There have been only a few small studies of patients with an infected shoulder replacement treated with a single-stage exchange procedure. We retrospectively reviewed 35 patients (19 men and 16 women) with a peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder who were treated in this way. A total of 26 were available for clinical examination; three had died, two were lost to follow-up and four patients had undergone revision surgery. The mean follow-up time was 4.7 years (1.1 to 13.25), with an infection-free survival of 94%.

The organisms most commonly isolated intra-operatively were Staphylococcus epidermidis and Propionibacterium acnes; two patients developed a recurrent infection. Three different types of prosthesis were used: a hemiarthroplasty, a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and reverse prosthesis. The mean Constant-Murley score at final follow-up was 43.3 (14 to 90) for patients with a hemiarthroplasty, 56 (40 to 88) for those with a hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar head and 61 (7 to 90) for those with a reverse prosthesis. The mean hospital stay was 10.6 days (5 to 29).

Single-stage exchange is a successful and practical treatment for patients with peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:391–5.

This study reviews the predisposing features, the clinical, and laboratory findings at the time of diagnosis and the results of single-stage revision of prosthetic replacement of the elbow for infection. Deep infection occurred in six of 305 (1.9%) primary total elbow replacements. The mean follow-up after revision was 6.8 years (6 months to 16 years) and the mean age at the time of revision was 62.7 years (56 to 74). All six cases with infection had rheumatoid arthritis and had received steroid therapy. The infective organism was Staphylococcus aureus. Four of the six elbows had a developed radiolucency around one component or the other. Successful single-stage exchange arthroplasty was carried out with antibiotic-loaded cement in five of the six cases. In one, the revision prosthesis had to be removed following recurrence of the infection. The functional result was good in three elbows, fair in one, poor in one and fair in the resection arthroplasty

We retrospectively reviewed 11 consecutive patients with an infected reverse shoulder prosthesis. Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically, and standard laboratory tests were carried out. Peroperative samples showed Propionbacterium acnes in seven, coagulase-negative Staphylococcus in five, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in one and Escherichia coli in one. Two multibacterial and nine monobacterial infections were seen. Post-operatively, patients were treated with intravenous cefazolin for at least three days and in all antibiotic therapy was given for at least three months. Severe pain (3 of 11) or severe limitation of function (3 of 11) are not necessarily seen. A fistula was present in eight, but function was not affected. All but one patient were considered free of infection after one-stage revision at a median follow-up of 24 months, and without antibiotic treatment for a minimum of six months. One patient had a persistent infection despite a second staged revision, but is now free of infection with a spacer. Complications included posterior dislocation in one, haematoma in one and a clavicular fracture in one. At the most recent follow-up the median post-operative Constant-Murley score was 55, 6% adjusted for age, gender and dominance.

A one-stage revision arthroplasty reduces the cost and duration of treatment. It is reliable in eradicating infection and good functional outcomes can be achieved.

We retrospectively reviewed 21 patients (22 shoulders) who presented with deep infection after surgery to the shoulder, 17 having previously undergone hemiarthroplasty and five open repair of the rotator cuff. Nine shoulders had undergone previous surgical attempts to eradicate their infection. The diagnosis of infection was based on a combination of clinical suspicion (16 shoulders), positive frozen sections (> 5 polymorphonuclear leukocytes per high-power field) at the time of revision (15 shoulders), positive intra-operative cultures (18 shoulders) or the pre-operative radiological appearances. The patients were treated by an extensive debridement, intravenous antibiotics, and conversion to a reverse shoulder prosthesis in either a single- (10 shoulders) or a two-stage (12 shoulders) procedure.

At a mean follow-up of 43 months (25 to 66) there was no evidence of recurrent infection. All outcome measures showed statistically significant improvements. Mean abduction improved from 36.1° (sd 27.8) pre-operatively to 75.7° (sd 36.0) (p < 0.0001), the mean forward flexion from 43.1° (sd 33.5) to 79.5° (sd 43.2) (p = 0.0003), and mean external rotation from 10.2° (sd 18.7) to 25.4° (sd 23.5) (p = 0.0037). There was no statistically significant difference in any outcome between the single-stage and the two-stage group.

We report the use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis in the revision of a failed shoulder hemiarthroplasty in 19 shoulders in 18 patients (7 men, 11 women) with severe pain and loss of function. The primary procedure had been undertaken for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency.

Statistically significant improvements were seen in pain and functional outcome. After a mean follow-up of 44 months (24 to 89), mean forward flexion improved by 26.4° and mean abduction improved by 35°. There were six prosthesis-related complications in six shoulders (32%), five of which had severe bone loss of the glenoid, proximal humerus or both. Three shoulders (16%) had non-prosthesis related complications.

The use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis provides improvement in pain and function for patients with failure of a hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. However, high rates of complications were associated with glenoid and proximal humeral bone loss.