Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has improved the lives of many patients with complex shoulder pathology including rotator cuff arthropathy, glenoid bone defects, post-traumatic arthritis and failed non-constrained total shoulder arthroplasty. However, this non-anatomic replacement has a very different complication profile than has been observed with non-constrained shoulder arthroplasty and the revision of RTSA can be extremely challenging. The purpose of this talk is to review some of the typical complications observed in RTSA including instability, infection, stress fractures, peri-prosthetic fractures and glenoid failures, and discuss the treatment options for dealing with these difficult problems.
A reverse shoulder arthroplasty has become increasingly common for the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. A reverse shoulder arthroplasty is indicated especially in older and osteopenic individuals in whom the osteopenia, fracture type or comminution precludes fixation. However, there are many other ways to treat proximal humerus fractures and many of these are appropriate for different indications. Percutaneous pinning remains an option in certain surgical neck or valgus impacted proximal humerus fractures with minimal or no comminution at the medial calcar. In general, a fracture that is amenable to open reduction and fixation should be fixed. Open reduction and internal fixation should be the gold standard treatment for three-part fractures in younger and middle-aged patients. Four-part fractures should also be fixed in younger patients. Hemiarthroplasty results are less predictable as they are very dependent on tuberosity healing. While a reverse shoulder replacement may be considered in patients with severe comorbidities, patients always have better outcomes in the setting of an appropriately reduced and stably fixed proximal humerus fracture.
There is a large and growing population of patients with shoulder arthritis that are over 70 years old. Many of these patients live alone and sling immobilization after shoulder arthroplasty is problematic. Other than improved internal rotation, there are limited benefits of anatomic shoulder arthroplasty compared to
The 2021 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry report indicated that total shoulder replacement using both mid head (TMH) length humeral components and
Durable humeral component fixation in shoulder arthroplasty is necessary to prevent painful aseptic loosening and resultant humeral bone loss. Causes of humeral component loosening include stem design and material, stem length and geometry, ingrowth vs. ongrowth surfaces, quality of bone available for fixation, glenoid polyethylene debris osteolysis, exclusion of articular particulate debris, joint stability, rotator cuff function, and patient activity levels. Fixation of the humeral component may be achieved by cement fixation either partial or complete and press-fit fixation. During the past two decades, uncemented humeral fixation has become more popular, especially with short stems and stemless press fit designs. Cemented humeral component fixation risks difficult and complicated revision surgery, stress shielding of the tuberosities and humeral shaft periprosthetic fractures at the junction of the stiff cemented stem and the remaining humeral shaft. Press fit fixation may minimise these cemented risks but has potential for stem loosening. A randomised clinical trial of 161 patients with cemented vs. press fit anatomic total shoulder replacements found that cemented fixation of the humeral component provided better quality of life, strength, and range of motion than uncemented fixation but longer operative times. Another study found increased humeral osteolysis (43%) associated with glenoid component loosening and polyethylene wear, while stress shielding was seen with well-fixed press fit humeral components. During
Lateralization of the
Severe glenoid bone loss in patients with osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff is associated with posterior glenoid bone loss and posterior humeral subluxation. Management of severe glenoid bone loss during shoulder arthroplasty is controversial and technically challenging and options range from humeral hemiarthroplasty, anatomic shoulder replacement with glenoid bone grafting or augmented glenoid component implantation, to
We present a series of 18 consecutive cases of primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for irreparable proximal humerus fractures in patients over 70. Failure of tuberosity union and poor cuff function leads to unsatisfactory results in over half the patients with hemiarthroplasty. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty does not depend upon a functional rotator cuff and requires little formal rehabilitation. Patients over 70 with irreparable proximal humerus fractures treated with a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were included in this study. Only primary arthroplasties were included.
Glenoid bone loss is not an uncommon challenge in both primary shoulder arthroplasty surgery and revision surgery. Walch described the classification of glenoid morphology and this has led to an understanding of the expanded role for bone grafting, patient-specific implants and reverse prostheses. While bone grafting of the glenoid in conventional arthroplasty has been shown to be successful in some patients it is more routinely used in combination with reverse prostheses. More recently, augmented glenoid components have been developed for both conventional and
Introduction. Acromial and scapular fractures are a rare but difficult complication with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), with an incidence rate reported from 1–10%. The risk factors associated with these fractures types is largely unknown. The goal of this study is to analyze the clinical outcomes, demographic and comorbidity data, and implant sizing and surgical technique information from 4125 patients who received a primary rTSA with one specific prosthesis (Equinoxe, Exactech, Inc) and were sorted based on the radiographic documentation of an acromial and/or scapula fracture (ASF) to identify factors associated with this complication. Methods. 4125 patients (2652F/1441M/32 unspecified; mean age: 72.5yrs) were treated with primary rTSA by 23 orthopaedic surgeons. Revision and fracture
Experience has demonstrated in the hip and knee, related to total joint replacement arthroplasty, polymethyl methacrylate cement fixation can provide problems in terms of loosening, fragmentation, particulate wear and ultimate failure. These same problems have been recognised in total shoulder arthroplasty related to cement fixation of the glenoid. While cement fixation of the humeral component has proven much less problematic, there has been a swelling towards avoidance of using cement to secure the humeral component for fear of difficulty if revision is required. Surprisingly, with the high incidence of lucent lines, bone resorption and frank loosening, representing the most common source of failure in total shoulder arthroplasty, cementless fixation of the glenoid has not been, until now, embraced. The advent of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has demonstrated the ability for secure cementless fixation to provide long-lasting secure implant retention in implants which have inherently higher shear and stress forces passing through the implant/bone interface. In anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty a woven tantalum anchor (Trabecular Metal) has proven to demonstrate secure cementless fixation as well. This presentation will discuss the use of trabecular metal anchored glenoid implants with and without additional screw fixation for anatomic and convertible
Before reverse shoulder replacement was an option for rotator cuff tear arthropathy the treatment modalities were limited to injections and physical therapy for pain control, arthroscopic debridement with or without biceps tenodesis/tenotomy and hemiarthroplasty. Functional improvement was limited with these treatment options and success for pain control was moderate at best. The destructive nature of the rotator cuff deficient shoulder continued with medialization of the glenoid and erosion of the acromion seen even after replacement with hemiarthroplasty. The end result usually left the patient with a pseudo paralysis of the shoulder region functionally and uncontrolled pain that made later revision with a reverse implant difficult or impossible.
Is there an optimal way to place a glenoid in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA)? Four of the six parameters that a surgeon can control in a RTSA involve the glenoid. The parameters are: inferior tilt, increased lateral or inferior offset and increased glenosphere diameter. The theoretical challenges are further complicated by the normal variations that exist in the bony anatomy of the scapula and pathological abnormalities prevalent in as many as 40% of patients undergoing RTSA. Over the last 5 years there has been a growing body of data and study on the biomechanics, clinical outcomes and complications of this prosthesis. What have we learned? How does a surgeon incorporate this into their practice? The goal of this talk is to briefly review the current status of biomechanics on the impact of glenosphere positioning and offset on the outcome of
A primary goal of shoulder arthroplasty is to place the components in anatomic version. However, traditional instrumentation does not accommodate glenoid wear patterns. Therefore, many investigators have attempted to use computer modeling or CT-based algorithms to create custom targeting guides to achieve this goal. There are some recent studies investigating the use of custom guides. Iannotti et al. published in JBJS-American in 2012 on the use of patient specific instrumentation. There were 31 patients included in the study. The authors found that the planning software and patient specific instrumentation were helpful overall, but particularly of benefit in patients with retroversion in excess of 16 degrees. In this group of patients, the mean deviation was 10 degrees in the standard surgical group and 1.2 degrees in the patient specific instrumentation group. Throckmorton presented a study at the AAOS in 2014 on 70 cadaveric shoulders. There was one high volume surgeon (>100 shoulder arthroplasties a year), two middle volume surgeons (20–50 shoulder arthroplasties a year), and two low volume surgeons (less than 20 shoulder arthroplasties per year). Overall, the custom guide was significantly more accurate than standard instrumentation. The custom guides were found to be especially more accurate among specimens with associated glenoid wear. There were no strong trends to indicate consistent differences between high, medium, and low volume surgeons. The authors concluded that custom guides have narrower standard deviation and fewer significant errors than standard instrumentation. Custom guides continue to evolve for use in shoulder arthroplasty including some guides that allow the surgeon to decide intra-operatively between anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and
Periprosthetic joint infection (PPJI) following shoulder arthroplasty is uncommon, with an overall rate of 0.98%. However, the rates following revision arthroplasty and
There is nothing going to ruin your day like a complication after shoulder arthroplasty, either hemiarthroplasty (HA) anatomical (TSA) or
Introduction. Glenoid loosening, still a main complication in shoulder arthroplasty, could be related to glenohumeral orientation and conformity, cementing techniques, fixation design and periprosthetic bone quality [1,2]. While past numerical analyses were conducted to understand the relative role of these factors, so far none used realistic representations of bone microstructure, which has an impact on structural bone properties [3]. This study aims at using refined microFE models including accurate cortical bone geometry and internal porosity, to evaluate the effects of fixation design, glenohumeral conformity, and bone quality on internal bone tissue and cement stresses under physiological and pathological loads. Methods. Four cadaveric scapulae were scanned at 82µm resolution with a high resolution peripheral quantitative computer tomography (XtremeCT Scanco). Images were processed and virtually implantated with two anatomical glenoid replacements (UHMWPE Keeled and Pegged designs, Exactech). These images were converted to microFE models consisting of nearly 43 million elements, with detailed geometries of compact and trabecular bone, implant, and a thin layer of penetrating cement through the porous bone. Bone tissue, implant and cement layer were assigned material properties based on literature. These models were loaded with a central load at the glenohumeral surface, with the opposite bone surface fully constrained. Effects of glenohumeral conformity were simulated with increases of the applied load area from 5mm-radius to a fully conformed case with the entire glenoid surface loaded. The models were additionally subjected to a superiorly shifted load mimicking torn rotator cuff conditions. These models were solved and compared for internal stresses within the structures (Figure 1) with a parallel solver (parFE, ETH Zurich) on a computation cluster, and peak stresses in each region compared by design and related to apparent bone density. Results. Peak cement stresses were generally located at the interface with bone rather than implant (p<0.05), and peak bone stresses occurred around the cemented region. A larger trabecular load share was predicted with the Pegged compared to the Keeled design (Figure 2a). Superior load shift reduced this ratio but resulted in slight stress increase in the cement and implant, with the Keeled design less sensitive to this shift (Figure 2b). These effects were more pronounced with decreased overall bone density (Figure 2c). Increasing conformity significantly affected peak stresses in the cement and implant for both Keeled and Pegged designs (Figure 3) (p<0.041), but only significantly changed bone stresses for the Keeled design (p<0.047). Generally higher peak cement and trabecular bone stresses were predicted for the Pegged design. Discussion. Our detailed microFE analyses suggest that implant fixation design affects the sensitivity of internal stresses to glenohumeral load shifts, in particular within the cement region and through alterations in load sharing in the periprosthetic bone. Future steps including
Objective:. Evaluation of the early results of the implementation of reverse shoulder arthroplasty prosthesis “Comprehensive Reverse” in primary and revision shoulder arthroplasties. Material and Methods:. September 2010–December 2012, 48 patients (32 women, 16 men) underwent reverse shoulder arthroplasty using Comprehensive Reverse system. Average age of 69.88. A total of 46 patients were followed. In 22 patients the operation was performed for revision. Patients were pre-and postoperatively evaluated using Oxford, Constant, SF-12 scores, radiographs, pain and range of motion. Mean follow-up 13 months. Results:. In both groups there was an improvement in pain level from 7.9 to 3.2 in the primary replacement group and 7.8 to 5.3 in the revision group. Forward flexion has improved from 60 ° to 107 ° and from 53 ° to 95 ° respectively. Abduction has improved from 52 ° to 90 ° and 42 ° to 77 °, respectively. Significant improvement of Oxford Score from 13.77 to 33.30 in the first group and 12.27 to 21.20 in the second group. Constant score improved from 19.17 to 45.43 and 17.36 to 34.50 in both groups respectively. Furthermore, significant correlations were observed between the key variables. Post operative Complications includes separation of baseplate–glenosphere (one patient) required revision, large post operative hematoma in one patient and periprosthetic fracture type C in one case after a fall required revision using Mosaic Modular System. There was one case of superficial infection treated surgically and with antimicrobial treatment. Discussion:. The results of this study show a satisfactory short and acceptable result for the use of reverse shoulder prosthesis “Comprehensive” against primary disease of the shoulder and for revision with better results in the first group. Long-term monitoring is required to better and more complete clinical assessment of the
Background:. The use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has been increasing around the world. However, because of concerns over lack of internal rotation with the reverse prosthesis and the resultant difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs), many have recommended against performing bilateral RTSA. Methods:. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively obtained clinical data on 15 consecutive patients (30 shoulders) that underwent staged bilateral primary RTSA for the diagnosis of cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) between 2004 and 2012. All operations were performed by a single surgeon. The mean follow-up was 29.6 months from the second RTSA (range 12–65 months). The mean age of the patients at the time of the first operation was 72.9 years (range 63–79 years), and the mean duration between arthroplasties was 21.6 months (range 8–50 months). Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and yearly with standardized clinical exams and outcome measures questionnaires including Constant, ASES, UCLA, Simple Shoulder Test, SPADI, and SF-12 scores. Results:. On both operative sides, elevation showed significant improvement from preoperative values (p = 0.002 and p = 0.021); however, external rotation, abduction, and internal rotation did not show significant differences at an average follow-up of 29.6 months. The SPADI, Constant, ASES, UCLA, and SST scores of both RTSA shoulders showed significant improvement from preoperative values (p ≤ 0.001 for all scores); however, the SF-12 scores on either shoulder did not show significant improvement. Evaluation of the outcome measures questionnaire revealed that all 15 patients in the cohort were able to perform perineal hygiene after their
Shoulder arthroplasty has experienced exponential growth in the past 10–15 years, largely due to improvements in anatomical design, increased application of technology to address various clinical pathology, and improved access to experienced shoulder surgeons. Glenohumeral arthritis has historically been the most common indication for a shoulder replacement, and glenoid wear has been the main concern with regards to longevity of the prosthesis. Attempts to improve glenoid components involve alterations in peg or keel configuration, as well as the introduction of metal backed constructs. Early experience with metal backed components led to very poor results with often catastrophic loosening and destruction of glenoid bone. Proximal humerus fractures are another common indication for a shoulder arthroplasty, and in these cases, tuberosity fixation and healing are the challenge precluding a consistently successful result. More recently, base plate fixation in the setting of a reverse shoulder arthroplasty has come to the forefront as a significant factor. Trabecular metal technology has emerged as a compelling method of enabling powerful bone ingrowth to the surfaces of arthroplasty components. Trabecular metal is composed of tantalum. It is used to form a carbon scaffold which has a modulus between that of cancellous and cortical bone, thus has some flexibility when made into an independent construct. Vapor deposition onto arthroplasty surfaces provides a bone ingrowth surface. There is interest in utilizing trabecular metal for glenoid and tuberosity fixation in particular. Trabecular metal proximal coated stems provide an ingrowth surface for tuberosity fixation in the setting of proximal humerus fractures. Long term results are still pending. Because the metal is much less stiff then other metals, trabecular metal has recently been used along the back of polyethylene glenoids. The original design had a problem with fracture at the base of the pegs. A redesigned component instituting a cruciate design was implemented, and is currently available on a limited release basis with promising early results. The use of trabecular metal on the deep surface of the
