Aims. Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey. Methods. NJR shoulder arthroplasty records were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and the National Mortality Register. TSA and HA performed for osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with an intact rotator cuff were included. Metal and ceramic humeral head prostheses were matched within separate TSA and HA groups using propensity scores based on 12 and 11 characteristics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to first revision and the secondary outcome was non-revision reoperation. Results. A total of 4,799 TSAs (3,578 metal, 1,221 ceramic) and 1,363 HAs (1,020 metal, 343 ceramic) were included. The rate of revision was higher for metal compared with ceramic TSA, hazard ratio (HR) 3.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 6.58). At eight years, prosthesis survival for ceramic TSA was 98.7% (95% CI 97.3 to 99.4) compared with 96.4% (95% CI 95.2 to 97.3) for metal TSA. The majority of revision TSAs were for cuff insufficiency or instability/dislocation. There was no significant difference in the revision rate for ceramic compared with metal head HA (HR 1.33 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.34)). For ceramic HA, eight-year prosthetic survival was 92.8% (95% CI 86.9 to 96.1), compared with 91.6% (95% CI 89.3 to 93.5) for metal HA. The majority of revision HAs were for cuff failure. Conclusion. The rate of all-cause revision was higher following metal compared with ceramic humeral head TSA in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff. There was no difference in the revision rate for HA according to bearing surface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):482–491

We report our experience of staged revision surgery for the treatment of infected total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). Between 1998 and 2010 a consecutive series of 33 patients (34 TEAs) underwent a first-stage procedure with the intention to proceed to second-stage procedure when the infection had been controlled. A single first-stage procedure with removal of the components and cement was undertaken for 29 TEAs (85%), followed by the insertion of antibiotic-impregnated cement beads, and five (15%) required two or more first-stage procedures. The most common organism isolated was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in 21 TEAs (62%). A second-stage procedure was performed for 26 TEAs (76%); seven patients (seven TEAs, 21%) had a functional resection arthroplasty with antibiotic beads in situ and had no further surgery, one had a persistent discharge preventing further surgery. There were three recurrent infections (11.5%) in those patients who underwent a second-stage procedure. The infection presented at a mean of eight months (5 to 10) post-operatively. The mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) in those who underwent a second stage revision without recurrent infection was 81.1 (65 to 95). Staged revision surgery is successful in the treatment of patients with an infected TEA and is associated with a low rate of recurrent infection. However, when infection does occur, this study would suggest that it becomes apparent within ten months of the second stage procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1681–6

Aims. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has become the most common type of shoulder arthroplasty used in the UK, and a better understanding of the outcomes after revision of a failed RSA is needed. The aim of this study was to review the current evidence systematically to determine patient-reported outcome measures and the rates of re-revision and complications for patients undergoing revision of a RSA. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Studies involving adult patients who underwent revision of a primary RSA for any indication were included. Those who underwent a RSA for failure of a total shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Pre- and postoperative shoulder scores were evaluated in a random effects meta-analysis to determine the mean difference. The rates of re-revision and complications were also calculated. Results. The initial search elicited 3,166 results and, following removal of duplicates and screening, 13 studies with a total of 1,042 RSAs were identified. An increase in shoulder scores pre- to postoperatively was reported in all the studies. Following revision of a RSA to a further RSA, there was a significant increase in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (mean difference 20.78 (95% CI 8.16 to 33.40); p = 0.001). A re-revision rate at final follow-up ranging from 9% to 32%, a one-year re-revision rate of 14%, and a five-year re-revision rate of 23% were reported. The complication rate in all the studies was between 18.5% and 36%, with a total incidence of 29%. Conclusion. This is the largest systematic review of the outcomes following revision of a RSA. We found an improvement in functional outcomes after revision surgery, but the rates of re-revision and complications are high and warrant consideration when planning a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1293–1300

Aims. The aim of this study is to evaluate the change in incidence rate of shoulder arthroplasty, indications, and surgeon volume trends associated with these procedures between January 2003 and April 2021 in the province of Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods. A total of 1,545 patients between 2005 and 2021 were analyzed. Patients operated on between 2003 and 2004 were excluded due to a lack of electronic records. Overall, 84.1% of the surgeries (n = 1,299) were performed by two fellowship-trained upper limb surgeons, with the remainder performed by one of the 14 orthopaedic surgeons working in the province. Results. Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) was the most frequent procedure (32.17%; n = 497), followed by stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) (27.7%; n = 428). The most frequent indication for primary shoulder arthroplasty was degenerative osteoarthritis (58.1%; n = 882), followed by acute proximal humerus fracture in 15.11% (n = 245), and rotator cuff arthropathy in 14.18% (n = 220). The overall rate of revision was 7.7% (2.8% to 11.2%). The number of TSAs and reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSAs) has been increasing since 2016. The amount of revision cases is proportional to the number of operations performed in the same year throughout the study period. Conclusion. The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the Maritime Provinces has increased over the last 16 years. Revision rates are similar the those found in other large database registries. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty prevalence has increased since 2016. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):567–572

Aims. The current evidence comparing the two most common approaches for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), the deltopectoral and anterosuperior approach, is limited. This study aims to compare the rate of loosening, instability, and implant survival between the two approaches for rTSA using data from the Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry with a minimum follow-up of five years. Methods. All patients in the registry who underwent a primary rTSA between January 2014 and December 2016 using an anterosuperior or deltopectoral approach were included, with a minimum follow-up of five years. Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess the association between the approach and the implant survival, instability, and glenoid loosening, independent of confounders. Results. In total, 3,902 rTSAs were included. A deltopectoral approach was used in 54% (2,099/3,902) and an anterosuperior approach in 46% (1,803/3,902). Overall, the mean age in the cohort was 75 years (50 to 96) and the most common indication for rTSA was cuff tear arthropathy (35%; n = 1,375), followed by osteoarthritis (29%; n = 1,126), acute fracture (13%; n = 517), post-traumatic sequelae (10%; n = 398), and an irreparable cuff rupture (5%; n = 199). The two high-volume centres performed the anterosuperior approach more often compared to the medium- and low-volume centres (p < 0.001). Of the 3,902 rTSAs, 187 were revised (5%), resulting in a five-year survival of 95.4% (95% confidence interval 94.7 to 96.0; 3,137 at risk). The most common reason for revision was a periprosthetic joint infection (35%; n = 65), followed by instability (25%; n = 46) and loosening (25%; n = 46). After correcting for relevant confounders, the revision rate for glenoid loosening, instability, and the overall implant survival did not differ significantly between the two approaches (p = 0.494, p = 0.826, and p = 0.101, respectively). Conclusion. The surgical approach used for rTSA did not influence the overall implant survival or the revision rate for instability or glenoid loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):1000–1006

Aims. Corticosteroid injections are often used to manage glenohumeral arthritis in patients who may be candidates for future total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). In the conservative management of these patients, corticosteroid injections are often provided for symptomatic relief. The purpose of this study was to determine if the timing of corticosteroid injections prior to TSA or rTSA is associated with changes in rates of revision and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following these procedures. Methods. Data were collected from a national insurance database from January 2006 to December 2017. Patients who underwent shoulder corticosteroid injection within one year prior to ipsilateral TSA or rTSA were identified and stratified into the following cohorts: < three months, three to six months, six to nine months, and nine to 12 months from time of corticosteroid injection to TSA or rTSA. A control cohort with no corticosteroid injection within one year prior to TSA or rTSA was used for comparison. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the association between specific time intervals and outcomes. Results. In total, 4,252 patients were included in this study. Among those, 1,632 patients (38.4%) received corticosteroid injection(s) within one year prior to TSA or rTSA and 2,620 patients (61.6%) did not. On multivariate analysis, patients who received corticosteroid injection < three months prior to TSA or rTSA were at significantly increased risk for revision (odds ratio (OR) 2.61 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 3.28); p < 0.001) when compared with the control cohort. However, there was no significant increase in revision risk for all other timing interval cohorts. Notably, Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause revision (OR 4.00 (95% CI 1.40 to 8.92); p = 0.036). Conclusion. There is a time-dependent relationship between the preoperative timing of corticosteroid injection and the incidence of all-cause revision surgery following TSA or rTSA. This analysis suggests that an interval of at least three months should be maintained between corticosteroid injection and TSA or rTSA to minimize risks of subsequent revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):620–626

In this study, we evaluated patient-reported outcomes, the rate of revision and the indications for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in patients with osteoarthritis. All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR), between January 2006 and December 2010 were included. There were 772 patients (837 arthroplasties) in the study. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 12 months (10 to 14) post-operatively. The rates of revision were calculated from the revisions reported to the DSR up to December 2011 and by checking deaths with the Danish National Register of Persons. A complete questionnaire was returned by 688 patients (82.2%). The mean WOOS was 67 (0 to 100). A total of 63 hemiarthroplasties (7.5%) required revision; the cumulative five-year rate of revision was 9.9%. Patients aged < 55 years had a statistically significant inferior WOOS score, which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference, compared with older patients (mean difference 14.2 (8.8; 95% CI 19.6; p < 0.001), but with no increased risk of revision. There was no significant difference in the mean WOOS or the risk of revision between designs of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:519–25

Aims. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) can be used in complex cases when the glenoid requires reconstruction. In this study, a baseplate with composite bone autograft and a central trabecular titanium peg was implanted, and its migration was assessed for two years postoperatively using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods. A total of 14 patients who underwent a rTSA with an autograft consented to participate. Of these, 11 had a primary rTSA using humeral head autograft and three had a revision rTSA with autograft harvested from the iliac crest. The mean age of the patients was 66 years (39 to 81). Tantalum beads were implanted in the scapula around the glenoid. RSA imaging (stereographic radiographs) was undertaken immediately postoperatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months. Analysis was completed using model-based RSA software. Outcomes were collected preoperatively and at two years postoperatively, including the Oxford Shoulder Score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Score, and a visual analogue score for pain. A Constant score was also obtained for the assessment of strength and range of motion. Results. RSA analysis showed a small increase in all translation and rotational values up to six months postoperatively, consistent with settling of the implant. The mean values plateaued by 12 months, with no evidence of further migration. In four patients, there was significant variation outside the mean, which corresponded to postoperative complications. There was a significant improvement in the clinical and patient-reported outcomes from the preoperative values to those at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001). Conclusion. These findings show, using RSA, that a glenoid baseplate composite of a trabecular titanium peg with autograft stabilizes within the glenoid about 12 months after surgery, and reinforce findings from a previous study of this implant/graft with CT scans at two years postoperatively, indicating that this type of structural composite results in sound early fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):912–919

Aims. In patients with a failed radial head arthroplasty (RHA), simple removal of the implant is an option. However, there is little information in the literature about the outcome of this procedure. The aim of this study was to review the mid-term clinical and radiological results, and the rate of complications and removal of the implant, in patients whose initial RHA was undertaken acutely for trauma involving the elbow. Methods. A total of 11 patients in whom removal of a RHA without reimplantation was undertaken as a revision procedure were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 8.4 years (6 to 11). The range of motion (ROM) and stability of the elbow were recorded. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The functional outcome was assessed using the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH). Radiological examination included the assessment of heterotopic ossification (HO), implant loosening, capitellar erosion, overlengthening, and osteoarthritis. Complications and the rate of further surgery were also recorded. Results. The indications for removal of the implant were stiffness in five patients, aseptic loosening in five, and pain attributed to the RHA in three. The mean time interval between RHA for trauma to removal was ten months (7 to 21). Preoperatively, three patients had overlengthening of the implant, three had capitellar erosion, six had HO, and four had radiological evidence of loosening. At the final follow-up, the mean the flexion-extension arc improved significantly by 38.2° (95% CI 20 to 59; p = 0.002) and the mean arc of prono-supination improved significantly by 20° (95% CI 0 to 72.5; p = 0.035). The mean pain VAS score improved significantly by 3.5 (95% CI 2 to 5.5; p = 0.004). The mean MEPS improved significantly by 27.5 (95% CI 17.5 to 42.5; p = 0.002). The mean OES improved significantly by 9 (95% CI 2.5 to 14; p = 0.012), and the mean DASH score improved significantly by 23.5 (95% CI 7.5 to 31.6; p = 0.012). Ten patients (91%) had HO and osteoarthritis. Two patients underwent further surgery due to stiffness and pain, respectively. Conclusion. Simple removal of the implant at revision surgery following a failed RHA introduced following trauma provides satisfactory mid-term results with an acceptable risk of complications. Osteoarthritis, instability, and radioulnar impingement were not problems in this series. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1327–1332

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the incidence of implant-related complications, further operations, and their influence on the outcome in a series of patients who underwent primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Methods. The prospectively collected clinical and radiological data of 797 patients who underwent 854 primary RTSAs between January 2005 and August 2018 were analyzed. The hypothesis was that the presence of complications would adversely affect the outcome. Further procedures were defined as all necessary operations, including reoperations without change of components, and partial or total revisions. The clinical outcome was evaluated using the absolute and relative Constant Scores (aCS, rCS), the Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) scores, range of motion, and pain. Results. The overall surgical site complication rate was 22% (188 complications) in 152 patients (156 RTSAs; 18%) at a mean follow-up of 46 months (0 to 169). The most common complications were acromial fracture (in 44 patients, 45 RTSAs; 5.3%), glenoid loosening (in 37 patients, 37 RTSAs; 4.3%), instability (in 23 patients, 23 RTSAs; 2.7%), humeral fracture or loosening of the humeral component (in 21 patients, 21 RTSAs; 2.5%), and periprosthetic infection (in 14 patients, 14 RTSAs; 1.6%). Further surgery was undertaken in 79 patients (82 RTSAs) requiring a total of 135 procedures (41% revision rate). The most common indications for further surgery were glenoid-related complications (in 23 patients, 23 RTSAs; 2.7%), instability (in 15 patients, 15 RTSAs; 1.8%), acromial fractures (in 11 patients, 11 RTSAs; 1.3%), pain and severe scarring (in 13 patients, 13 RTSAs; 1.5%), and infection (in 8 patients, 8 RTSAs; 0.9%). Patients who had a complication had significantly worse mean rCS scores (57% (SD 24%) vs 81% (SD 16%)) and SSV scores (53% (SD 27%) vs 80% (SD 20%)) compared with those without a complication. If revision surgery was necessary, the outcome was even further compromised (mean rCS score: 51% (SD 23%) vs 63% (SD 23%); SSV score: 4% (SD 25%) vs 61% (SD 27%). Conclusion. Although the indications for, and use of, a RTSA are increasing, it remains a demanding surgical procedure. We found that about one in five patients had a complication and one in ten required further surgery. Both adversely affected the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):401–407

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in revision and complication rates, functional outcomes, and radiological outcomes between cemented and press-fit humeral stems in primary anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Materials and Methods. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted searching for studies that included patients who underwent primary anatomical TSA for primary osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. Results. There was a total of 36 studies with 927 cemented humeral stems and 1555 press-fit stems. The revision rate was 5.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.9 to 7.4) at a mean of 89 months for cemented stems, and 2.4% (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7) at a mean of 40 months for press-fit stems. A priori subgroup analysis to control for follow-up periods demonstrated similar revision rates: 2.3% (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7) for cemented stems versus 1.8% (95% CI 1.4 to 2.9) for press-fit stems. Exploratory meta-regression found that longer follow-up was a moderating variable for revision (p = 0.003). Conclusion. Cement fixation had similar revision rates when compared to press-fit stems at short- to midterm follow-up. Rotator cuff pathology was a prevalent complication in both groups but is likely not related to fixation type. Overall, with comparable revision rates, possible easier revision, and decreased operative time, humeral press-fit fixation may be an optimal choice for primary anatomical TSA in patients with sufficient bone stock. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1107–1114

Aims. A number of methods have been described to remove a well-fixed humeral implant as part of revision shoulder arthroplasty. These include the use of cortical windows and humeral osteotomies. The router bit extraction technique uses a high-speed router bit to disrupt the bone-implant interface. The implant is then struck in a retrograde fashion with a square-tip impactor and mallet. The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics and frequency of the different techniques needed for the removal of a well-fixed humeral stem in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Patients and Methods. Between 2010 and 2018, 288 revision shoulder arthroplasty procedures requiring removal of a well-fixed humeral component were carried out at a tertiary referral centre by a single surgeon. The patient demographics, indications for surgery, and method of extraction were collected. Results. Of the 288 revisions, 284 humeral stems (98.6%) were removed using the router bit extraction technique alone. Four humeral stems (1.39%) required an additional cortical window. Humeral osteotomy was not necessary in any procedure. Most of the humeral stems removed (78.8%) were cementless. Of the four humeral stems that required a cortical window, three involved removal of a hemiarthroplasty. Two were cemented and two were cementless. Conclusion. The router bit extraction technique removed a well-fixed humeral component in a very high proportion of patients (98.6%). This method allows surgeons to avoid more invasive approaches involving a cortical window or humeral osteotomy, and their associated complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1280–1284

Aims. The aim of this study was to use national registry database information to estimate cumulative rates and relative risk of revision due to infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Patients and Methods. We included 17 730 primary shoulder arthroplasties recorded between 2004 and 2013 in The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data set. With the Kaplan–Meier method, we illustrated the ten-year cumulative rates of revision due to infection and with the Cox regression model, we reported the hazard ratios as a measure of the relative risk of revision due to infection. Results. In all, 188 revisions were reported due to infection during a mean follow-up of three years and nine months. The ten-year cumulative rate of revision due to infection was 1.4% overall, but 3.1% for reverse shoulder arthroplasties and 8.0% for reverse shoulder arthroplasties in men. Reverse shoulder arthroplasties were associated with an increased risk of revision due to infection also when adjusted for sex, age, primary diagnosis, and year of surgery (relative risk 2.41 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 5.59); p = 0.001). Conclusion. The overall incidence of revision due to infection was low. The increased risk in reverse shoulder arthroplasty must be borne in mind, especially when offering it to men. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:702–707

Aims. Patients with a failed reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have limited salvage options. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of revision RSA when used as a salvage procedure for a failed primary RSA. Patients and Methods. We reviewed all revision RSAs performed for a failed primary RSA between 2006 and 2012, excluding patients with a follow-up of less than two years. A total of 27 revision RSAs were included in the study. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (58 to 82). Of the 27 patients, 14 (52% were female). The mean follow-up was 4.4 years (2 to 10). Results. Six patients (22%) developed complications requiring further revision surgery, at a mean of 1.7 years (0.1 to 5.3) postoperatively. The indication for further revision was dislocation in two, glenoid loosening in one, fracture of the humeral component in one, disassociation of the glenosphere in one, and infection in one. The five-year survival free of further revision was 85%. Five additional RSAs developed complications that did not need surgery, including dislocation in three and periprosthetic fracture in two. Overall, patients who did not require further revision had excellent pain relief, and significant improvements in elevation and external rotation of the shoulder (p < 0.01). The mean postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and simple shoulder test (SST) scores were 66 and 7, respectively. Radiological results were available in 26 patients (96.3%) at a mean of 4.3 years (1.5 to 9.5). At the most recent follow-up, six patients (23%) had glenoid lucency, which were classified as grade III or higher in three (12%). Smokers had a significantly increased risk of glenoid lucency (p < 0.01). Conclusion. Revision RSA, when used to salvage a failed primary RSA, can be a successful procedure. At intermediate follow-up, survival rates are reasonable, but dislocation and glenoid lucency remain a concern, particularly in smokers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1493–98

Aims. Few studies have compared survivorship of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) with hemiarthroplasty (HA). This observational study compared survivorship of TSA with HA while controlling for important covariables and accounting for death as a competing risk. Patients and Methods. All patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty in Ontario, Canada between April 2002 and March 2012 were identified using population-based health administrative data. We used the Fine–Gray sub-distribution hazard model to measure the association of arthroplasty type with time to revision surgery (accounting for death as a competing risk) controlling for age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, income quintile, diagnosis, and surgeon factors. Results. During the study period, 5777 patients underwent shoulder arthroplasty (4079 TSA, 70.6%; 1698 HA, 29.4%), 321 (5.6%) underwent revision, and 1090 (18.9%) died. TSA patients were older (TSA mean age 68.4 years (. sd. 10.2) vs HA mean age 66.5 years (. sd. 12.7); p = 0.001). The proportion of female patients was slightly lower in the TSA group (58.0% vs 58.4%). The adjusted association between surgery type and time to shoulder revision interacted significantly with patient age. Compared with TSA patients, revision was more common in the HA group (adjusted-health ratio (HR) 1.214, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.53) but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. Although there was a trend towards higher revision risk in patients undergoing HA, we found no statistically significant difference in survivorship between patients undergoing TSA or HA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:454–460

Aims. We present our experience of using a metal-backed prosthesis and autologous bone graft to treat gross glenoid bone deficiency. Patients and Methods. A prospective cohort study of the first 45 shoulder arthroplasties using the SMR Axioma Trabecular Titanium (TT) metal-backed glenoid with autologous bone graft. Between May 2013 and December 2014, 45 shoulder arthroplasties were carried out in 44 patients with a mean age of 64 years (35 to 89). The indications were 23 complex primary arthroplasties, 12 to revise a hemiarthroplasty or resurfacing, five for aseptic loosening of the glenoid, and five for infection. Results. Of the 45 patients, 16 had anatomical shoulder arthroplasties (ASA) and 29 had reverse shoulder arthroplasties (RSA). Postoperatively, 43/45 patients had a CT scan. In 41 of 43 patients (95%), the glenoid peg achieved > 50% integration. In 40 of 43 cases (93%), the graft was fully or partially integrated. There were seven revisions (16%) but only four (9%) required a change of baseplate. Four (25%) of the 16 ASAs were revised for instability or cuff failure. At two-year radiological follow-up, five of the 41 cases (11%) showed some evidence of lucent lines. Conclusion. The use of a metal baseplate with a trabecular titanium surface in conjunction with autologous bone graft is a reliable method of addressing glenoid bone defects in primary and revision RSA setting in the short term. ASAs have a higher rate of complications with this technique

Aims. Controversy about the use of an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) in young arthritic patients relates to which is the ideal form of fixation for the glenoid component: cemented or cementless. This study aimed to evaluate implant survival of aTSA when used in patients aged < 60 years with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), and to compare the survival of cemented all-polyethylene and cementless metal-backed glenoid components. Materials and Methods. A total of 69 consecutive aTSAs were performed in 67 patients aged < 60 years with primary glenohumeral OA. Their mean age at the time of surgery was 54 years (35 to 60). Of these aTSAs, 46 were undertaken using a cemented polyethylene component and 23 were undertaken using a cementless metal-backed component. The age, gender, preoperative function, mobility, premorbid glenoid erosion, and length of follow-up were comparable in the two groups. The patients were reviewed clinically and radiographically at a mean of 10.3 years (5 to 12, . sd. 26) postoperatively. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis was performed with revision as the endpoint. Results. A total of 26 shoulders (38%) underwent revision surgery: ten (22%) in the polyethylene group and 16 (70%) in the metal-backed group (p < 0.0001). At 12 years’ follow-up, the rate of implant survival was 74% (. sd.  0.09) for polyethylene components and 24% (. sd.  0.10) for metal-backed components (p < 0.0002). Glenoid loosening or failure was the indication for revision in the polyethylene group, whereas polyethylene wear with metal-on-metal contact, instability, and insufficiency of the rotator cuff were the indications for revision in the metal-backed group. Preoperative posterior subluxation of the humeral head with a biconcave/retroverted glenoid (Walch B2) had an adverse effect on the survival of a metal-backed component. Conclusion. The survival of a cemented polyethylene glenoid component is three times higher than that of a cementless metal-backed glenoid component ten years after aTSA in patients aged < 60 years with primary glenohumeral OA. Patients with a biconcave (B2) glenoid have the highest risk of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:485–92

Aims. Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is often challenging. The aim of this study was to report on the clinical and radiological results of revision arthroplasty of the elbow with the Latitude TEA. Patients and Methods. Between 2006 and 2010 we used the Latitude TEA for revision in 18 consecutive elbows (17 patients); mean age 53 years (28 to 80); 14 women. A Kudo TEA was revised in 15 elbows and a Souter-Strathclyde TEA in three. Stability, range of movement (ROM), visual analogue score (VAS) for pain and functional scores, Elbow Functional Assessment Scale (EFAS), the Functional Rating Index of Broberg and Morrey (FRIBM) and the Modified Andrews’ Elbow Scoring System (MAESS) were assessed pre-operatively and at each post-operative follow-up visit (six, 12 months and biennially thereafter). Radiographs were analysed for loosening, fractures and dislocation. The mean follow-up was 59 months (26 to 89). Results. The ROM of the elbow did not improve significantly. The mean EFAS and MAESS scores improved significantly six months post-operatively (18.6 points, standard deviation (. sd. ) 7.7; p = 0.03 and 28.8 points, . sd . 8.6; p = 0.006, respectively) and continued to improve slightly or reached a plateau. The mean pain scores at rest (Z = -3.2, p = 0.001) and during activity (Z = -3.2, p = 0.001), and stability (Z = -3.0, p = 0.003) improved significantly six months post-operatively. Thereafter scores continued to improve slightly or a plateau was reached. There were no signs of loosening. Conclusion. Revision surgery using the Latitude TEA results in improvement of functionality, reduced pain and better stability of the elbow. Improvement of ROM of the elbow should not be expected. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1086–92

Aims. The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry. Methods. All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision. Results. A total of 514 TEAs were included, of which 35 were revised. The five-year implant survival was 91%. Male sex, a higher BMI, and previous surgery to the same elbow showed a statistically significant association with revision (p < 0.036). Of the 35 revised implants, ten (29%) underwent a second revision. Conclusion. This study reports a five-year implant survival of TEA of 91%. Patient factors associated with revision are defined and can be used to optimize informed consent and shared decision-making. There was a high rate of secondary revisions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):110–119

Aims. Body exhaust suits or surgical helmet systems (colloquially, ‘space suits’) are frequently used in many forms of arthroplasty, with the aim of providing personal protection to surgeons and, perhaps, reducing periprosthetic joint infections, although this has not consistently been borne out in systematic reviews and registry studies. To date, no large-scale study has investigated whether this is applicable to shoulder arthroplasty. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry to assess whether the use of surgical helmet systems was associated with lower all-cause revision or revision for deep infection in primary shoulder arthroplasties. Methods. We analyzed 16,000 shoulder arthroplasties (hemiarthroplasties, anatomical, and reverse geometry prostheses) recorded on the New Zealand Joint Registry from its inception in 2000 to the present day. We assessed patient factors including age, BMI, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, as well as whether or not the operation took place in a laminar flow operating theatre. Results. A total of 2,728 operations (17%) took place using surgical helmet systems. Patient cohorts were broadly similar in terms of indication for surgery (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fractures) and medical comorbidities (age and sex). There were 842 revisions (5% of cases) with just 98 for deep infection (0.6% of all cases or 11.6% of the revisions). There were no differences in all-cause revisions or revision for deep infection between the surgical helmet systems and conventional gowns (p = 0.893 and p = 0.911, respectively). Conclusion. We found no evidence that wearing a surgical helmet system reduces the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection in any kind of primary shoulder arthroplasty. We acknowledge the limitations of this registry study and accept that there may be other benefits in terms of personal protection, comfort, or visibility. However, given their financial and ecological footprint, they should be used judiciously in shoulder surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(10):894–897