Salvage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort analysis

• Published in: Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery Vol. 29; no. 7; pp. S134 - S138
• Main Authors: Otte, R. Stephen, Naylor, Amanda J., Blanchard, Kassandra N., Cancienne, Jourdan M., Chan, William, Romeo, Anthony A., Garrigues, Grant E., Nicholson, Gregory P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.07.2020
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder - adverse effects; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder - methods; failed shoulder arthroplasty; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; patient-reported outcomes; Postoperative Period; Preoperative Period; Range of Motion, Articular; Reoperation - adverse effects; Retrospective Studies; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; revision shoulder arthroplasty; Rotator Cuff - surgery; Salvage Therapy; Shoulder Joint - physiopathology; Shoulder Joint - surgery; Shoulder Pain - etiology; shoulder range of motion; Total shoulder arthroplasty; Treatment Failure; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult; Treatment Study; shoulder range of motion; patient-reported outcomes; Level IV; Case Series; revision shoulder arthroplasty; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; failed shoulder arthroplasty; Total shoulder arthroplasty
• ISSN: 1058-2746; 1532-6500; 1532-6500
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.04.013

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) as a revision procedure for failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is increasing in incidence. The purpose of this study was to analyze the results of RTSA as a revision salvage procedure for failed TSA and identify factors that influenced those outcomes. All anatomic TSAs that were revised to RTSAs in adult patients, under the care of 2 senior surgeons at a single academic center from 2006 to 2018, were queried and reviewed. Cases in which hemiarthroplasty or RTSA was revised to RTSA were excluded. Electronic medical records and survey databases were reviewed for each subject. Demographic and surgical details were reviewed and analyzed with descriptive statistics. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) including active forward elevation and active external rotation were evaluated. Patient-reported outcome surveys including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons survey, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and visual analog scale for pain were collected and analyzed. Improvement in ROM and outcome survey measures was assessed with 2-sample t tests. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed with descriptive statistics. A total of 75 patients (32 men and 43 women) were available for analysis at a mean of 22.3 months. The subjects were aged 60.3 ± 11.3 years at the time of TSA and 64.6 ± 9.7 years at the time of RTSA. The average period between TSA and RTSA was 4.3 years. The 3 most common indications for revision RTSA were painful arthroplasty (n = 62, 82.7%), rotator cuff failure (n = 56, 74.7%), and unstable arthroplasty (n = 25, 33.3%), but the majority of patients had multiple indications for surgery (n = 69, 92%). Significant improvements were found in all outcome measures from the time of failed TSA diagnosis to most recent follow-up after salvage RTSA with the exception of active external rotation: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 39 ± 15 preoperatively vs. 62 ± 25 postoperatively; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, 27 ± 23 vs. 60 ± 30; visual analog scale pain score, 5 ± 2 vs. 3 ± 3; and active forward elevation, 79° ± 41° vs. 128° ± 33°. Major complications occurred in 21 patients (28.4%) after salvage RTSA, and 9 (12%) underwent reoperation. RTSA for failed TSA can improve pain, function, and quality-of-life measures in patients with various TSA failure etiologies. However, postoperative ROM and patient-reported outcomes do not reach the values seen in the primary RTSA population.