Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty is nowadays a treatment option for a variety of shoulder problems. As its incidence rose, also the number of complications increased, including intraoperative fractures.

Significance

We performed a systematic review and critical analysis of the current literature following the PRISMA guidelines. Our purpose was to: 1) determine incidence, causes, and characteristics of intraoperative fractures; 2) evaluate their current treatment options, possible related complications, reoperation rates, and the patients’ outcome; and 3) determine the overall incidence of each complication related to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The articles were selected from PubMed medical database in April 2020 using a comprehensive search strategy. Rayyan software was used to support the selection process of the records. A descriptive and critical analysis of the results was performed.

Results

The study group included a total of 13,513 reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures. The total number of complications was 1647 (rate 12.1%). The most common complication was dislocation (340 cases, rate 2.5%). Forty-six studies reported a total of 188 intraoperative fractures among the complications (rate 1.4%). The intraoperative fracture rate was 2.9% and 13.6% in primary and revision settings, respectively. There were 136 humeral fractures, 60% of them occurred in revision RSAs, during the removal of the previous implant, and involved the shaft in the majority of cases (39%). Glenoid fractures were 51 and occurred mostly during the reaming of the glenoid. We observed 7 further related complications (rate of 4%) and 3 reoperations (rate of 1.5%). The outcome was satisfactory in the majority of cases.

Conclusions

A comprehensive review on intraoperative fractures in reverse shoulder arthroplasties is presented. Results suggest favorable outcomes for all treatment methods, with a modest further complication rate. This investigation may aid in the treatment decision-making for these complications.

Keywords

reverse shoulder arthroplasty complication intraoperative fracture periprosthetic fracture reverse shoulder replacement systematic review

Introduction

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), designed by Grammont in the late 1980s,¹ is nowadays a treatment option for a variety of shoulder problems. From the classical cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), the indications expanded to glenohumeral arthritis with or without deficient rotator cuff, displaced three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures in the elderly or their sequelae, massive rotator cuff tears with or without pseudo-paralysis, glenoid bone loss, failed previous arthroplasty, and proximal humeral tumors.²

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has already been performed for more than 25 years in Europe, while in the USA it was approved by the FDA only in 2003. Since that year, we observed such a large increase in its incidence that in 2011 RSA comprised one-third of all shoulder arthroplasties implanted in the USA.^3,4

As its incidence rose, also the number of complications, reoperations, and revisions increased.

Complications related to RSA have been well described and the complication rate has been reported to be four-times higher than in the anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty,⁵ ranging from 19 to 68%.^6-11

This variability seems to be caused by the heterogeneity of the studies in terms of different underlying indications, primary or revision procedures, different component designs, different populations, and surgeon experience. Moreover, the definition and inclusion criteria for reporting complications vary between authors.

Scarlat et al classified complications into nonspecific (infections, phlebitis, hematoma, and neurological complications of the brachial plexus) and specific complications (humeral and glenoid side). Specific complications on the glenoid side include intraoperative and postoperative fracture of the glenoid and acromion, late fracture of the scapula, notching, glenoid loosening, and dissociation of the glenoid component (disassembly of the glenosphere). On the humeral side, specific complications include intraoperative and postoperative fracture of the greater tuberosity, metaphyseal area or shaft, humeral loosening, and stress shielding. Other specific complications are shoulder instability and stiffness.¹²

Zumstein et al in a systematic review on the problems and complications of RSA reported an overall complication rate of 24%, with the most common complication being instability (4.7%) followed by infection (4%). In their study, it appeared that most of the complications occurred postoperatively (20.3%), while the intraoperative ones were 3.7%. Nevertheless, it’s interesting to consider that all of the intraoperative complications were fractures.⁹

Shah et al in a more recent systematic review analyzed several complications, including intraoperative humeral and glenoid fractures. They reported a rate of 1.8% for humeral fractures and .3% for glenoid fractures.¹³

To our knowledge, very few studies described extensively the intraoperative fractures including possible causes, treatment options, reoperation rates, and outcomes.

For this reason, we performed a systematic review and critical analysis of the current literature aiming to: 1) determine incidence, causes, and characteristics of intraoperative fractures; 2) evaluate their current treatment options, their possible related complications and reoperation rates, and the patients’ outcome; and 3) determine the overall incidence of each complication related to RSA.

Materials and Methods

A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) guidelines.¹⁴ The articles were selected from PubMed medical database in May 2020. The search terms used were (((Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder) AND reverse) AND fracture))) OR (((Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder) AND reverse) AND complication))) OR (((Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder) AND reverse) AND intraoperative fracture))). All Level-I to IV studies in English, Spanish, and French language, which were published between 1995 and May 2020, were considered for inclusion.

Inclusion criteria were the implantation of RSA for any possible indication both in a primary or revision setting; reporting of subjective and/or objective outcomes and/or complications.

Studies were excluded if they met the following criteria: the use of any shoulder prosthesis other than RSA; less than 20 cases; a minimum mean clinical and radiographical follow-up shorter than 12 months; use of national registers; reporting of only 1 single specific outcome and/or complication; reviews, editorials, technique articles without reported patient outcomes, cadaveric studies, kinematic/computed model analyses, clinical guidelines, instructional courses, and case reports.

Rayyan free web software was used to remove duplicates and select eligible studies from the database findings. Two independent reviewers (AD and GM) who have experience in conducting systematic reviews selected the eligible studies using Rayyan. Any discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The references of all relevant articles were manually cross-referenced to ensure that all possible articles were included. If a study included a cohort of patients who met the inclusion criteria and other patients who did not, the study was included and only data on patients who met our entry criteria were included. Patient data included in multiple studies were only included once to avoid duplication.

Data extracted from the studies included demographic information and clinical results.

Demographic data included the total number of cases and the minimum and mean follow-up.

Clinical results included any type of complications related to RSA. Alike Kempton et al,¹⁵ we initially divided complications into 2 main groups: local complications and perioperative systemic complications. Local complications included all intraoperative and postoperative problems involving the operative extremity. Perioperative systemic complications included all other health-related adverse events initiated within 2 weeks of the operation (embolism, pneumothorax, and myocardial infarction).

Local complications were secondary classified according to Zumstein’s definitions,⁹ with some rearrangements. A “complication” was defined as any intra or postoperative event that was likely to have a negative impact on the outcome (periprosthetic intra or postoperative fracture, infection, dislocation, nerve problems, aseptic loosening of any component, disassociation of the components, or glenoid screw problems), and “problem” as any intra or postoperative events perceived as adverse, but unlikely to affect the outcome (hematoma, thrombosis of the brachial vein, clinical scapular notching, tuberosity malunion or nonunion, prominent hardware, polyethylene wear, rupture of subscapularis or deltoid tendons, shoulder stiffness, cement extrusion, clinical heterotopic ossification, and broken hardware).

The studies that reported intraoperative fractures were further investigated for the RSA indications. These were first divided into 2 groups, primary and revision, and then subclassified under the leading diagnoses. The mean age of the patients was registered. Moreover, surgical data were scouted to find eventual intraoperative fracture leading cause, fixation techniques, related further complications, reoperations, revisions, and outcome. Further complications were defined as any intraoperative fracture-related event that was likely to have a negative influence on the patient’s outcome.

A priori registration of this systematic review protocol in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) was made on July 5^th, 2020 and it’s available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020180977.

Results

The search strategy returned 528 MEDLINE studies. After duplicates were removed, there were 524 studies for review; 95 records were marked as ineligible by automation tools and 4 were retrieved. Of the remaining 433 studies, 81 were excluded by title, 125 by abstract, and 80 by full text. In total 381 studies were excluded and 147 were included for the final analysis.,16 -27,27 -78,78 -118 see Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram.

Because of substantial study heterogeneity and small sample sizes, the data obtained from the selected studies were not adequate to perform a metaanalysis. For these reasons, a descriptive approach and critical analysis of the data were performed.

The study group included a total of 13,513 RSA procedures. The minimum follow-up was 23 months on average, while the mean follow up was 31.7 months on average. The total number of complications was 1647, comprehensive of 161 local problems, 1463 local complications, and 23 perioperative systemic complications. Therefore, we observed an overall complication rate of 12.2%. See Table 1.

Table 1.

Overall Adverse Events Incidence.

Total RSA Cases	N° Local Problems	N° Local Complications	Systemic Medical Complications	Overall Complications
13.513	161	1463	23	1.647
Rate	1.2%	10.8%	.2%	12.2%

The local problems were 161, representing a local problem rate of 1.2%, with hematoma being the most represented (68 cases, rate of .5%), followed by shoulder stiffness (21 cases, rate of .14%), and clinical heterotopic ossification (15 cases, rate of .11%).

The local complications were 1463, representing a local complication rate of 10.8%, with dislocation being the most represented (340 cases, rate of 2.5%), followed by infection (262 cases, rate of 1.9%), and acromial postoperative fracture (149 cases, rate of 1.15%).

The perioperative systemic complication rate was .2%, with 12 cases of embolism, 6 cases of pneumothorax, and 5 of myocardial infarction.

The periprosthetic fractures were 469 (rate of 3.4%), comprehensive of 188 intraoperative and 281 postoperative ones (149 acromial fractures, 123 humeral fractures, and 9 glenoid fractures). See Table 2.

Table 2.

The 10 Most Common Local Complications and Problems.

Rank	Local Complication	N° Cases	Rate, %
1	DISLOCATION	340	2.52
2	INFECTION	262	1.94
3	ACROMIAL POSTOP. FX^a	149	1.1
4	HUMERAL INTRAOP FX^a	136	1
5	NERVE LESION	130	.96
6	HUMERAL POST OP FX^a	123	.91
7	GLENOID LOOSENING	120	.89
8	HUMERAL LOOSENING	82	.61
9	HEMATOMA	68	.50
10	GLENOID INTRAOP. FX^a	51	.37

^aFX: fracture.

Forty-six studies^{15,46,66,69,119-134,134–157} reported a total of 188 intraoperative fractures (IFx) among the complications, representing a global IFx rate of 1.4%.

Thirty-five Authors reported 136 intraoperative humeral fractures (IHFx) (rate of 1%).

Twenty-five Authors reported 51 intraoperative glenoid fractures (IGFx) (rate of .37%). One Author reported a coracoid fracture (overall rate of .007%).

The mean age of these studies’ population was 72 years old and female sex was predominant. However, most of the Authors did not report the sex of the patients who had IFx, therefore this data is not available in our analysis.

In the studies that reported IFx, 53% (99 cases) occurred among 3439 primary RSA (rate of 2.9%), whereas 47% (89 cases) occurring among 650 revision RSA (rate of 13.6%).

The 40% (54 cases, rate in primary RSA of 1.5%) of IHFx occurred in primary setting, whereas 60% (82 cases, rate in revision RSA of 12.6%) in revision setting. The 86% (44 cases, rate in primary RSA of 1.3%) of IGFx occurred in primary RSA, for which cuff tear arthropathy and rheumatoid arthritis were the predominant indications. The 14% (7 cases, rate in revision RSA of 1%) occurred in revision setting.

IHFx involved the shaft in 53 cases (39%), the greater tuberosity in 37 cases (27%) of cases, and the metaphysis in 22 cases (16%). Four studies (24 cases) did not report the humeral area involved.

Twenty-eight Authors reported the treatment for IHFx.

Twenty-nine (80%) of the 37 greater tuberosity fractures were treated with sutures, whereas 4 (10%) did not require any fixation and were treated conservatively. One study reported 4 greater tuberosity fractures but did not report the treatment option used.

Thirteen (59%) of the 22 humeral metaphysis fractures were treated with cerclage wires, whereas 7 (31%) were treated conservatively and 1 case was treated with bone suture. One study reported 1 humeral metaphysis fracture without reporting the treatment option used.

Twenty-six (49%) of the 53 humeral shaft fractures were treated with cerclage wires and in 3 of them additional bone grafting was required. In 9 cases (17%) the stem was replaced with a long stem and among these, in 8 cases cerclage wires were also used and in 1 case additional bone grafting was required. In 2 cases (4%) the fracture was treated conservatively. In 1 case, plate osteosynthesis was used. Four studies reported 14 humeral shaft fractures without reporting the treatment option used.

Seventeen Authors reported the treatment for IGFx. Fourteen (27.4%) of the 51 IGFx were treated conservatively; in 5 cases (7.8%) the fracture was fixed using the metaglene screws and bone graft from the humeral head; in 2 cases with bone grafting; in 1 case with revision baseplate; and in 1 case with conversion to hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the same surgical time. In 27 cases the treatment was not reported. See Table 3.

Table 3.

Intraoperative Fractures and Treatment.

Area	N° Cases	Treatment
HUMERAL INTRAOP. FX^a		CONSERVATIVE	SUTURE	WIRES	LONG STEM ± WIRES AND BONE GRAFT	PLATE	NOT REPORTED
GT	37 (27%)	4 (10%)	29 (80%)				4 (10%)
METAPHYSIS	22 (16%)	7 (31%)	1 (5%)	13 (59%)			1 (5%)
SHAFT	53 (39%)	2 (4%)		26 (49%)	9 (17%)	1 (2%)	15 (28%)
NOT REPORTED	24 (18%)
GLENOID INTRAOP. FX^a		CONSERVATIVE	METAGLENE SCREWS	BONE GRAFT	REVISION BASEPLATE	REVISION TO HA^a	NOT REPORTED
GLENOID	51	14 (28%)	6 (12%)	2 (4%)	1 (1.5%)	1 (1.5%)	27 (53%)

^aFX: fracture; GT: greater tuberosity, HA: hemiarthroplasty.

Sixty-nine IHFx (51%) occurred during the removal of a previous implant or cement mantle, whereas 16 cases (12%) were caused by reaming of the humeral canal and 5 cases (3%) by final stem insertion. For the remaining 46 cases (34%) the intraoperative moment in which the fracture occurred or the leading cause were not specified.

Only 10 authors described the moment in which the IGFx occurred. In 10 cases (20%) it corresponds with the glenoid reaming during preparation, whereas in 4 cases (7%) with baseplate insertion. For the remaining 37 cases (73%) the intraoperative moment in which the fracture occurred or the leading cause were not specified. See Table 4.

Table 4.

Intraoperative Fractures and Cause/Intraoperative Moment.

Humeral Intraop. FX^a	Cause/Intraoperative Moment
N° CASES	REAMING	REMOVAL OF THE PREVIOUS IMPLANT	STEM/baseplate INSERTION	NOT REPORTED
136	16 (12%)	69 (51%)	5 (3%)	46 (34%)
GLENOID INTRAOP. FX^a
N° CASES
51	10 (20%)		4 (7%)	37 (73%)

^aFX: fracture.

Fifteen of the 46 studies reported whether some type of further intraoperative fracture-related complication occurred or not. Among these, in 11 studies no further complications were reported, whereas 4 studies reported 7 further complications (rate of 4%): 3 nerve lesions caused by excessive compression from cerclage wires fixation used for 3 humeral shaft fractures; 2 instability cases in 2 humeral shaft fractures; 1 nerve lesion in 1 case of humeral shaft fracture; 1 glenoid loosening and 1 clinical scapular notching after 2 glenoid fractures.

There were only 3 reoperations (rate 1.6%) due to IFx: 2 revisions for instability occurred after 2 IHFx and 1 conversion to a hemiarthroplasty for glenoid loosening occurred after 1 IGFx.

Twelve of the 46 studies reported the outcome: this was satisfactory after 26 IHFx and poor after 1 IHFx complicated by nerve lesion that was not fully resolved at final follow-up. The outcome was satisfactory after 7 IGFx and poor after 1 IGFx complicated by glenoid loosening and required revision.

Discussion

RSA is a viable surgical treatment for many complex shoulder conditions and the interest in this procedure is growing as the indications continue to expand. Today it is commonly performed all over the world. However, it remains a difficult procedure and high rates of complications are still being reported.¹³⁴

By excluding any study focused on single specific complications or outcomes, we tried to give our review the most accurate possible design to evaluate the real complication rate.

In our analysis, the overall complication rate was 12.2%, which is much lower than the 68.5% reported by Zumstein et al,⁹ but closer to the 15% and 16.1% reported by other Authors.^158,159 Dislocation was the most common complication observed with a rate of 2.5%, lower than the 1 reported by Bohsali et al (5%) and Zumstein et al (4.7%).^9,158

The second most common complication observed was infection with a rate of 1.9%. This data is in line with the 1.2% reported by Bohsali et al,¹⁵⁸ but lower than the 3.8% reported by Zumstein et al and the 2.4% reported by Shah et al.^9,13

We observed a total of 469 periprosthetic fractures, representing a rate of 3.4%, lower than the 7.8% rate reported by Brusalis et al¹⁵⁹ Moreover, we observed a higher rate of postoperative fractures compared to intraoperative ones, while other Authors reported the opposite.^13,158

These differences reflect the heterogeneity behind the study selection process, differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria, and large variability in reporting complications among Authors. For example, some Authors may decide to include perioperative systemic medical complications, such as pulmonary embolism, believing that this method of reporting provides a more complete picture of the perioperative and postoperative course, while most investigators only report complications related to the shoulder.^141,149

We observed 188 IFx, representing a rate of 1.4%, lower than the 3% rate and the 2.1% reported by other Authors.^9,13 IHFx were more common (rate of 1%) than IGFx (rate of .37%).

In the studies that reported IFx, the indications for RSA were usually reported for the whole cohort rather than specifically for the patients who had the IFx. This is why it was not possible to set up a correlation between indications and the risk of IFx. In general, we observed much less detailed reports for IGFx than IHFx. For example, for 53% of IGFx the treatment was not reported, and for up to 73% of IGFx the intraoperative cause was not explained. This may partially influence the precision in which an overview of IGFx can be provided.

We observed an IFx rate of 13.6% and 2.9% in revision and primary RSA, respectively. This data is mostly determined by the high rate of IHFx in revision RSA (rate of 12.6% in revision vs. 1.5% in primary RSA), occurring during the removal of a previous implant or cement mantle. Differently from IHFx, IGFx were far less related to the type of RSA procedure and occurred substantially at the same rate in primary (1.3%) and revision RSA (1%).

The choice of surgical approach may influence the fracture rate. In revision cases, Valenti et al. reported that a deltopectoral approach facilitates the extraction of both humeral stem and cement, thus preventing the fracture of the diaphysis.¹²² Differently, an IGFx is observed more frequently in the superolateral approach, probably related to the strength applied on the inferior retractor.¹

Special attention must be given to arm positing through the whole procedure, as an extension, rotation, and translation to dislocate or reduce the humeral head often result in IFx.¹⁵⁹

Operative planning is mandatory, especially for revision surgeries, whereas modular revision sets, including long stems, revision components, as well as plate and cerclage systems or sutures, are mandatory, besides all the removal instrumentation.¹³³ Particular attention must be given to the quality of the humeral bone stock, component surface coating, and the thickness of the humeral cement, especially in elderly females, before attempting component extraction. Valid options are humeral osteotomies or humeral windows, but we need to remember that IFx may still occur despite these techniques.^119,124

Alternatively, the use of the cement-within-cement technique and a shorter humeral stem to revise a cemented humeral component can be considered, to reduce the risk of distal fractures.^122,133

The use of convertible or modular shoulder arthroplasty systems could reduce in the future the need to remove the stem and the incidence of humeral fractures. A comprehensive low incidence of IFx in revision RSA (4.3%), compared to other revision series, is shown when revision RSA is made on surface arthroplasties, due to the absence of stem or cement.¹²⁸

Finally, always remember that overstuffing the humeral canal while broaching or during press-fit humeral stem insertion can result in metaphyseal fractures.¹⁶⁰ Propagation of cracks can occur during cementation and implantation of the prosthesis and using cables can prevent this from happening.^46,140

The treatment of IHFx depends on the location, the fracture displacement, the bone quality, and the stability of the component/bone interface. Greater tuberosity fractures may be treated with suture fixation if there is any displacement, or left in situ and observed if they are nondisplaced and do not extend distally. In our analysis, 80% of greater tuberosity fractures were treated with sutures and 10% conservatively.

In case of nondisplaced or minimally displaced fractures isolated to the calcar or metaphysis, with no extension into the humeral diaphysis, the stabilization of the stem with a press-fit implant or cemented stem and/or cerclage wiring allows having good stability of the implant and the consolidation of the fracture. In our analysis, 59% of metaphyseal fractures were treated with cerclage wires. A long-stemmed implant and adjunct fixation with wires should be used if the humeral implant stability is in question, for example in shaft fractures. In our analysis, 17% of shaft fractures were treated with a long-stem implant, while 49% with cerclage wires only. Bone grafts can be used in cases of bone loss.^124,144,160

IGFx are usually focal and small. Partial fractures seem to not compromise the long-term fixation of the prosthesis and affect the postoperative care or rehabilitation. However, in case of complete IGFx, the effects may be dramatic and must be avoided. They occur mostly during reaming (20% of cases). Technical care is required to assess the glenoid and accurate placement and orientation of the central peg of the baseplate remain difficult. When the glenoid is extremely soft or brittle, hand reaming may be a good option as pneumatic power drills with high torque may cause a fracture.¹⁶¹ A fracture can occur in case of cuff tear arthropathy, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoporosis when the glenoid is eroded far medially and the bone is brittle. The danger may be anticipated on standard x-rays, but a CT scan is indicated to obtain more precise information concerning the orientation of the prosthesis and the relative danger to perforate and breaking the glenoid. When an IGFx occurs, it can be managed conservatively when the fragment is small (28% of cases). In case of a bigger fragment, it can be fixed using the metaglenoid screws (12% of cases), with or without the support of bone graft. In a completely unstable situation, conversion to hemiarthroplasty may be necessary.

Coracoid intraoperative fracture is extremely rare (overall rate of .007%).

The postoperative outcome was not extensively reported (12 studies among 46), however, IFx seem to not affect it substantially and it was satisfactory in the majority of cases.

Conclusion

Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures represent a major challenge for orthopaedic surgeons in reverse shoulder surgery. Further investigations are needed to reduce their risk. While these complications cannot be completely avoided, a better understanding of their causes and/or patient risk factors may help the surgeon to decrease their frequency. Moreover, convertible or modular shoulder arthroplasty systems could reduce the risk of fractures in the future.

The improvement of surgical techniques and the achievement of higher fracture union rates are the keys to overcome these complications, while still obtaining good shoulder function.

Footnotes

Author Contribution

All Authors equally contributed to this paper. AD, GM, and MV contributed to the design of the work, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; BM and AC revised it critically for important intellectual content.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Andrea Dolci

References

Baulot

Sirveaux

Boileau

. Grammont's idea: The story of paul grammont's functional surgery concept and the development of the reverse principle. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2425-2431. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1757-y.

Rugg

Coughlan

Lansdown

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Biomechanics and indications. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 2019;12(4):542-553. doi:10.1007/s12178-019-09586-y.

Kim

Wise

Zhang

Szabo

. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 2011;93(24):2249-2254. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.

Westermann

Pugely

Martin

Gao

Wolf

Hettrich

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the United States: A comparison of national volume, patient demographics, complications, and surgical indications. Iowa Orthop J. 2015;35:1-7.

Chin

PYK

Sperling

Cofield

Schleck

. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: Are they fewer or different?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(1):19-22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.05.005.

Affonso

Nicholson

Frankle

Walch

Gerber

Garzon-Muvdi

, et al. Complications of the reverse prosthesis: prevention and treatment. Instr Course Lect. 2012;61:157-168.

Cheung

Willis

Walker

Clark

Frankle

. Complications in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(7):439-449.

Barco

Savvidou

Sperling

Sanchez-Sotelo

Cofield

. Complications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. EFORT Open Reviews. 2016;1(3):72-80. doi:10.1302/2058-5241.1.160003.

Zumstein

Pinedo

Old

Boileau

. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):146-157. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.001.

10.

Farshad

Gerber

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-from the most to the least common complication. Int Orthop. 2010;34(8):1075-1082. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1125-2.

11.

Jauregui

Nadarajah

Shield

Henn

Gilotra

Hasan

. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. JBJS Reviews. 2018;6(8):e3. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00152.

12.

Scarlat

. Complications with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and recent evolutions. Int Orthop. 2013;37(5):843-851. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1832-6.

13.

Shah

Roche

Sullivan

Gaal

Dalton

Sharma

, et al. The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part II. JSES International. 2021;5(1):121-137. doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2020.07.018.

14.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

Boutron

Hoffmann

Mulrow

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.Published online March.

15.

Kempton

Ankerson

Wiater

. A complication-based learning curve from 200 reverse shoulder arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2496-2504. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1811-4.

16.

Werner

CML

. Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(7):1476. doi:10.2106/JBJSD02342.

17.

Cuff

Pupello

Virani

Levy

Frankle

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg. 2008;90(6):1244-1251. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00775.

18.

Young

Everts

Ball

Astley

Poon

. The SMR reverse shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of cuff-deficient shoulder conditions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4):622-626. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.01.017.

19.

Cazeneuve

Cristofari

D-J

. The reverse shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly. J Bone Jt Surg Br Vol. 2010;92-B(4):535-539. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92B4.22450.

20.

Favard

Levigne

Nerot

Gerber

De Wilde

Mole

. Reverse prostheses in arthropathies with cuff tear: Are survivorship and function maintained over time?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2469-2475. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1833-y.

21.

Levy

Frankle

Mighell

Pupello

. The use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89(2):292-300. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01310.

22.

Lenarz

Shishani

McCrum

Nowinski

Edwards

Gobezie

. Is reverse shoulder arthroplasty appropriate for the treatment of fractures in the older patient?: Early observations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(12):3324-3331. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2055-z.

23.

Leung

Horodyski

Struk

Wright

. Functional outcome of hemiarthroplasty compared with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of rotator cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):319-323. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.023.

24.

Walker

Willis

Brooks

Pupello

Mulieri

Frankle

. The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(4):514-522. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.006.

25.

Walch

Bacle

Lädermann

Nové-Josserand

Smithers

. Do the indications, results, and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty change with surgeon's experience? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1470-1477. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.010.

26.

Ortmaier

Resch

Matis

Blocher

Auffarth

Mayer

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty-outcome and follow-up. Int Orthop. 2013;37(1):67-75. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1742-z.

27.

Beck

Irgit

Andreychik

Maloney

Tang

Harter

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in obese patients. J Hand Surg. 2013;38(5):965-970. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.02.025.

28.

Castagna

Delcogliano

de Caro

Ziveri

Borroni

Gumina

, et al. Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: Clinical and radiological results using a modular system. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1297-1305. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1907-4.

29.

ETH

Neukom

Catanzaro

Gerber

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: Results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1199-1208. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.11.016.

30.

Muh

Streit

Wanner

Lenarz

Shishani

Rowland

, et al. Early follow-up of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg. 2013;95(20):1877-1883. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.10005.

31.

Cuff

Pupello

. Comparison of hemiarthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg. 2013;95(22):2050-2055. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01637.

32.

Groh

. Complications rates, reoperation rates, and the learning curve in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(3):388-394. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.002.

33.

Uri

Beckles

Higgs

Falworth

Middleton

Lambert

. Increased-offset reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of failed post-traumatic humeral head replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(3):401-408. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.041.

34.

Baudi

Campochiaro

Serafini

Gazzotti

Matino

Rovesta

, et al. Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty: comparative study of functional and radiological outcomes in the treatment of acute proximal humerus fracture. Musculoskeletal Surgery. 2014;98(S1):19-25. doi:10.1007/s12306-014-0322-3.

35.

Black

Roberts

Siegel

Yannopoulos

Higgins

Warner

JJP

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as salvage for failed prior arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(7):1036-1042. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.019.

36.

Pappou

Virani

Clark

Cottrell

Frankle

. Outcomes and costs of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the morbidly obese. J Bone Joint Surg. 2014;96(14):1169-1176. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00735.

37.

Wiater

Moravek

Budge

Koueiter

Marcantonio

Wiater

. Clinical and radiographic results of cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a comparative study with 2 to 5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(8):1208-1214. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.11.032.

38.

Zafra

Uceda

Flores

Carpintero

. Reverse total shoulder replacement for nonunion of a fracture of the proximal humerus. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2014;96-B(9):1239-1243. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B9.33157.

39.

Bigorre

Lancigu

Bizot

Hubert

. Predictive factors of scapular notching in patients with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol: Surgery & Research. 2014;100(7):711-714. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2014.06.013.

40.

Raiss

Edwards

da Silva

Bruckner

Loew

Walch

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of nonunions of the surgical neck of the proximal part of the humerus (type-3 fracture sequelae). J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. 2014;96(24):2070-2076. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.00405.

41.

Ross

Hope

Stokes

Peters

McLeod

Duke

PFR

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of three-part and four-part proximal humeral fractures in the elderly. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):215-222. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.022.

42.

Kiet

Feeley

Naimark

Gajiu

Hall

Chung

, et al. Outcomes after shoulder replacement: comparison between reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):179-185. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.039.

43.

King

Farmer

Struk

Wright

. Uncemented versus cemented humeral stem fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2015;39(2):291-298. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2593-6.

44.

Nikola

Hrvoje

Nenad

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in acute fractures provides better results than in revision procedures for fracture sequelae. Int Orthop. 2015;39(2):343-348. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2649-7.

45.

von Engelhardt

Manzke

Filler

Jerosch

. Short-term results of the reverse Total Evolutive Shoulder System (TESS) in cuff tear arthropathy and revision arthroplasty cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(7):897-904. doi:10.1007/s00402-015-2218-6.

46.

Russo

Della Rotonda

Cautiero

Ciccarelli

. Reverse shoulder prosthesis to treat complex proximal humeral fractures in the elderly patients: results after 10-year experience. Musculoskeletal Surgery. 2015;99(S1):17-23. doi:10.1007/s12306-015-0367-y.

47.

Garofalo

Flanagin

Castagna

Krishnan

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture using a dedicated stem: radiological outcomes at a minimum 2 years of follow-up-case series. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10(1):129. doi:10.1186/s13018-015-0261-1.

48.

Steen

Cabezas

Santoni

Hussey

Cusick

Kumar

, et al. Outcome and value of reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a matched cohort. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(9):1433-1441. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.01.005.

49.

Simovitch

Gerard

Brees

Fullick

Kearse

. Outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in a senior athletic population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(9):1481-1485. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.011.

50.

Saier

Cotic

Kirchhoff

Feucht

Minzlaff

Glanzmann

, et al. Early results after modular non-cemented reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A prospective single-centre study of 38 consecutive cases. J Orthop Sci. 2015;20(5):830-836. doi:10.1007/s00776-015-0734-4.

51.

Jones

Wright

Roche

. Bone grafting the glenoid versus use of augmented glenoid baseplates with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;73(suppl 1):S129-S135.

52.

Jehan

Eltayeb

Javaid

MMM

. Delta reverse polarity shoulder replacement: single surgeon experience with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Surg. 2015;7(3):359. doi:10.4055/cios.2015.7.3.359.

53.

Triplet

Everding

Levy

Formaini

O'Donnell

Moor

, et al. Anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients older than 80 years. Orthopedics. 2015;38(10). doi:10.3928/01477447-20151002-58.

54.

Formaini

Everding

Levy

Rosas

. Tuberosity healing after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fractures: the “black and tan” technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(11):e299-e306. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.04.014.

55.

Hattrup

Waldrop

Sanchez-Sotelo

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for posttraumatic sequelae. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(2):e41-e47. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000416.

56.

Lopiz

García-Coiradas

Serrano-Mateo

García-Fernández

Marco

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures in the geriatric patient: results, health-related quality of life and complication rates. Int Orthop. 2016;40(4):771-781. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-3085-z.

57.

Kurowicki

Triplet

Momoh

Moor

Levy

. Reverse shoulder prosthesis in the treatment of locked anterior shoulders: a comparison with classic reverse shoulder indications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(12):1954-1960. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.04.019.

58.

Dezfuli

King

Farmer

Struk

Wright

. Outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as primary versus revision procedure for proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(7):1133-1137. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.002.

59.

Shannon

Wagner

Houdek

Cross

Sánchez-Sotelo

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: outcomes comparing primary reverse arthroplasty for fracture versus reverse arthroplasty after failed osteosynthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1655-1660. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.012.

60.

Uzer

Yildiz

Batar

Binlaksar

Elmadag

Kus

, et al. Does grafting of the tuberosities improve the functional outcomes of proximal humeral fractures treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):36-41. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.005.

61.

Mangano

Cerruti

Repetto

Felli

Ivaldo

Giovale

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in older patients: is it worth it? A subjective functional outcome and quality of life survey. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28(5):925-933. doi:10.1007/s40520-015-0493-2.

62.

Merschin

Stangl

. Proximale Humerusfraktur im fortgeschrittenen Lebensalter. Unfallchirurg. 2016;119(12):1015-1022. doi:10.1007/s00113-015-0009-8.

63.

Merolla

Tartarone

Sperling

Paladini

Fabbri

Porcellini

. Early clinical and radiological outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty with an eccentric all-polyethylene glenosphere to treat failed hemiarthroplasty and the sequelae of proximal humeral fractures. Int Orthop. 2017;41(1):141-148. doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3188-1.

64.

Garofalo

Brody

Castagna

Ceccarelli

Krishnan

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with glenoid bone grafting for anterior glenoid rim fracture associated with glenohumeral dislocation and proximal humerus fracture. J Orthop Traumatol: Surgery & Research. 2016;102(8):989-994. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2016.09.009.

65.

Sebastia-Forcada

Lizaur-Utrilla

Cebrian-Gomez

Miralles-Muñoz

Lopez-Prats

. Outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: Primary arthroplasty versus secondary arthroplasty after failed proximal humeral locking plate fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(8):e236-e240. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000858.

66.

Sebastiá-Forcada

Cebrián-Gómez

Lizaur-Utrilla

Gil-Guillén

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. A blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(10):1419-1426. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.035.

67.

Chammaa

Uri

Lambert

. Primary shoulder arthroplasty using a custom-made hip-inspired implant for the treatment of advanced glenohumeral arthritis in the presence of severe glenoid bone loss. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):101-107. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.027.

68.

Werner

Abdelkawi

Boehm

Hudek

Plumhoff

Burkhart

, et al. Long-term analysis of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty using cemented long stems. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(2):273-278. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.015.

69.

Raiss

Edwards

Collin

Bruckner

Zeifang

Loew

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for malunions of the proximal part of the humerus (type-4 fracture sequelae). J Bone Joint Surg. 2016;98(11):893-899. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.00506.

70.

Holschen

Franetzki

Witt

K-A

Liem

Steinbeck

. Conversions from anatomic shoulder replacements to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: do the indications for initial surgery influence the clinical outcome after revision surgery?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(2):167-172. doi:10.1007/s00402-016-2595-5.

71.

Boyer

Loisel

Saadnia

Uhring

Adam

, et al. Cementless and locked prosthesis for the treatment of 3-part and 4-part proximal humerus fractures: prospective clinical evaluation of hemi- and reverse arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27(3):301-308. doi:10.1007/s00590-017-1926-8.

72.

Otto

Clark

Frankle

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: 2- to 12-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(5):792-797. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.09.051.

73.

Mellano

Kupfer

Thorsness

Chalmers

Feldheim

O'Donnell

, et al. Functional results of bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(6):990-996. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.011.

74.

Roberson

Granade

Hunt

Griscom

Adams

Momaya

, et al. Nonoperative management versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in older adults. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(6):1017-1022. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.013.

75.

Mollon

Mahure

Roche

Zuckerman

. Impact of scapular notching on clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 476 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(7):1253-1261. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.11.043.

76.

Chun

Y-M

Kim

D-S

Lee

D-H

Shin

S-J

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for four-part proximal humerus fracture in elderly patients: can a healed tuberosity improve the functional outcomes?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(7):1216-1221. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.11.034.

77.

Repetto

Alessio-Mazzola

Cerruti

Sanguineti

Formica

Felli

. Surgical management of complex proximal humeral fractures: pinning, locked plate and arthroplasty. Musculoskeletal Surgery. 2017;101(2):153-158. doi:10.1007/s12306-017-0451-6.

78.

Holschen

Siemes

M-K

Witt

K-A

Steinbeck

. Five-year outcome after conversion of a hemiarthroplasty when used for the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2018;100-B(6):761-766. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B6.BJJ-2017-1280.R1.

79.

Wolfensperger

Grüninger

Dietrich

Völlink

Benninger

Schläppi

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for complex fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients: Impact on the level of independency, early function, and pain medication. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(8):1462-1468. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.021.

80.

Jonušas

Banytė

Ryliškis

. Clinical and radiological outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with less medialized endoprosthesis after mean follow-up time of 45 months. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(9):1201-1205. doi:10.1007/s00402-017-2751-6.

81.

Giardella

Ascione

Mocchi

Berlusconi

Romano

Oliva

, et al. Reverse total shoulder versus angular stable plate treatment for proximal humeral fractures in over 65 years old patients. Muscle Ligaments and Tendons Journal. 2019;07(02):271. doi:10.32098/mltj.02.2017.09.

82.

Ernstbrunner

Suter

Catanzaro

Rahm

Gerber

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears before the age of 60 years. J Bone Joint Surg. 2017;99(20):1721-1729. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00095.

83.

Harmsen

Casagrande

Norris

. "Shaped" humeral head autograft reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopä. 2017;46(12):1045-1054. doi:10.1007/s00132-017-3497-0.

84.

Schliemann

Theisen

Kösters

Raschke

Weimann

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for type I fracture sequelae after internal fixation of proximal humerus fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(12):1677-1683. doi:10.1007/s00402-017-2789-5.

85.

Sanchez-Sotelo

Wagner

Sim

Houdek

. Allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction for massive proximal humeral bone loss in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2017;99(24):2069-2076. doi:10.2106/JBJS.16.01495.

86.

Merolla

Walch

Ascione

Paladini

Fabbri

Padolino

, et al. Grammont humeral design versus onlay curved-stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty: comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(4):701-710. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.016.

87.

Torrens

Alentorn-Geli

Mingo

Gamba

Santana

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of acute complex proximal humeral fractures: Influence of greater tuberosity healing on the functional outcomes. J Orthop Surg. 2018;26(1):230949901876013. doi:10.1177/2309499018760132.

88.

Raiss

Alami

Bruckner

Magosch

Habermeyer

Boileau

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for type 1 sequelae of a fracture of the proximal humerus. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2018;100-B(3):318-323. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B3.BJJ-2017-0947.R1.

89.

Merolla

Wagner

Sperling

Paladini

Fabbri

Porcellini

. Revision of failed shoulder hemiarthroplasty to reverse total arthroplasty: analysis of 157 revision implants. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(1):75-81. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.06.038.

90.

Jorge-Mora

Amhaz-Escanlar

Fernández-Pose

Lope-del-Teso

Pino-Mínguez

Caeiro-Rey

, et al. Early outcomes of locked noncemented stems for the management of proximal humeral fractures: a comparative study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(1):48-55. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.05.036.

91.

Schoch

Aibinder

Werthel

J-D

Sperling

Sanchez-Sotelo

Cofield

. Shoulder arthroplasty following gastric bypass, do complications follow?. Int Orthop. 2018;42(2):345-349. doi:10.1007/s00264-017-3579-y.

92.

Gerber

Canonica

Catanzaro

Ernstbrunner

. Longitudinal observational study of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction: results after 15 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(5):831-838. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.10.037.

93.

Leathers

Ialenti

Feeley

Zhang

. Do younger patients have better results after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(6):S24-S28. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.11.014.

94.

Verdano

Aliani

Galavotti

Maroun

Vaienti

Ceccarelli

. Grammont versus lateralizing reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture: functional and radiographic outcomes. Musculoskeletal Surgery. 2018;102(S1):57-65. doi:10.1007/s12306-018-0565-5.

95.

Chivot

Lami

Bizzozero

Galland

Argenson

J-N

. Three- and four-part displaced proximal humeral fractures in patients older than 70 years: reverse shoulder arthroplasty or nonsurgical treatment?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(2):252-259. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.019.

96.

Kirzner

Paul

Moaveni

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty vs BIO-RSA: clinical and radiographic outcomes at short term follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):256. doi:10.1186/s13018-018-0955-2.

97.

Ohl

Bonnevialle

Gallinet

Ramdane

Valenti

Decroocq

, et al. How the greater tuberosity affects clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018;27(12):2139-2144. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.05.030.

98.

Wagner

Hevesi

Houdek

Cofield

Sperling

Sanchez-Sotelo

. Can a reverse shoulder arthroplasty be used to revise a failed primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty?. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2018;100-B(11):1493-1498. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B11.BJJ-2018-0226.R2.

99.

Choi

Bae

J-H

Kwon

Kang

. Clinical outcomes and complications of cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty during the early learning curve period. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):53. doi:10.1186/s13018-019-1077-1.

100.

Pastor

M-F

Kieckbusch

Kaufmann

Ettinger

Wellmann

Smith

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture sequelae: Clinical outcome and prognostic factors. J Orthop Sci. 2019;24(2):237-242. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2018.09.016.

101.

Cox

McLendon

Christmas

Simon

Mighell

Frankle

. Clinical outcomes following reverse shoulder arthroplasty-allograft composite for revision of failed arthroplasty associated with proximal humeral bone deficiency: 2- to 15-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(5):900-907. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.023.

102.

Kang

Dubiel

Cofield

Steinmann

Elhassan

Morrey

, et al. Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty using contemporary implants is associated with very low reoperation rates. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(6):S175-S180. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.01.026.

103.

Lindbloom

Christmas

Downes

Simon

McLendon

Hess

, et al. Is there a relationship between preoperative diagnosis and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty? An experience in 699 shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(6):S110-S117. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.007.

104.

Santana

Alentorn-Geli

Guirro

Torrens

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture sequelae: How the initial fracture treatment influences the outcomes of joint replacement. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turcica. 2019;53(4):278-281. doi:10.1016/j.aott.2019.03.010.

105.

Hasler

Fornaciari

Jungwirth-Weinberger

Jentzsch

Wieser

Gerber

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(8):1587-1594. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.02.001.

106.

Flury

Kwisda

Kolling

Audigé

. Latissimus dorsi muscle transfer reduces external rotation deficit at the cost of internal rotation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty patients: A cohort study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(1):56-64. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.06.032.

107.

Klug

Wincheringer

Harth

Schmidt-Horlohé

Hoffmann

Gramlich

. Complications after surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures in the elderly-an analysis of complication patterns and risk factors for reverse shoulder arthroplasty and angular-stable plating. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(9):1674-1684. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.02.017.

108.

Franceschetti

de Sanctis

Ranieri

Palumbo

Paciotti

Franceschi

. The role of the subscapularis tendon in a lateralized reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Repair versus nonrepair. Int Orthop. 2019;43(11):2579-2586. doi:10.1007/s00264-018-4275-2.

109.

Beltrame

Di Benedetto

Cicuto

Cainero

Chisoni

Causero

. Onlay versus Inlay humeral steam in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA): Clinical and biomechanical study. Acta Bio-Medica : Atenei Parmensis. 2019;90(12-S):54-63. doi:10.23750/abm.v90i12-S.8983.

110.

Jeong

J-J

Kong

C-G

Park

S-E

J-H

Whang

W-H

Choi

B-S

. Non-fracture stem vs fracture stem of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in complex proximal humeral fracture of asian elderly. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019;139(12):1649-1657. doi:10.1007/s00402-019-03190-y.

111.

Noguera

Trigo

Melero

Santana

Torrens

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures: Postoperative complications at 7 days, 90 days and 1 year. Injury. 2019;50(2):371-375. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2019.01.002.

112.

Simovitch

Roche

Jones

Routman

Marczuk

Wright

, et al. Effect of tuberosity healing on clinical outcomes in elderly patients treated with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty for 3- and 4-part proximal humerus fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(2):e39-e45. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001348.

113.

Reuther

Petermann

Stangl

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in acute fractures of the proximal humerus: Does tuberosity healing improve clinical outcomes?. J Orthop Trauma. 2019;33(2):e46-e51. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001338.

114.

Lopiz

Alcobía-Díaz

Galán-Olleros

García-Fernández

Picado

Marco

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus nonoperative treatment for 3- or 4-part proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(12):2259-2271. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.06.024.

115.

Clark

Samuelsen

Alentorn-Geli

, et al. Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients older than 80 years of age. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2019;101-B(12):1520-1525. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.101B12.BJJ-2018-1571.R2.

116.

Nascimento

Claudio

Rocha

. Artroplastia reversa de ombro: Resultados funcionais na artropatia do manguito. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia. 2020;55(01):106-111. doi:10.1055/s-0039-1697968.

117.

Leonidou

Virani

Buckle

Yeoh

Relwani

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a cementless short metaphyseal humeral prosthesis without a stem: survivorship, early to mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes in a prospective study from an independent centre. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020;30(1):89-96. doi:10.1007/s00590-019-02531-2.

118.

Erickson

Shishani

Jones

, et al. Outpatient vs. inpatient reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: outcomes and complications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(6):1115-1120. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2019.10.023.

119.

Flury

Frey

Goldhahn

Schwyzer

H-K

Simmen

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure-midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):53-60. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z.

120.

Martinez

Calvo

Bejarano

Carbonel

Herrera

. The use of the Lima reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of fracture sequelae of the proximal humerus. J Orthop Sci. 2012;17(2):141-147. doi:10.1007/s00776-011-0185-5.

121.

Ballas

Béguin

. Results of a stemless reverse shoulder prosthesis at more than 58 months mean without loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):e1-e6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.12.005.

122.

Valenti

Kilinc

Sauzières

Katz

. Results of 30 reverse shoulder prostheses for revision of failed hemi- or total shoulder arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(8):1375-1382. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1332-9.

123.

Sershon

Van Thiel

Lin

, et al. Clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged younger than 60 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(3):395-400. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.047.

124.

Sahota

Sperling

Cofield

. Humeral windows and longitudinal splits for component removal in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(10):1485-1491. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.004.

125.

Dilisio

Miller

Siegel

Higgins

. Conversion to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Humeral Stem Retention Versus Revision. Orthopedics. 2015;38(9). doi:10.3928/01477447-20150902-54.

126.

García-Fernández

Lópiz-Morales

Rodríguez

López-Durán

Martínez

. Periprosthetic humeral fractures associated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Incidence and management. Int Orthop. 2015;39(10):1965-1969. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2972-7.

127.

Hernández-Elena

de la Red-Gallego

MÁ

Garcés-Zarzalejo

, et al. Evaluación de resultados funcionales y Notching tras el tratamiento de fracturas de húmero mediante artroplastia total invertida a medio plazo. Rev Española Cirugía Ortopédica Traumatol. 2015;59(6):413-420. doi:10.1016/j.recot.2015.05.002.

128.

Natera

Bruguera

Atoun

Levy

. Artroplastia de revisión de prótesis de superficie de hombro hacia prótesis invertida no cementada con vástago corto. Rev Española Cirugía Ortopédica Traumatol. 2016;60(3):175-183. doi:10.1016/j.recot.2016.01.001.

129.

Raiss

Edwards

Bruckner

Loew

Zeifang

Walch

. Reverse arthroplasty for patients with chronic locked dislocation of the shoulder (type 2 fracture sequela). J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(2):279-287. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.028.

130.

Cho

C-H

Song

K-S

Koo

T-W

. Clinical outcomes and complications during the learning curve for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: An analysis of the first 40 cases. Clin Orthop Surg. 2017;9(2):213. doi:10.4055/cios.2017.9.2.213.

131.

Villodre-Jiménez

Estrems-Díaz

Diranzo-García

Bru-Pomer

. Tratamiento de las fracturas de húmero proximal en pacientes mayores de 65 años con prótesis inversa: resultados y complicaciones. Rev Española Cirugía Ortopédica Traumatol. 2017;61(1):43-50. doi:10.1016/j.recot.2016.09.005.

132.

Grubhofer

Wieser

Meyer

Catanzaro

Schürholz

Gerber

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed open reduction and internal fixation of fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):92-100. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.020.

133.

Wagner

Houdek

Hernandez

Cofield

Sánchez-Sotelo

Sperling

. Cement-within-cement technique in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(8):1448-1453. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.013.

134.

Beazley

Evans

Furness

Smith

. Comparative learning curves for early complications in anatomical and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018;100(6):491-496. doi:10.1308/rcsann.2018.0062.

135.

Ball

. Delta Xtend reverse shoulder arthroplasty - Results at a minimum of five years. Shoulder Elbow. 2020;12(2):114-123. doi:10.1177/1758573219832283.

136.

Boileau

Watkinson

Hatzidakis

Hovorka

. Neer Award 2005: The Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: Results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(5):527-540. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.003.

137.

Bufquin

Hersan

Hubert

Massin

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly. J Bone Jt Surg Br Vol. 2007;89-B(4):516-520. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B4.18435.

138.

Wall

Nové-Josserand

O’Connor

Edwards

Walch

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89(7):1476-1485. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00666.

139.

Kalouche

Sevivas

Wahegaonker

Sauzieres

Katz

Valenti

. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: does reduced medialisation improve radiological and clinical results?. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica. 2009;75(2):158-166.

140.

Wierks

Skolasky

McFarland

. Reverse total shoulder replacement: Intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(1):225-234. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0406-1.

141.

Nolan

Ankerson

Wiater

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty improves function in cuff tear arthropathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2476-2482. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1683-z.

142.

Holcomb

Hebert

Mighell

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1076-1084. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.11.049.

143.

Ekelund

Nyberg

. Can reverse shoulder arthroplasty be used with few complications in rheumatoid arthritis? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2483-2488. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1654-4.

144.

Kelly

Zhao

Hobgood

Norris

. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.

145.

Wellmann

Struck

Pastor

Gettmann

Windhagen

Smith

. Short and midterm results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty according to the preoperative etiology. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(4):463-471. doi:10.1007/s00402-013-1688-7.

146.

J-H

Jeong

J-Y

Song

H-S

, et al. Early clinical results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Korean population. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(8):1102-1107. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.019.

147.

Gupta

Chalmers

Rahman

, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients of varying body mass index. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(1):35-42. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.043.

148.

Wieser

Borbas

Meyer

Gerber

. Conversion of stemmed hemi- or total to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Advantages of a modular stem design. clin orthop relat res. 2015;473(2):651-660. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3985-z.

149.

Saltzman

Chalmers

Gupta

Romeo

Nicholson

. Complication rates comparing primary with revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):1647-1654. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.04.015.

150.

Cáceres-Sánchez

Mesa-Mateo

Barrionuevo-Sánchez

García-Benítez

Expósito-Triano

. Artroplastia total invertida de hombro. Evaluación de resultados clínicos y complicaciones tras una serie de 52 casos. Rev Española Cirugía Ortopédica Traumatol. 2015;59(6):439-446. doi:10.1016/j.recot.2015.02.002.

151.

Levy

Narvani

Hous

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a cementless short metaphyseal humeral implant without a stem: clinical and radiologic outcomes in prospective 2- to 7-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(8):1362-1370. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.017.

152.

Statz

Wagner

Houdek

, et al. Outcomes of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with morbid obesity. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(7):e191-e198. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.12.008.

153.

Lopiz

García-Fernández

Arriaza

Rizo

Marcelo

Marco

. Midterm outcomes of bone grafting in glenoid defects treated with reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(9):1581-1588. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.017.

154.

Sheth

Sholder

Getz

Williams

Namdari

. Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(6):1074-1081. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.026.

155.

Lignel

Berhouet

Loirat

M-A

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures: Is the glenoid implant problematic?. J Orthop Traumatol: Surgery & Research. 2018;104(6):773-777. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2018.06.008.

156.

Zilber

Camana

Lapner

Haritinian

Nove Josserand

. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using helical blade to optimize glenoid fixation and bone preservation: preliminary results in thirty five patients with minimum two year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2018;42(9):2159-2164. doi:10.1007/s00264-018-3891-1.

157.

Gallinet

Cazeneuve

J-F

Boyer

, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for recent proximal humerus fractures: Outcomes in 422 cases. J Orthop Traumatol: Surgery & Research. 2019;105(5):805-811. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2019.03.019.

158.

Bohsali

Bois

Wirth

. Complications of shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg. 2017;99(3):256-269. doi:10.2106/JBJS.16.00935.

159.

Brusalis

Taylor

. Periprosthetic fractures in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: Current concepts and advances in management. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 2020;13(4):509-519. doi:10.1007/s12178-020-09654-8.

160.

Wagner

Houdek

Elhassan

Sanchez-Sotelo

Cofield

Sperling

. What are risk factors for intraoperative humerus fractures during revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty and do they influence outcomes?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(10):3228-3234. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4448-x.

161.

Wierks

Skolasky

McFarland

. Reverse Total Shoulder Replacement: Intraoperative and Early Postoperative Complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(1):225-234. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0406-1.

Complications and Intraoperative Fractures in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Introduction

Significance

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Author Contribution

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References