Instability after arthroplasty of the shoulder is difficult to correct surgically. Soft-tissue procedures and revision surgery using unconstrained anatomical components are associated with a high rate of failure. The purpose of this study was to determine the results of revision of an unstable anatomical shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse design prosthesis. Between 2004 and 2007, 33 unstable anatomical shoulder arthroplasties were revised to a reverse design. The mean age of the patients was 71 years (53 to 86) and their mean follow-up was 42 months (25 to 71). The mean time to revision was 26 months (4 to 164). Pain scores improved significantly (pre-operative visual analogue scale (VAS) of 7.2 (sd 1.6); most recent VAS 2.2 (sd 1.9); p = 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in mean active forward elevation from 40.2° (sd 27.3) to 97.0° (sd 36.2) (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in internal (p = 0.93) or external rotation (p = 0.40). Radiological findings included notching in five shoulders (15%) and heterotopic ossification of the inferior capsular region in three (9%). At the last follow-up 31 shoulders (94%) were stable. The remaining two shoulders dislocated at 2.5 weeks and three months post-operatively, respectively. According to the Neer rating system, there were 13 excellent (40%), ten satisfactory (30%) and ten unsatisfactory results (30%). Revision of hemiarthroplasty or anatomical total shoulder replacement for instability using a reverse design prosthesis gives good short-term results.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:668–72.

We assessed the long-term results of 58 Souter-Strathclyde total elbow replacements in 49 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The mean length of follow-up was 9.5 years (0.7 to 16.7). The mean pre-operative Mayo Elbow Performance Score was 30 (15 to 80) and at final follow-up was 82 (60 to 95). A total of 13 elbows (22.4%) were revised, ten (17.2%) for aseptic loosening, one (1.7%) for instability, one (1.7%) for secondary loosening after fracture, and one elbow (1.7%) was removed because of deep infection. The Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 70% and 53% at ten and 16 years, respectively. Failure of the ulnar component was found to be the main problem in relation to the loosening. Anterior transposition of the ulnar nerve had no influence on ulnar nerve paresthaesiae in these patients.

Mechanical loosening which begins with early-onset migration of the prosthesis is the major reason for failure of the Souter-Strathclyde elbow replacement. In a prospective study of 18 Souter-Strathclyde replacements we evaluated the patterns of migration using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. We had previously reported the short-term results after a follow-up of two years which we have now extended to a mean follow-up of 8.2 years (1 to 11.3). Migration was assessed along the co-ordinal axes and overall micromovement was expressed as the maximum total point movement. The alignment of the prosthesis and the presence of radiolucent lines were examined on conventional standardised radiographs.

All the humeral components showed increased and variable patterns of migration at the extended follow-up and four humeral components were revised. The maximum total point movement at two years in the revised prostheses was 1.8 mm (sd 1.0) and in the non-revised 0.7 mm (sd 0.5, p = 0.01). Most humeral components migrated into external rotation resulting in an anterior and varus tilt. The ulnar components remained stable.

Between 1976 and 2004, 38 revision arthroplasties (35 patients) were performed for aseptic loosening of the humeral component. The mean interval from primary arthroplasty to revision was 7.1 years (0.4 to 16.6). A total of 35 shoulders (32 patients) were available for review at a mean follow-up of seven years (2 to 19.3).

Pre-operatively, 34 patients (97%) had moderate or severe pain; at final follow-up, 29 (83%) had no or only mild pain (p < 0.0001). The mean active abduction improved from 88° to 107° (p < 0.01); and the mean external rotation from 37° to 46° (p = 0.27). Excellent or satisfactory results were achieved in 25 patients (71%) according to the modified Neer rating system. Humeral components were cemented in 29, with ingrowth implants used in nine cases. There were 19 of standard length and 17 were longer (two were custom replacements and are not included). Bone grafting was required for defects in 11 humeri. Only two glenoid components were left unrevised. Intra-operative complications included cement extrusion in eight cases, fracture of the shaft of the humerus is two and of the tuberosity in four. There were four re-operations, one for recurrent humeral loosening, with 89% survival free of re-operations at ten years.

Revision surgery for aseptic loosening of the humeral component provides reliable pain relief and modest improvement of movement, although there is a substantial risk of intra-operative complications. Revision to a total shoulder replacement gives better results than to a hemiarthroplasty.

There are theoretical and practical advantages to modular rather than monoblock designs of prostheses for shoulder arthroplasty, but there are no reported studies which specifically compare the clinical and radiological results of their use. We have compared the results of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis using both types of implant. The monoblock design was used between 1992 and 1995 and the modular design after 1995. Both had cemented all-polyethylene glenoids, the monoblock with matched and the modular with mismatched radii of curvature. There were 34 consecutive shoulders in each group with a mean follow-up of 6.1 years in the first and 5.2 years in the second.

There were no significant differences in improvement of pain scores, active elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, patient satisfaction, or the Neer ratings between the two groups. Two of 28 glenoid components in the first group and six of 30 in the second met the criteria for being radiologically at risk for loosening (p = 0.25). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome or radiological changes between the first- and second-generation designs of implant for shoulder arthroplasty.