, Lalehzarian S, Cabarcas B, Manderle B . Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) is a reliable metric to measure clinically significant improvements following shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(11):2238-2246. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.041. View

Ravi V, Murphy R, Moverley R, Derias M, Phadnis J . Outcome and complications following revision shoulder arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Jt Open. 2021; 2(8):618-630. PMC: 8384442. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.28.BJO-2021-0092.R1. View

Knowles N, Columbus M, Wegmann K, Ferreira L, Athwal G . Revision shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and comparison of North American vs. European outcomes and complications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020; 29(5):1071-1082. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.12.015. View

10.

Gauci M, Cavalier M, Gonzalez J, Holzer N, Baring T, Walch G . Revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty: epidemiology, etiology, and surgical options. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 29(3):541-549. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.034. View

11.

Werner B, Chang B, Nguyen J, Dines D, Gulotta L . What Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score Represents a Clinically Important Change After Shoulder Arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474(12):2672-2681. PMC: 5085930. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4968-z. View

12.

Chalmers P, Boileau P, Romeo A, Tashjian R . Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019; 27(12):426-436. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00535. View

13.

Trappey 4th G, OConnor D, Edwards T . What are the instability and infection rates after reverse shoulder arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 469(9):2505-11. PMC: 3148387. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1686-9. View

14.

Farley K, Wilson J, Kumar A, Gottschalk M, Daly C, Sanchez-Sotelo J . Prevalence of Shoulder Arthroplasty in the United States and the Increasing Burden of Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty. JB JS Open Access. 2021; 6(3). PMC: 8280071. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.20.00156. View

15.

Khoo K, McLaughlin R, Sharareh B, Jurgensmeier K, Whitson A, Matsen 3rd F . Revision of total shoulder arthroplasty to hemiarthroplasty: results at mean 5-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022; 32(4):e160-e167. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.10.004. View

16.

Sheth M, Sholder D, Getz C, Williams G, Namdari S . Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019; 28(6):1074-1081. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.026. View

17.

OKeefe D, Hao K, Teurlings T, Wright T, Wright J, Schoch B . Survivorship analysis of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022; 32(7):e343-e354. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2022.11.024. View

18.

Abdel M, Hattrup S, Sperling J, Cofield R, Kreofsky C, Sanchez-Sotelo J . Revision of an unstable hemiarthroplasty or anatomical total shoulder replacement using a reverse design prosthesis. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B(5):668-72. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.30964. View

19.

Franklin J, Barrett W, Jackins S, Matsen 3rd F . Glenoid loosening in total shoulder arthroplasty. Association with rotator cuff deficiency. J Arthroplasty. 1988; 3(1):39-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0883-5403(88)80051-2. View

20.

Affonso J, Nicholson G, Frankle M, Walch G, Gerber C, Garzon-Muvdi J . Complications of the reverse prosthesis: prevention and treatment. Instr Course Lect. 2012; 61:157-68. View