scholarly journals Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty With Proximal Humeral Replacement for the Management of Massive Proximal Humeral Bone Loss

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 247154921877984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dave R Shukla ◽  
Julia Lee ◽  
Devin Mangold ◽  
Robert H Cofield ◽  
Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Humeral Component ◽  
Attachment Sites ◽  
Lateral Offset ◽  
Component Loosening ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties

Background Substantial proximal humeral bone loss may compromise reverse shoulder arthroplasty secondary to limited implant support, insufficient soft tissue tension due to shortening, lack of attachment sites for the posterosuperior cuff when present, and lack of lateral offset of the deltoid. In these circumstances, use of a proximal humeral replacement may be considered. Patients/Methods Between 2012 and 2014, 34 consecutive reverse shoulder arthroplasties were performed using a proximal humeral replacement system. The indications were failed shoulder arthroplasty (15), oncology reconstruction (9), humeral malunion/nonunion (7), prior resection arthroplasty (2), and intraoperative fracture (1). All patients were included in the survival analysis. Twenty-two patients with minimum 2-year follow-up were included in analysis of clinical results. Results Among the cohort of 34 patients, there were 8 additional reoperations: humeral loosening (3), periprosthetic fracture (2), irrigation and debridement (2), and glenoid loosening (1). Humeral component loosening occurred exclusively in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. The 4 patients had an average 3.75 prior procedures before the proximal humeral replacement. Two of the revisions were from cemented to uncemented stems. Among the 23 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up, there was significant improvement in pain scores (4.1 vs 0.6), forward elevation (31 vs 109) degrees, and 81% were satisfied. Conclusion Use of a proximal humeral replacement when performing a reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the complex setting of substantial proximal humerus bone loss provides good clinical results and a particularly low dislocation rate. However, the rate of loosening of the humeral component in the revision setting suggests that proximal humeral replacement components should be cemented when revising a previously cemented stem. IRB 16-006966.

Glenoid bone grafting in primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 175857322091765
Author(s):  
Betty Zhang ◽  
Gavinn Niroopan ◽  
Chetan Gohal ◽  
Bashar Alolabi ◽  
Timothy Leroux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Bone Grafting ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Component Loosening ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties

Background Primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty can be challenging in patients with complex glenoid wear patterns and bone loss. Severe retroversion (>15°) or significant bone loss may require bone grafting. This review summarizes the rate of revision and long-term outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with bone graft. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases was conducted from the date of inception to 23 October 2018. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility and extracted data for analysis. The primary outcome was rate of revision. The secondary outcomes were rate of component loosening, functional outcome, and range of motion. Results Of the 1056 articles identified in the search, 26 underwent full-text screening and 7 articles were included in the analysis. All procedures were one-stage anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. The rate of revision was 5.4% with component loosening and infection listed as indications over a weighted mean follow-up period of 6.3 years. Complications occurred in 12.6% of patients. Conclusion Glenoid bone grafting in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty results in comparable revision rates and improvement in pain compared to augmented glenoid components and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Due to the low quality of evidence, further prospective studies should be conducted. Level of evidence IV

Mid-term radiological results of a cementless short humeral component in anatomical and reverse shoulder arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (5) ◽  
pp. 610-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. R. Aibinder ◽  
D. W. Bartels ◽  
J. W. Sperling ◽  
J. Sanchez-Sotelo
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Stress Shielding ◽  
Radiological Findings ◽  
Humeral Component ◽  
Bone Changes ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Glenoid Loosening

Aims Shoulder arthroplasty using short humeral components is becoming increasingly popular. Some such components have been associated with relatively high rates of adverse radiological findings. The aim of this retrospective review was to evaluate the radiological humeral bone changes and mechanical failure rates with implantation of a short cementless humeral component in anatomical (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Patients and Methods A total of 100 shoulder arthroplasties (35 TSA and 65 RSA) were evaluated at a mean of 3.8 years (3 to 8.3). The mean age at the time of surgery was 68 years (31 to 90). The mean body mass index was 32.7 kg/m2 (17.3 to 66.4). Results Greater tuberosity stress shielding was noted in 14 shoulders (two TSA and 12 RSA) and was graded as mild in nine, moderate in two, and severe in three. Medial calcar resorption was noted in 23 shoulders (seven TSA and 16 RSA), and was graded as mild in 21 and moderate in two. No humeral components were revised for loosening or considered to be loose radiologically. Nine shoulders underwent reoperation for infection (n = 3), fracture of the humeral tray (n = 2), aseptic glenoid loosening (n = 1), and instability (n = 3). No periprosthetic fractures occurred. Conclusion Implantation of this particular short cementless humeral component at the time of TSA or RSA was associated with a low rate of adverse radiological findings on the humeral side at mid-term follow-up. Our data do not raise any concerns regarding the use of a short stem in TSA or RSA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:610–614.

scholarly journals Imaging of shoulder arthroplasties and their complications: a pictorial review

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Damien Combes ◽  
Romain Lancigu ◽  
Patrick Desbordes de Cepoy ◽  
Filippo Caporilli-Razza ◽  
Laurent Hubert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Joint Replacement ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Shoulder Joint ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Glenoid Component ◽  
Humeral Component ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Component Loosening ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties

Abstract Currently, an increasing number of patients benefit from shoulder prosthesis implantation. Radiologists are therefore more often confronted with imaging examinations involving shoulder arthroplasty, whether during a dedicated examination or incidentally. Standard radiography is the first-line imaging modality in the follow-up of these implants, before the possible use of cross-sectional imaging modalities (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging), ultrasound, or nuclear medicine examinations. Shoulder arthroplasties are divided into three categories: reverse shoulder arthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, and partial shoulder joint replacement (including humeral hemiarthroplasty and humeral head resurfacing arthroplasty). Each of these prostheses can present complications, either shared by all types of arthroplasty or specific to each. Infection, periprosthetic fractures, humeral component loosening, heterotopic ossification, implant failure, and nerve injury can affect all types of prostheses. Instability, scapular notching, and acromial fractures can be identified after reverse shoulder arthroplasty implantation. Glenoid component loosening and rotator cuff tear are specific complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. Progressive wear of the native glenoid is the only specific complication observed in partial shoulder joint replacement. Knowledge of different types of shoulder prostheses and their complications’ radiological signs is crucial for the radiologist to initiate prompt and adequate management.

Anatomic versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up comparison

2020 ◽  
pp. 175857322092115
Author(s):  
Bradley S Schoch ◽  
Joseph J King ◽  
Joseph Zuckerman ◽  
Thomas W Wright ◽  
Chris Roche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties

Background Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty improves pain and function with a reported reoperation rate of approximately 1% per year. With improved glenoid fixation, reverse shoulder arthroplasty implants may outperform anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. We evaluate the functional outcomes and reoperation rate of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty at a minimum eight-year follow-up or revision. Methods Between 2005 and 2010, 187 shoulders (137 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, 50 reverse shoulder arthroplasty) were retrospectively reviewed at a mean of 8.8 years. The mean age at surgery was 67 years. Females were more commonly treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Both groups had similar body mass index and comorbidities. Outcome measures evaluated included abduction, forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Score, University of California Los Angeles Shoulder score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Results At follow-up, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty demonstrated greater overhead range of motion and external rotation. All patient-reported outcomes remained similar between groups. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients were more likely to rate shoulders as much better or better after surgery (90% versus 67%, p = 0.004). Complications were observed in 24% of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties and 8% of reverse shoulder arthroplasties (p = 0.02). Reoperation was more common in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (23% versus 4%, p = 0.003). Discussion At mid-to-long-term follow-up, reverse shoulder arthroplasties demonstrated significantly fewer complications and reoperations than anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. Despite similar patient-reported outcomes, reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients were more likely to be satisfied with their shoulder.

scholarly journals Risk factors for instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
pp. 175857321986426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Guarrella ◽  
Mikael Chelli ◽  
Peter Domos ◽  
Francesco Ascione ◽  
Pascal Boileau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Constant Score ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasties ◽  
Postoperative Instability

Background This study aims to identify risk factors related to postoperative instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty and evaluate the modalities and results of treatments in a large series of patients, with medium to long-term follow-up. Methods Retrospective multicenter series of 1035 consecutive Grammont type reverse shoulder arthroplasties implanted between 1992 and 2010. 19.9% had a reverse shoulder arthroplasty with bony lateralization on the glenoid side. Patients were reviewed and radiographed with minimum five years’ follow-up. Results At a mean follow-up of eight years, the overall rate of postoperative instability was 3.0%. Instability was more frequent in case of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for revision surgery, in younger patients, in case of scapular notching, and tuberosity resorption. Lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasties were associated with a lower instability rate. A reoperation to restore stability was needed in 70% of cases. The improvement in Constant Score was lower in patients with unstable reverse shoulder arthroplasties when compared to stable reverse shoulder arthroplasties. Conclusions Younger patients are at higher risk for instability after Grammont type reverse shoulder arthroplasty implantation. Conversely, lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasties resulted protective. When conservative treatment had failed, shoulder stability can be obtained with reoperation or prosthetic revision (needed in 70% of the cases), but to the price of lower functional results.

scholarly journals Short-Term Outcomes of the Grammont Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Comparison between First and Second Generation Delta Prosthesis

Joints ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riccardo Luigi Alberio ◽  
Marco Landrino ◽  
Paolo Fornara ◽  
Federico Alberto Grassi
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Glenoid Component ◽  
Consecutive Series ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Component Loosening

Abstract Purpose This article compares short-term outcomes of two series of patients, who underwent reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) with two different implants, both based on Grammont's principles: the Delta III (D-3) and the Delta Xtend (D-XT) prostheses. Methods The D-3 group included a consecutive series of 26 patients (mean age 75 years), that were treated between 2000 and 2006; the D-XT group included a consecutive series of 31 patients (mean age 72.5 years), for a total of 33 implants performed between 2011 and 2015. In both groups the most common diagnoses were cuff tear arthropathy (18 and 22 shoulders, respectively) and malunion of proximal humerus fractures (3 and 5). All procedures were performed by the same surgeon. Constant–Murley score (CMS) was used to assess clinical and functional outcomes. Radiographic evaluation included the true anteroposterior and axillary views. Results Twenty-three patients of the D-3 group and 22 patients (24 shoulders) of the D-XT group were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 42 months (range 26–84) and 44 months (range 26–66), respectively. Four complications occurred in the D-3 group (1 partial deltoid detachment, 1 dislocation, and 2 glenoid component loosening), while one early postoperative infection occurred in the D-XT group. Increases in elevation and CMS between preoperative and postoperative period were observed in both groups; only the D-XT group showed a slight improvement in rotations. The incidence of scapular notching was significantly different between the two groups: 100% for D-3 and 22.2% for D-XT in patients with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Conclusion Prosthetic design evolution and greater acquaintance with this surgery have undoubtedly led to an improvement in short-term outcomes with second generation implants of RTSA. Future studies will have to ascertain whether newer implants, relying on biomechanical solutions alternative to Grammont's original concept, might provide additional advantages and minimize drawbacks.

Biomechanics and Design of Shoulder Arthroplasty

1995 ◽  
Vol 209 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
P J J McCullagh
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Early Experience ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Design Activity ◽  
Shoulder Replacement ◽  
Humeral Component ◽  
Key Features

Since the introduction by Neer in 1973 of the metal-on-plastic unconstrained total shoulder replacement, unfortunately there have been no long-term clinical follow-up reports. Short- to mid-term information (less than ten years) indicates good to excellent clinical results in approximately 90 per cent of cases. While this early experience is encouraging, much attention has been focused on tucencies of the glenoid componenti which although they may not predispose to failure, have led to considerable design activity. The humeral component has also advanced in design, with modularity of the head in particular providing greater intra-operative flexibility. State-of-the-art instrumentation, borrowing key features found beneficial to hip and knee joint replacement, is an important advancement in contemporary systems. The aim of this paper is to position shoulder arthroplasty in relation to biomechanical considerations and recommendations from clinical experience.

scholarly journals Anatomic Augmented Glenoid Implants for the Management of the B2 Glenoid

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 247154921987035
Author(s):  
Lisa GM Friedman ◽  
Grant E Garrigues
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Humeral Head ◽  
Basic Science ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Glenoid Component ◽  
Posterior Subluxation ◽  
Component Loosening ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder

The B2 glenoid is defined by Walch et al. as a glenoid that is biconcave with posterior erosion accompanied by posterior humeral head subluxation. This creates unique challenges for the treating orthopedic surgeon. Bone loss, excessive retroversion, and posterior subluxation make anatomic shoulder arthroplasty in this setting fraught with increased complications, including instability, glenoid component loosening, and poor clinical outcomes. Many techniques have been devised to treat the arthritic shoulder with a B2 glenoid, including hemiarthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty using eccentric reaming, bone grafting and custom implantation, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. In this review, we will focus on anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty using augmented glenoid implants to treat the B2 glenoid. Indications, clinical results, and basic science analyses of augmented anatomic glenoids are also discussed.

scholarly journals A technique for humeral prosthesis placement in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for fracture

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 459-464
Author(s):  
Paul J Cagle ◽  
Wayne Reizner ◽  
Bradford O Parsons
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Stem Height ◽  
Humeral Component ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder ◽  
Stem Version

Recent trends have illustrated the benefits of treating displaced fractures of the proximal humerus with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Clinical results have demonstrated reliable restoration of function in situations where results following hemiarthroplasty have been variable and difficult to predict. Data have demonstrated landmarks to assist with humeral stem height in hemiarthroplasty. However, intraoperative landmarks to guide placement of the humeral component in reverse shoulder arthroplasty have not been described. In this technique, the superior border of the pectoralis tendon is utilized. A distance of 5.0 cm is used to assist in placement of the most superior aspect of the metallic humeral component and with humeral stem version. This technique can be used as a guide to assist a treating physician in situations where bony fracture and comminution make humeral stem height placement difficult to judge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document