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.

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

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.

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.

Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With a Stemless Humeral Component

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 263502542199712
Author(s):  
Jordan D. Walters ◽  
Stephen F. Brockmeier
Keyword(s):  
Bone Quality ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Lesser Tuberosity ◽  
Critical Elements ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Humeral Component ◽  
Component Loosening ◽  
Deltopectoral Approach

Background: This technique video reviews anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with a stemless humeral component using a representative case example. Indications: Stemless TSA is indicated for patients with symptomatic glenohumeral arthritis typically younger than 65 years of age. Stemless TSA may be used for other glenohumeral degenerative conditions such as avascular necrosis or posttraumatic arthropathy, provided acceptable humeral bone quality is confirmed intraoperatively using a thumb-press test. Poor bone quality is the primary contraindication. Technique Description: Preoperatively, computed tomography is typically used for planning, and intraoperative navigation through magnetic resonance imaging is also useful. The procedure’s critical elements include beach chair positioning, standard deltopectoral approach with lesser tuberosity osteotomy (LTO), freehand proximal humeral osteotomy, perpendicular proximal humeral exposure and subsequent preparation over a central guidewire, stemless implant and humeral head sizing, perpendicular glenoid exposure and implant placement, and final humeral implantation with LTO repair/fixation. A phased rehabilitation protocol includes 6-week sling immobilization to protect the subscapularis/LTO repair and return to normal activities between 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Discussion/Conclusion: Stemless TSA shows promising early and mid-term outcomes with complication rates, including humeral loosening rates, similar to standard stemmed components. Potential complications include neurovascular injury, infection, glenoid or humeral component loosening, and rotator cuff failure.

scholarly journals Journey of the glenoid in anatomic total shoulder replacement

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Castagna ◽  
Raffaele Garofalo
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Shoulder Function ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Glenoid Component ◽  
Shoulder Replacement ◽  
Final Destination ◽  
Component Loosening

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSR) has been shown to generate good to excellent results for patients with osteoarthritis and a functioning rotator cuff. Many studies have reported that the glenoid component loosening and failure remain the most common long-term complication of total shoulder arthroplasty. The approach to glenoid component is critical because a surgeon should consider patient-specific anatomy, preserving bone stock and joint line restoration, for a good and durable shoulder function. Over the years, different glenoid design and materials have been tried in various configurations. These include cemented polyethylene, uncemented metal-backed and hybrid implants. Although advances in biomechanics, design and tribology have improved our understanding of the glenoid, the journey of the glenoid component in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty has not yet reached its final destination. This article attempts to describe the evolution of the glenoid component in anatomic TSR and current practice.

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.

Quantitative Assessment of Glenohumeral Joint Forces in Positions of Overhead Activities: Effects of Shoulder Arthroplasty

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thay Q. Lee ◽  
Mark Schamblin ◽  
Bruce Y. Yang ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
Ranjan Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Glenoid Component ◽  
Shoulder Hemiarthroplasty ◽  
Adequate Pain Relief ◽  
Joint Forces ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Component Loosening

Glenohumeral arthroplasty as well as hemiarthroplasty, although providing adequate pain relief, has not shared in the success of similar joint replacement procedures such as total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty. Short comings of this procedure include a decreased range of motion postoperatively as well as increased incidents of glenoid component loosening in total shoulder procedures. This is especially a problem in the end ranges of motion where eccentric loading of the glenoid component are thought to occur. The purpose of this study was to quantify the glenohumeral joint forces before and after bipolar shoulder hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty for positions simulating overhead activities and commonly relied upon by the wheelchair dependent individual.

A comparison of onlay versus inlay glenoid component loosening in total shoulder arthroplasty

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 1113-1120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Gagliano ◽  
Sarah M. Helms ◽  
Gregory P. Colbath ◽  
Breanne T. Przestrzelski ◽  
Richard J. Hawkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Glenoid Component ◽  
Component Loosening
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document