Patient Outcomes After Revision of Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Rotator Cuff Failure or Component Loosening

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. e193-e198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Shields ◽  
J. Michael Wiater
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Component Loosening

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 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.

scholarly journals Enlarged transacromial superior approach with reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fractures

10.4081/2179 ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Poignard ◽  
Mohamed Bouhou ◽  
Yasuhiro Homma ◽  
Philippe Hernigou
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Superior Approach ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder

The authors describe a step-by-step technique for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using arthrotomy via the enlarged transacromial superior approach. This technique seems ideal for reinsertion of the tuberosities and to ensure adequate postoperative tensional balance of the infraspinatus and the subscapularis, which is critical for the rotator cuffs to function properly and to achieve optimal arthroplasty stability. Reviewing these different steps helps understanding each rotator cuff individual component's contribution to achieve optimal arthroplasty stability and external rotation with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document