This study reviews the predisposing features, the clinical, and laboratory findings at the time of diagnosis and the results of
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 Single-stage exchange is a successful and practical treatment
for patients with peri-prosthetic infection of the shoulder. Cite this article:
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 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° (
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.