Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Thus, the purpose of the present study was to (1) characterize common postoperative complications and (2) quantify the rates of revision in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revisional surgery. We hypothesize that hardware loosenings will be the most common complication to occur in the sample, with the humeral component being the most common loosening.

Methods

This systematic review adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. For our inclusion criteria, we included any study that contained intraoperative and/or postoperative complication data, and revision rates on patients who had undergone revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to a failed hemiarthroplasty. Complications include neurologic injury, deep surgical site infections, hardware loosening/prosthetic instability, and postoperative fractures (acromion, glenoid, and humeral fractures).

Results

The study contained 22 studies that assessed complications from shoulders that had revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from a hemiarthroplasty, with a total sample of 925 shoulders. We found that the most common complication to occur was hardware loosenings (5.3%), and of the hardware loosenings, humeral loosenings (3.8%) were the most common. The revision rate was found to be 10.7%.

Conclusion

This systematic review found that revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed hemiarthroplasty has a high overall complication and reintervention rates, specifically for hardware loosening and revision rates.

Introduction

Current estimates suggest total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) procedural volume to increase by nearly 350%, with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) accounting for nearly 85% of all shoulder arthroplasty procedures, by the year 2025.¹ This drastic increase in RTSA usage is likely attributable to multiple factors including advances in surgical technique and implant design, surgeon procedural comfort, as well as rapid expansion of indications for RTSA beyond that which it was originally designed (e.g., to address rotator cuff arthropathy in older patient populations).^2,3 Today, RTSA is used for a variety of orthopedic pathologies including inflammatory arthritis,⁴ fracture sequelae,⁵ complex proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients,⁶ tumor resection,⁷ and irreparable rotator cuff tears.⁸ Though indications for RTSA are broad, revision RTSA in the setting of a “salvage procedure” accounts for a large proportion of completed RTSA procedures.

It was first shown by De Wilde et al. that reverse shoulder prosthesis can be used as a viable option for revision of a failed shoulder replacement with improved shoulder function.⁹ As a result, RTSA has become an option for the replacement of anatomic TSA (aTSA), RTSA, hemiarthroplasty (HA), and open reduction-internal fixation. RTSA following primary HA after fracture or HA in those with concurrent rotator cuff deficiency encompasses a large proportion of completed RTSA procedures.^10–13 Primary HA failure may be attributable to a number of postoperative complications (e.g., prosthesis instability, glenoid erosion, and rotator cuff dysfunction).^11,14 Evidence detailing complications rates among patients undergoing revision RTSA following failure of primary HA is sparse; however, previous studies (with limited sample sizes) have reported on common complications following this type of revision surgery.^15,16

Thus, the purpose of the present study was to (1) characterize common postoperative complications (e.g., neurologic injury, deep surgical site infections (SSI), hardware loosening/prosthetic instability, postoperative fractures), and (2) quantify the rates of revision in patients undergoing HA to RTSA revisional surgery. We hypothesize that hardware loosenings will be the most common complication to occur in the sample, with the humeral component being the most common loosening. We also hypothesize that revision rates of RTSA following failed HA will be higher than primary RTSA.

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.¹⁷ Studies were considered for inclusion if they were Level I–IV evidence. We conducted a search on 28 February 2020, using PubMed as our electronic database. The following search string was used: (reverse) AND ((Shoulder arthroplasty) OR (total shoulder arthroplasty) OR (shoulder replacement) or (total shoulder replacement)) and included all studies to the present day.

For our inclusion criteria, we included any study that contained intraoperative and/or postoperative complication data, and reintervention rates on patients who had undergone revision RTSA due to a failed HA of the shoulder. For studies that contained a cohort of patients, we included the data of patients that only pertained to our inclusion criteria. Studies were excluded from our sample if they contained one of the following: animal studies, review articles, articles with patients younger than 18 years, paraplegia, cadaveric studies, case reports, conference abstracts, Level V evidence studies, studies not in English and studies that included patient data from national registries were excluded from the sample. We also excluded studies that had pooled or incomplete data.

Our primary outcome for the study was to quantify the complication and reoperation rates for patients after having gone revision RTSA due to failed HA. Complications include neurologic injury, deep SSI, hardware loosening/prosthetic instability, and postoperative fractures (acromion, glenoid, and humeral fractures).

Screening

All studies from our search string were screened by two reviewers (AKR and JXC). The reviewers were looking for any mention of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA, RTSA, reverse total shoulder, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty) in the abstracts and titles, which would then be included in the full-text screening. Any disagreements between the reviewers resulted in the article being included in the full-text screen. Moving the differences to the full-text screen allows the reviewers to discuss in-depth if the article fits the inclusion criteria. If an agreement could not be reached, a senior reviewer (BC or BN) would help make the final decision.

Data extraction

Data were extracted from studies by three reviewers (AKR, JS, and JXC). The reviewers used a pilot-tested form sheet (Google Forms) to record data on a response spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel). Recorded data included descriptive statistics (e.g., mean age, number of shoulders, and indication for RTSA), and complications reported (e.g.. reoperation rates, postoperative fractures, postoperative neurologic injuries, dislocations, instability/hardware loosening, and infections).

Predetermined definitions and inclusion criteria were established to ensure consistency of extraction of variables from articles. For example, any neurologic injuries that had a full recovery within one year were considered neuropraxia injuries. The investigators also established that SSI would follow a modified version of the protocol set by Norris et al.¹⁸ The one modification established was, studies that only used the word infection but never explicitly stated deep or superficial were considered deep infections when included with a set of complications.

Risk of bias assessment

To assess the studies’ methodological quality in our sample, we used the modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS), presented by Saleeb et al.^19,20 CMS is a multifactorial, comprehensive point system used to assess methodological quality of surgical studies. CMS has a score ranging from 0 to 100 CMS that evaluates the following factors: the number of surgical procedures, study type, diagnostic certainty, surgical protocol description, postoperative rehabilitation description, description of desired outcomes, description of how authors assessed outcomes, and description of the subject selection process. The scores for CMS are broken into four categories: excellent (85–100 points, good (70–84 points), fair (50–69 points), and poor (<50 points).

Results

The search string yielded 1722 studies from Pubmed, after conducting the title/abstract screen, we were left with 824 studies. Our full-text screen found 22 studies^{10,11,15,21–39} meeting our inclusion criteria (Figure 1).

The studies included in our sample were published between 2007 and 2019. Of the 22 included studies, 11 studies^{10,11,15,23–25,30,35,36,38,39} were case series, 8 studies^{22,26–29,31,32,34} were retrospective chart reviews, and 3 studies^21,33,37 were prospective trials. There were a total of 925 shoulders receiving revision RTSA following HA. The average sample size in each study was 42 shoulders (range 3–251). The mean age of the study participants was 67.1 (range 57.8–75.5; Table 1).

Table 1.

General characteristics.

Study	Number of patients^a	Study type	Journal
Levy et al.¹¹	29	Case series	The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Am]
Levy et al.¹⁰	19	Case series	The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Br]
Chacon et al.³⁶	25	Case series	The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Am]
Lollino et al.³⁷	8	Prospective trial	Musculoskeletal Surgery
Patel et al.³⁸	15	Case series	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Uri et al.³⁹	33	Case series	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Werner et al.²⁵	14	Case series	Acta Orthopaedica
Weber-Spickschen et al.²⁷	2	Retrospective chart review	The Bone & Joint Journal
Stephens et al.²⁶	16	Retrospective chart review	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Stephens et al.³⁵	251	Case series	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Merolla et al.²⁹	23	Retrospective chart review	International Orthopaedics
Dezfuli et al.²⁸	12	Retrospective chart review	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Crosby et al.³¹	48	Retrospective chart review	The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Am]
Kany et al.³⁰	8	Case series	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Seidl et al.²¹	10	Prospective trial	The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Updegrove et al.³³	3	Prospective trial	Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Holschen et al.³²	28	Retrospective chart review	The Bone & Joint Journal
Merolla et al.¹⁵	157	Case series	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Sevelda and Fink²⁴	11	Case series	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Geervliet et al.²³	3	Case series	Orthopedics
Cheung et al.²²	3	Retrospective chart review	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Franke et al.³⁴	207	Retrospective chart review	Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

^aPatient numbers add up to 925 patients.

Study quality

The CMS score of our included studies ranged from 36 to 71 (mean (SD), 47.81 (10.00); median (interquartile range), 45.5 (35.5–55.5)). Seventeen (77.3%) studies in our sample scored a poor CMS score, while four (18.2%) studies scored a fair, and one study scored a good score. The categories receiving significantly fewer points were categories evaluating levels of evidence, as most studies were retrospective in nature, and the mean follow-up period of the studies, as most studies had a follow-up period of less than three years or a period that was not clearly stated in the study. Many of the studies also lost points in the category assessing the study size itself, with 18 (81.8%) of the included studies having less than 40 included patients, or not clearly stating the number of included patients (Supplemental Table).

Complication rates

Neurologic injury

Postoperative neurological injuries were assessed in seven studies^{11,15,26,30,31,33,37} (33.3%), which include 269 patients. Neuropraxias occurred in seven shoulders (2.6%; Table 2). Of the seven shoulders with neuropraxias, the published study reported the specific nerve injury for six of the shoulders. There were three (50.0%) radial nerve injuries, two (33.3%) axillary nerve injuries, and one (16.7%) median nerve injury.

Table 2.

Neurologic injury rates.

Study	Number of patients	Neuropraxia incidence
Levy et al.¹¹	29	1
Lollino et al.³⁷	8	1
Stephens et al.²⁶	16	2
Crosby et al.³¹	48	1
Kany et al.³⁰	8	0
Updegrove et al.³³	3	0
Merolla et al.¹⁵	157	2
Total	269	7

Infection rates

Infection rates were assessed in 18 studies,^{10,11,15,21–25,27–34,38,39} which resulted in a sample of 622 patients. Deep SSIs occurred in 17 shoulders (2.7%; Table 3). Of the 17 shoulders, 14 (82.3%; 14/17) underwent a revision. Only 1 of the 17 infections had the specific bacteria causing the infection reported, which was Staphylococcus epidermidis.

Table 3.

Infection rates.

Study	Number of patients	Deep infection incidence
Levy et al.¹¹	29	1
Levy et al.¹⁰	19	1
Patel et al.³⁸	15	1
Uri et al.³⁹	33	0
Werner et al.²⁵	14	1
Weber-Spickschen et al.²⁷	2	0
Merolla et al.²⁹	23	0
Dezfuli et al.²⁸	12	1
Crosby et al.³¹	48	3
Kany et al.³⁰	8	0
Seidl et al.²¹	10	0
Updegrove et al.³³	3	0
Holschen et al.³²	28	2
Merolla et al.¹⁵	157	2
Sevelda and Fink²⁴	11	1
Geervliet et al.²³	3	0
Cheung et al.²²	3	1
Franke et al.³⁴	207	3
Total	625	17

Postoperative fracture rates

Fracture complications were assessed in 20 studies,^{10,11,15,21–23,25–34,36–39} which include 660 shoulders. Fractures occurred in 28 shoulders (4.2%; Table 4), with 15 of the fractures resulting in revision surgery (53.6%; 15/28). Of the fractures, 18 were humeral fractures, and 7 were acromion fractures, and 3 were scapular fractures.

Table 4.

Hardware loosening and fracture complications.

Study	Number of patients	Fracture incidence	Humeral loosening	Baseplate dissociation	Instability	Dislocation
Levy et al.¹¹	29	4	2	1	0	6
Levy et al.¹⁰	19	4	4	2	0	0
Chacon et al.³⁶	25	2	0	0	3	2
Lollino et al.³⁷	8	0	0	0	0	0
Patel et al.³⁸	15	1	0	0	0	0
Uri et al.³⁹	33	2	1	1	0	1
Werner et al.²⁵	14	0	0	0	0	0
Weber-Spickschen et al.²⁷	2	0	0	0	0	0
Stephens et al.²⁶	16	3	1	0	1	2
Merolla et al.²⁹	23	0	1	0	1	2
Dezfuli et al.²⁸	12	0	0	0	0	0
Crosby et al.³¹	48	5	4	0	1	0
Kany et al.³⁰	8	0	0	0	0	1
Seidl et al.²¹	10	2	0	0	0	0
Updegrove et al.³³	3	0	0	0	0	0
Holschen et al.³²	28	3	1	0	2	0
Merolla et al.¹⁵	157	2	2	4	3	0
Geervliet et al.²³	3	0	0	0	0	0
Cheung et al.²²	3	0	1	0	0	2
Franke et al.³⁴	207	0	8	2	0	3
Totals:	663	28	25	10	11	19

Hardware loosening rates

Hardware loosening was assessed in 20 studies,^{10,11,15,21–23,25–34,36–39} which include 660 shoulders. Of the sample, 35 shoulders (5.3%) experienced hardware loosening, instability, and dislocations (Table 4). Of these, the humeral component was loose in 25 shoulders (3.8%), of which 24 shoulders required revision. The humeral component was the most common loosening. Baseplate loosening occurred in 10 shoulders (1.5%), of which 8 required revision.

Instability rates

Prosthesis instability was assessed in 20 studies,^{10,11,15,21–23,25–34,36–39} which include 660 shoulders. Instability occurred in 11 shoulders (1.7%), of which 9 required revision.

Dislocation rates

Prosthesis dislocations were assessed in 20 studies,^{10,11,15,21–23,25–34,36–39} which include 660 shoulders. Dislocations occurred in 19 shoulders (2.9%), of which 11 required revision.

Revision rates

Revision rates were assessed in all 22 studies,^{10,11,15,21–39} which include 925 patients. Of the sample, 99 patients (10.7%) required revision on the RTSA implant due to complications. Of the 99 shoulders that required revision, 73 shoulders were given an indication. Of the indications, humeral component loosening caused the most revisions (32.8%; 24/73; Table 5).

Table 5.

Revision indication.

Study	Revision incidence	Fracture	Dislocations	Infection	Humeral loosening	Baseplate dissociation	Instability
Levy et al. 2007¹¹	7	4	2	1	2	1	0
Levy et al. 2007¹⁰	4	3	0	0	3	1	0
Chacon et al.³⁶	3	1	1	1	0	0	1
Lollino et al.³⁷	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Patel et al.³⁸	1	1	0	0	0	0	0
Uri et al.³⁹	3	0	1	0	2	0	0
Werner et al.²⁵	1	0	0	1	0	0	0
Weber-Spickschen et al.²⁷	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Stephens et al.²⁶	3	1	2	0	0	0	1
Stephens et al.^{35 a}	26
Merolla et al.²⁹	1	0	0	0	1	0	0
Dezfuli et al.²⁸	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Crosby et al.³¹	11	3	0	3	4	0	1
Kany et al.³⁰	1	0	1	0	0	0	0
Seidl et al.²¹	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Updegrove et al.³³	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Holschen et al.³²	7	2	0	2	1	0	2
Merolla et al.¹⁵	11	0	0	2	2	4	3
Sevelda and Fink²⁴	1	0	0	1	0	0	0
Geervliet et al.²³	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Cheung et al.²²	3	0	1	0	1	0	1
Franke et al.^34, *	16	0	3	3	8	2	0
Total	99	15	11	14	24	8	9

^aStephens et al.³⁵ did not specify the indication for the revision.

Discussion

In our study, we observed a revision rate of 10.7%, after patients received an RTSA due to a failed HA. Common postoperative complications observed included hardware loosening, joint instability, and joint dislocation. These findings are consistent with previous literature investigating common complications following secondary RTSA procedures. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 studies, which included 1041 shoulders, determined postoperative shoulder instability, and hardware loosening were common complications following all primary shoulder arthroplasty conversion to RTSA.¹⁶ These complications might be attributable to RTSA being the only surgical treatment option amendable for patients with recurrent shoulder joint instability and chronic dislocations following their primary total shoulder arthroplasties.^40–42 Although a viable treatment option for shoulder instability, previous studies have shown that shoulder surgery revisions are a risk factor for recurrent instability after RTSA.^22,43,44 Instability after RTSA has been shown to be related to the inability of the prosthesis to maintain compressive forces between the glenosphere and the humerosocket.⁴⁵ It has also been associated with the lack of an impingement-free arc of motion.^46–48 Due to the high rates of instability after RTSA, Abdelfattah et al. have proposed a classification system for instability after RTSA, which could help guide physicians in implementing treatment strategies for patients.⁴³

Of the hardware loosenings that were found in our sample, humeral stems were found to be the most common component to have dysfunction (3.8%; 25/660) followed by the glenoid baseplate (1.5%; 10/660). Our findings show that there is an increased chance of acquiring humeral loosening compared to primary RTSA.⁴⁹ In addition, our findings are similar to those found in Grey et al. who found that their sample showed a 3.7% rate of aseptic humeral stem loosening after undergoing revision RTSA.⁵⁰ This is problematic as studies show that aseptic loosening in revision shoulder arthroplasty results in a high rate of reoperations.³⁵ Of our sample of 25 shoulders that had humeral component loosening, 24 of the shoulders required a revision surgery (96%; 24/25). Our findings on glenoid baseplate loosenings are similar to rates for primary and secondary RTSA.^16,49 We found that the revision rate was also quite high for glenoid baseplate loosenings in our sample size (80%; 8/10).

Our study found an overall revision rate of 10.7% (99/925), which falls in range with current literature for revision RTSA.^16,35 Stephens et al. found an overall revision rate of 6.0% for revision RTSA. Of their sample, RTSA for failed HA had the highest revision rate of 10.4% out of 251 patients.³⁵ In another example, Franke et al. had a 7.7% revision rate with a sample of 207 patients.³⁴ These points are further corroborated by additional studies suggesting that there is an increased failure rate when implanting a revision RTSA for a failed HA.^51,52

In comparison to revision RTSA, literature evaluating failed HA to aTSA shows higher rates of complication and revision in their limited population. For example, Sheth et al.⁵³ retrospectively reviewed 28 patients who underwent conversion of HA to aTSA. They found an overall complication rate of 46%. Of the 28 patients, 3 sustained intraoperative complications (11%) which included fracture (humeral shaft in 1 and greater tuberosity in 1) and iatrogenic rotator cuff tear. Furthermore, there were 10 patients that sustained postoperative complications (36%) which included subscapularis failure (3), infection (1), humeral component loosening (1), hemarthrosis (1), lesser tuberosity nonunion (1), brachial plexus injury (1), glenoid loosening (1), and posterior-superior rotator cuff tear (1). In another review, Carroll et al.⁵⁴ evaluated 16 consecutive patients who underwent conversion of failed HA to aTSA. Five of the 16 patients (32%) required a revision surgery after the revision arthroplasty. The authors also report that 7 of the 16 patients (47%) had an unsatisfactory result.

The most comprehensive literature available on complication rates for revision RTSA for failed hemiarthroplasties is a recent study published by Bois et al.¹⁶ The study’s primary outcomes evaluated pain, range of motion, and outcome scores for revision RTSA for failed shoulder arthroplasties. The study secondarily evaluated complications and reintervention rates based on the sample that they found. As a result, they contained a limited sample size of 329 shoulders for complication rates and 281 shoulders for reintervention rates. Furthermore, their study’s search only included literature up until September 2017. Because of this it was our feeling that we could add to the literature regarding complications and reinterventions following failed HA to RTSA that Bois et al. recently described. As a result of our search including all studies published before 28 February 2020, we were able to add an additional seven studies,^{15,23,24,32–34,40} including one prospective study, to our sample that was published after the search range set by Bois et al. These seven studies had 412 shoulders to add to our sample, increasing the strength and generalizability of our study.

Limitations

Our study had certain limitations. Although we had a large number of shoulders to include into our sample, a majority of our studies were case series and retrospective cohort studies. This introduced heterogeneity into our study. Our assessment of study quality falls in line with this assessment due to a large number of studies falling in the poor range of the CMS scale. As a result, there is a need for more Level I and II evidence studies looking at outcomes for revision RTSA due to failed HA. Also, there was limited literature stratifying risk factors with complication rates. Therefore, it prevented our study from including a meta-analysis evaluating what risk factors contribute to complications within the population. Therefore, there is a need for more studies evaluating complication rates in relation to risk factors for revision RTSA. Finally, as with all systematic reviews, there is always the chance that studies that were excluded could have been included in our sample. Furthermore, our study only evaluated the PubMed database, and there is a chance relevant studies published outside of this database could have been included.

Conclusion

This systematic review found that revision RTSA for failed HA has a high overall complication and revision rate, specifically for hardware loosening. Although the complication rates are high for revision RTSA, the rates are still lower than revision aTSA for failed HA in current literature, making it a viable option for the procedure. Further studies need to be conducted evaluating various controls, such as smoking, diabetes, etc., to show what risk factors are more susceptible to complications when revision RTSA is done for HA.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-sel-10.1177_17585732211019390 - Supplemental material for Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-sel-10.1177_17585732211019390 for Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review by Arjun K Reddy, Jake X Checketts, B Joshua Stephens, J Michael Anderson, Craig M Cooper, Tyler Hunt, Keith Fishbeck, Marshall Boose, Byron Detweiler, Brian Chalkin and Brent L Norris in Shoulder & Elbow

Footnotes

Authors' Note

B. Joshua Stephens and Tyler Hunt are now affiliated with Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OK, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: BC is a consultant for DJO. BN is a consultant for J and J, Acumed, and Wishbone; has grant support from the AONA and COTA; is a committee member of the OTA and the AAOS; is a section editor for Injury Journal; and has principle for Boys of Summer Enterprise, Norris Surgical, OR Ingenuity.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Guarantor

AKR and JXC.

Contributorship

AKR: did data collection, writing, revisions, and table creation; BJS: did data collection. BD, MB, KF: involved with the clinical write up of the discussion of the article and helped with interpretation of data. TH and JMA: involved with writing and revision of manuscript, introduction and discussion write ups. JXC: helped with methodology, involved with training of Arjun Reddy and B Joshua Stephens for the gathering of data, and were extensively involved with the revisions of the article. Created and ran the search strings for the article. Helped with article curation. CC: helped with data curation (graph creation), and results write up. BC, BN: senior authors, supervision, protocol creation, guidance in every step of the article creation.

ORCID iD

Arjun K Reddy

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Farley

Wilson

Daly

, et al. The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty: rise and future projections compared to hip and knee arthroplasty. JSES Open Access 2019; 3: 244–244.

Grammont

Baulot

. The classic: delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2424–2424.

Baulot

Sirveaux

Boileau

. Grammont’s idea: the story of Paul Grammont's functional surgery concept and the development of the reverse principle. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2425–2431.

Rittmeister

Kerschbaumer

. Grammont reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and nonreconstructible rotator cuff lesions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2001; 10: 17–22.

Raiss

Edwards

da Silva

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of nonunions of the surgical neck of the proximal part of the humerus (type-3 fracture sequelae). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: 2070–2076.

Wall

Walch

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures. Hand Clin 2007; 23: 425–430.

De Wilde

Plasschaert

Audenaert

, et al. Functional recovery after a reverse prosthesis for reconstruction of the proximal humerus in tumor surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 430: 156–162.

ETH

Neukom

Catanzaro

, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 1199–1208.

De Wilde

Mombert

Van Petegem

, et al. Revision of shoulder replacement with a reversed shoulder prosthesis (Delta III®): report of five cases. Acta Orthop Belg 2001; 67: 348–353.

10.

Levy

Virani

Pupello

, et al. Use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 189–195.

11.

Levy

Frankle

Mighell

, et al. The use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 292–300.

12.

Wagner

Chang

Welp

, et al. The impact of the reverse prosthesis on revision shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of a high-volume shoulder practice. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28: e49–e56.

13.

Black

Roberts

Siegel

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as salvage for failed prior arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 1036–1042.

14.

Hashiguchi

Iwashita

Ohkubo

, et al. The outcome of hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures is dependent on the status of the rotator cuff. Int Orthop 2015; 39: 1115–1119.

15.

Merolla

Wagner

Sperling

, et al. Revision of failed shoulder hemiarthroplasty to reverse total arthroplasty: analysis of 157 revision implants. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 75–81.

16.

Bois

Knight

Alhojailan

, et al. Clinical outcomes and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty used for failed prior shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JSES Int 2020; 4: 156–168.

17.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

, et al. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1006–1012.

18.

Norris

Checketts

Scott

, et al. Prevalence of deep surgical site infection after repair of periarticular knee fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2: e199951–e199951.

19.

Saleeb

Tosounidis

Papakostidis

, et al. Incidence of deep infection, union and malunion for open diaphyseal femoral shaft fractures treated with IM nailing: a systematic review. Surgeon 2019; 17: 257–269.

20.

Coleman

Khan

Maffulli

, et al. Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2000; 10: 2–11.

21.

Seidl A, Sholder D, Warrender W, et al. Early versus late reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: does it matter? Arch Bone Jt Surg 2017; 5: 213–220.

22.

Cheung

Sarkissian

Sox-Harris

, et al. Instability after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 1946–1952.

23.

Geervliet

Houtveen

Sierevelt

, et al. Revision of failed resurfacing hemiarthroplasty: midterm results, survival, and group comparison. Orthopedics 2019; 42: e111–e117.

24.

Sevelda

Fink

. One-stage exchange of septic shoulder arthroplasty following a standardized treatment algorithm. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 2175–2182.

25.

Werner

Boehm

Gohlke

. Revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty with retention of the humeral component. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 473–478.

26.

Stephens

Paisley

Giveans

, et al. The effect of proximal humeral bone loss on revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2015; 24: 1519–1526.

27.

Weber-Spickschen

Alfke

Agneskirchner

. The use of a modular system to convert an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 1662–1667.

28.

Dezfuli

King

Farmer

, et al. Outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as primary versus revision procedure for proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25: 1133–1137.

29.

Merolla

Tartarone

Sperling

, et al. Early clinical and radiological outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty with an eccentric all-polyethylene glenosphere to treat failed hemiarthroplasty and the sequelae of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 141–148.

30.

Kany

Jose

Katz

, et al. The main cause of instability after unconstrained shoulder prosthesis is soft tissue deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: e243–e251.

31.

Crosby

Wright

, et al. Conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with and without humeral stem retention: the role of a convertible-platform stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 736–742.

32.

Holschen

Siemes

M-K

Witt

K-A

, et al. Five-year outcome after conversion of a hemiarthroplasty when used for the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B: 761–766.

33.

Updegrove

Nicholson

Namdari

, et al. Short-term results of the DePuy global unite platform shoulder system: a two-year outcome study. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2018; 6: 353–358.

34.

Franke

Christmas

Downes

, et al.

Does the etiology of a failed hemiarthroplasty affect outcomes when revised to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29: S149–S156.

35.

Stephens

Simon

Clark

, et al. Revision for a failed reverse: a 12-year review of a lateralized implant. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25: e115–e124.

36.

Chacon

Virani

Shannon

, et al. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 119–127.

37.

Lollino

Paladini

Campi

, et al. Reverse shoulder prosthesis as revision surgery after fractures of the proximal humerus, treated initially by internal fixation or hemiarthroplasty. Chir Organi Mov 2009; 93: S35–S39.

38.

Patel

Young

Onyekwelu

, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: 1478–1483.

39.

Uri

Beckles

Higgs

, et al. Increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of failed post-traumatic humeral head replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 401–408.

40.

Hernandez

Chalmers

Wagner

, et al. Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty restores stability for patients with unstable shoulder prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475: 2716–2722.

41.

Walker

Willis

Brooks

, et al. The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: 514–522.

42.

Raiss

Edwards

Bruckner

, et al. Reverse arthroplasty for patients with chronic locked dislocation of the shoulder (type 2 fracture sequela). J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26: 279–287.

43.

Abdelfattah

Otto

Simon

, et al. Classification of instability after reverse shoulder arthroplasty guides surgical management and outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: e107–e118.

44.

Bohsali

Bois

Wirth

. Complications of shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 256–269.

45.

Gutiérrez

Keller

Levy

, et al. Hierarchy of stability factors in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 670–676.

46.

Cheung

Willis

Walker

, et al. Complications in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011; 19: 439–449.

47.

Gutiérrez

Comiskey

4th Luo

Z-P

, et al. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 2606–2615.

48.

Pappou IP, Teusink MJ and Frankle MA. Dislocation and instability in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: biomechanics, prevention, review of the literature and management. In: Controversies in shoulder instability. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health Adis (ESP), 2013, https://nebraska.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/dislocation-and-instability-in-reverse-shoulder-arthroplasty-biom (accessed 23 October 2020).

49.

Wright

Alentorn-Geli

Samitier

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 2: systematic review of reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications. Int J Shoulder Surg 2015; 9: 60–60.

50.

Grey

Rodseth

Roche

. Humeral stem loosening following reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBJS Rev 2018; 6: e5–e5.

51.

Boileau

Melis

Duperron

, et al. Revision surgery of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 1359–1370.

52.

Wall

Nové-Josserand

O’Connor

, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 1476–1485.

53.

Sheth

Sholder

Abboud

, et al. Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty for painful glenoid arthrosis to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 1884–1890.

54.

Carroll

Izquierdo

Vazquez

, et al. Conversion of painful hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2004; 13: 599–603.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB