Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review.
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
complication
hemiarthroplasty
systematic reviews
Journal
Shoulder & elbow
ISSN: 1758-5732
Titre abrégé: Shoulder Elbow
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101506589
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
22
01
2021
revised:
02
05
2021
accepted:
03
05
2021
entrez:
6
10
2022
pubmed:
7
10
2022
medline:
7
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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%. 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.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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
UNASSIGNED
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36199509
doi: 10.1177/17585732211019390
pii: 10.1177_17585732211019390
pmc: PMC9527483
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
481-490Informations de copyright
© 2021 The British Elbow & Shoulder Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
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.
Références
Acta Orthop. 2013 Oct;84(5):473-8
pubmed: 24032523
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jul;89(7):1476-85
pubmed: 17606786
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000 Feb;10(1):2-11
pubmed: 10693606
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Dec;90(12):2606-15
pubmed: 19047705
JSES Int. 2020 Jan 03;4(1):156-168
pubmed: 32195479
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Sep;469(9):2425-31
pubmed: 21210311
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Jul;29(7S):S149-S156
pubmed: 31706802
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015 Oct;24(10):1519-26
pubmed: 25861853
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Sep;469(9):2424
pubmed: 21732025
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Dec;27(12):2175-2182
pubmed: 30104101
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Feb;89(2):189-95
pubmed: 17322433
Bone Joint J. 2018 Jun 1;100-B(6):761-766
pubmed: 29855243
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001 Jan-Feb;10(1):17-22
pubmed: 11182731
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jan;91(1):119-27
pubmed: 19122086
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Mar;23(3):401-8
pubmed: 24090978
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Oct;22(10):1359-70
pubmed: 23706884
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Nov;21(11):1478-83
pubmed: 22361717
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Feb 1;99(3):256-269
pubmed: 28145957
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012 Apr;21(4):514-22
pubmed: 21641825
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 Mar;466(3):670-6
pubmed: 18264855
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Apr;27(4):e107-e118
pubmed: 29175353
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Oct;27(10):1884-1890
pubmed: 29754843
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015 Apr-Jun;9(2):60-7
pubmed: 25937717
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Jan;27(1):75-81
pubmed: 28751094
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 May;25(5):e115-24
pubmed: 26704360
Orthopedics. 2019 Jan 1;42(1):e111-e117
pubmed: 30540874
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 2;2(8):e199951
pubmed: 31441940
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Nov;27(11):1946-1952
pubmed: 29934280
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2017 Jul;5(4):213-220
pubmed: 28913377
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018 Sep;6(5):353-358
pubmed: 30320173
Int Orthop. 2015 Jun;39(6):1115-9
pubmed: 25864089
Acta Orthop Belg. 2001 Oct;67(4):348-53
pubmed: 11725566
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016 Jul;25(7):1133-7
pubmed: 26897312
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019 Feb;28(2):e49-e56
pubmed: 30503332
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 May 3;99(9):736-742
pubmed: 28463917
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 17;96(24):2070-6
pubmed: 25520341
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Aug;26(8):e243-e251
pubmed: 28256437
Int Orthop. 2017 Jan;41(1):141-148
pubmed: 27112947
JBJS Rev. 2018 May;6(5):e5
pubmed: 29762342
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Jul;23(7):1036-42
pubmed: 24929746
Bone Joint J. 2015 Dec;97-B(12):1662-7
pubmed: 26637682
Chir Organi Mov. 2009 Apr;93 Suppl 1:S35-9
pubmed: 19711168
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020 Dec;29(12):2601-2609
pubmed: 33190759
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Nov;475(11):2716-2722
pubmed: 28849539
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011 Jul;19(7):439-49
pubmed: 21724923
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Feb;89(2):292-300
pubmed: 17272443
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013 Sep;22(9):1199-208
pubmed: 23385083
Hand Clin. 2007 Nov;23(4):425-30, v-vi
pubmed: 18054669
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Jan;(430):156-62
pubmed: 15662318
Surgeon. 2019 Oct;17(5):257-269
pubmed: 30166239
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017 Feb;26(2):279-287
pubmed: 27522338
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Nov-Dec;13(6):599-603
pubmed: 15570227