Hemiarthroplasty as a salvage treatment for failed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
Clinical outcome
Complication
Hemiarthroplasty
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
Revision
Salvage surgery
Journal
JSES international
ISSN: 2666-6383
Titre abrégé: JSES Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101763461
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
entrez:
12
11
2021
pubmed:
13
11
2021
medline:
13
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The implantation rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSAs) are increasing worldwide, resulting in higher absolute numbers of the associated complications and revision surgeries. This requires the discussion of salvage therapies for failed RTSAs without revision to a new RTSA. Revision to hemiarthroplasty may offer a valid fallback option in certain cases. This study aimed to analyze the incidence, indications, and clinical outcomes, especially the reduction in pain levels compared to a matched control group. Our prospectively enrolled patient cohort of RTSA implantations at a tertiary referral center between January 2005 and December 2018 was retrospectively queried for revision to a hemiarthroplasty. For clinical outcome evaluation, a minimum follow-up duration of 2 years after revision to hemiarthroplasty was required. Clinical outcome measures were compared to two matching groups, one with RTSA preserving revision and one without any reintervention. The outcome measures were the absolute and relative Constant-Murley score (aCS and rCS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), range of motion, and pain. A total of 21 out of 1237 RTSAs (1.7%) underwent salvage revision to hemiarthroplasty at a mean time of 20 ± 21 months (range, 1-75 months). Of those, 12 were available for a minimum follow-up of 2 years after revision to a hemiarthroplasty. The main indications were glenoid loosening (8/12), scapular spine fracture (2/12), and instability (2/21). Clinical outcome was analyzed at a mean follow-up period of 46 ± 26 months (24 months to 123 months) after revision to a hemiarthroplasty. The revision significantly reduced CS pain from 6 ± 4 points to 12 ± 3 points (scale 0 to 15 with 15 as optimum, In a few cases, RTSA retention or revision to another RTSA is impossible. For those patients, conversion to hemiarthroplasty is a valid fallback option to reduce the patient's pain levels and provide low-level function.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The implantation rates of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSAs) are increasing worldwide, resulting in higher absolute numbers of the associated complications and revision surgeries. This requires the discussion of salvage therapies for failed RTSAs without revision to a new RTSA. Revision to hemiarthroplasty may offer a valid fallback option in certain cases. This study aimed to analyze the incidence, indications, and clinical outcomes, especially the reduction in pain levels compared to a matched control group.
METHODS
METHODS
Our prospectively enrolled patient cohort of RTSA implantations at a tertiary referral center between January 2005 and December 2018 was retrospectively queried for revision to a hemiarthroplasty. For clinical outcome evaluation, a minimum follow-up duration of 2 years after revision to hemiarthroplasty was required. Clinical outcome measures were compared to two matching groups, one with RTSA preserving revision and one without any reintervention. The outcome measures were the absolute and relative Constant-Murley score (aCS and rCS), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), range of motion, and pain.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 21 out of 1237 RTSAs (1.7%) underwent salvage revision to hemiarthroplasty at a mean time of 20 ± 21 months (range, 1-75 months). Of those, 12 were available for a minimum follow-up of 2 years after revision to a hemiarthroplasty. The main indications were glenoid loosening (8/12), scapular spine fracture (2/12), and instability (2/21). Clinical outcome was analyzed at a mean follow-up period of 46 ± 26 months (24 months to 123 months) after revision to a hemiarthroplasty. The revision significantly reduced CS pain from 6 ± 4 points to 12 ± 3 points (scale 0 to 15 with 15 as optimum,
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In a few cases, RTSA retention or revision to another RTSA is impossible. For those patients, conversion to hemiarthroplasty is a valid fallback option to reduce the patient's pain levels and provide low-level function.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34766084
doi: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.07.003
pii: S2666-6383(21)00189-4
pmc: PMC8568842
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1055-1061Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Author(s).
Références
Bone Joint J. 2019 Apr;101-B(4):461-469
pubmed: 30929497
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Jun 1;98(11):893-9
pubmed: 27252433
HSS J. 2010 Feb;6(1):52-6
pubmed: 21283508
JSES Int. 2021 Apr 24;5(4):673-678
pubmed: 34223414
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Dec;24(12):1908-14
pubmed: 26163279
Praxis (Bern 1994). 2016 Jan 20;105(2):85-92
pubmed: 26787330
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Feb;102(1 Suppl):S33-43
pubmed: 26879334
Clin Orthop Surg. 2017 Sep;9(3):325-331
pubmed: 28861200
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Apr;30(4):811-818
pubmed: 32763380
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Sep;469(9):2476-82
pubmed: 21116759
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
JSES Open Access. 2017 Sep 19;1(2):79-84
pubmed: 30675544
Bone Joint J. 2018 Nov;100-B(11):1493-1498
pubmed: 30418055
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Sep;26(9):e265-e277
pubmed: 28684233
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Sep;24(9):e247-54
pubmed: 25958218
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015 Apr-Jun;9(2):60-7
pubmed: 25937717
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Feb;22(2):247-52
pubmed: 22938790
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Apr;28(4):774-781
pubmed: 30674426
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Jan;30(1):34-39
pubmed: 32807379
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Mar 15;99(6):454-461
pubmed: 28291177
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Aug;88(8):623-9
pubmed: 19620827
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jul 17;95(14):1297-304
pubmed: 23864178
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009 May;17(5):284-95
pubmed: 19411640
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jun;28(6S):S110-S117
pubmed: 31196504
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Jun;28(6S):S175-S180
pubmed: 31014559
Int Orthop. 2010 Dec;34(8):1075-82
pubmed: 20865260
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Dec;19(8):1115-20
pubmed: 20554454
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):717-21
pubmed: 18061114
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Oct;25(10):1690-8
pubmed: 27090009
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 Jul;19(7):439-49
pubmed: 21724923
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Jan;24(1):91-7
pubmed: 25440519
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019 Jun 15;27(12):426-436
pubmed: 31170096
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021 Apr;30(4):877-883
pubmed: 32777476
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2012 Apr;6(2):29-35
pubmed: 22787331
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Jul 21;15:244
pubmed: 25048533
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Oct;22(10):1359-70
pubmed: 23706884
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011 Jan;20(1):146-57
pubmed: 21134666
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Nov;25(11):1795-1802
pubmed: 27260994