Outcomes of revision versus re-revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A case

Abstract

Background

The increasing incidence of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSA) has led to an increase in revision surgery. We aimed to compare patients undergoing re-revision RTSA to a matched cohort undergoing first-revision RTSA.

Methods

A retrospective review of all revision RTSAs was performed at a single institution. Sixteen shoulders that underwent re-revision RTSA were matched 1:3 to shoulders that underwent revision RTSA with a minimum two-year follow-up. Outcome scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), Short-Form 12 (SF-12), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores, range of motion (ROM), and improvement from preoperative to postoperative outcomes after re-revision RTSA were assessed. Additionally, postoperative outcomes after re-revision RTSA were compared to patients that underwent first revision RTSA and subsequently compared to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for the outcome scores and ROM measurements assessed.

Results

Sixteen shoulders that underwent re-revision RTSA and 78 revision RTSAs met the final inclusion criteria to be included in this study. Significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative re-revision RTSA was seen in the ASES score (p = 0.046), SPADI score (p = 0.044), SST (p = 0.008), abduction (p = 0.016), and elevation (p = 0.025), but not the SF-12 score (p = 0.396), external rotation (p = 0.449), or internal rotation (p = 0.451). Outcomes after revision RTSA were found to be superior to outcomes after re-revision RTSA for all outcome scores (ASES p = 0.029, SF-12 p = 0.018, SPADI p = 0.003) except the SST score (p = 0.080) and all ROM measures (p > 0.05 for all). Internal rotation was equivalent postoperatively between both groups. From preoperative to postoperative re-revision RTSA, the mean improvement exceeded the MCID for the SST score, abduction, forward elevation, and external rotation. When comparing postoperative revision RTSA to postoperative re-revision RTSA, the mean difference between revision and re-revision RTSA exceeded the MCID for the SPADI score and external rotation. The complication rate was 19% in shoulders undergoing first revision and 41% in shoulders undergoing re-revision RTSA.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing re-revision RTSA receive improvement in clinical outcomes, but do not achieve outcomes comparable to those achieved after first revision RTSA.

Keywords

Revision shoulder replacement primary inverted total shoulder arthroplasty revision

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ortmaier

Resch

Matis

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty—outcome and follow-up. Int Orthop 2013; 37: 67–75.

Rugg

Coughlan

Lansdown

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: biomechanics and indications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2019; 12: 542–553.

Goldman

Halpern

Deal

, et al. Management of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Arthroplasty 2020; 4: 2471549220902296.

Palsis

Simpson

Matthews

, et al. Current trends in the use of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. Orthopedics 2018; 41: e416–e423.

Kim

Wise

Zhang

, et al. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93: 2249–2254.

Wagner

Farley

Higgins

, et al. The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty: rise and future projections compared with hip and knee arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2020; 29: 2601–2609.

Bohsali

Bois

Wirth

. Complications of shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 256–269.

Galvin

Kim

Ment

, et al. Outcomes and complications of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with minimum of 2 years’ follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022; 31: e534–e544.

Wagner

Hevesi

Houdek

, et al.

Can a reverse shoulder arthroplasty be used to revise a failed primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B: 1493–1498.

10.

Kelly

Zhao

Hobgood

, et al. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: 1516–1525.

11.

Dillon

Prentice

Burfeind

, et al. Risk factors for re-revision surgery in shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 28: e1049–e1058.

12.

Austin

Zmistowski

Chang

, et al.

Is reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reasonable alternative for revision arthroplasty?

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2531–2537.

13.

Saltzman

Chalmers

Gupta

, et al. Complication rates comparing primary with revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 1647–1654.

14.

Farshad

Grögli

Catanzaro

, et al. Revision of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty. Indications and outcome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 60.

15.

Flury

Frey

Goldhahn

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure–midterm results. Int Orthop 2011; 35: 53–60.

16.

Holcomb

Cuff

Petersen

, et al. Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid baseplate failure after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2009; 18: 717–723.

17.

Tashjian

Granger

Broschinsky

, et al. Effect of complications on outcomes after revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Int 2020; 4: 662–668.

18.

Gill

DRJ

Page

Graves

, et al. The rate of 2nd revision for shoulder arthroplasty as analyzed by the Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry (AOANJRR). Acta Orthop 2021; 92: 258–263.

19.

Imai

King

, et al. Matchit: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Softw 2011; 42: 1–28.

20.

Flurin

Marczuk

Janout

, et al. Comparison of outcomes using anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 2013; 71: 101–107.

21.

Hao

Hones

Keefe

, et al. Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2023; S1058-2746: 00365–8.

22.

Alentorn-Geli

Clark

Assenmacher

, et al.

What are the complications, survival, and outcomes after revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients older than 80 years?

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475: 2744–2751.

23.

Dezfuli

King

Farmer

, et al. Outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as primary versus revision procedure for proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25: 1133–1137.

24.

Mahylis

Puzzitiello

, et al. Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with structural versus nonstructural bone graft. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28: e1–e9.

25.

Sheth

Sholder

Getz

, et al. Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28: 1074–1081.

26.

Zumstein

Pinedo

Old

, et al. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2011; 20: 146–157.

27.

Shields

Wiater

. Patient outcomes after revision of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff failure or component loosening: a matched cohort study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019; 27: e193–e198.

28.

Simovitch

Flurin

Wright

, et al. Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27: 298–305.

29.

Boileau

Melis

Duperron

, et al. Revision surgery of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 1359–1370.

30.

Walker

Willis

Brooks

, et al. The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2012; 21: 514–522.

Outcomes of revision versus re-revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A case–control-matched cohort study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References