Search

Background: Both anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are being increasingly performed. In the event of a complication necessitating revision, RTSA is more commonly performed in both scenarios. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary anatomic versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of a prospective single-institution shoulder arthroplasty database. All revision RTSAs performed between 2007 and 2019 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were initially included. After excluding patients with a preoperative diagnosis of infection, an oncologic indication, or incomplete outcomes assessment, we included 45 revision RTSAs performed for failed primary aTSA and 15 for failed primary RTSA. Demographics, surgical characteristics, active range of motion (external rotation [ER], internal rotation, forward elevation [FE], abduction), outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant Score, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, and University of California, Los Angeles score), and the incidence of postoperative complications was compared between groups., Results: Primary aTSA was most often indicated for degenerative joint disease (82%), whereas primary RTSA was more often indicated for rotator cuff arthropathy (60%). On bivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in any range of motion or clinical outcome measure were found between revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA. On multivariate linear regression analysis, revision RTSA performed for failed aTSA vs. RTSA was not found to significantly influence any outcome measure. Humeral loosening as an indication for revision surgery was associated with more favorable outcomes for all four range of motion measures and all five outcome scores assessed. In contrast, an indication for revision of peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with poorer outcomes for three of four range of motion measures (ER, FE, abduction) and four of five outcome scores (Constant, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, Simple Shoulder Test, University of California, Los Angeles). A preoperative diagnosis of fracture was associated with a poorer postoperative range of motion in ER, FE, and abduction, but was not found to significantly influence any outcome score. However, only two patients in our cohort had this indication. Complication and re-revision rates after revision RTSA for failed primary aTSA and RTSA were 27% and 9% vs. 20% and 14% ( P  = .487 and P  = .515), respectively., Conclusion: Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision RTSA for failed primary shoulder arthroplasty did not significantly differ based on whether aTSA or RTSA was initially performed. However, larger studies are needed to definitively ascertain the influence of the primary construct on the outcomes of revision RTSA.

Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a procedure growing in prevalence among younger populations. Consequently, its use in revision arthroplasty is growing in this demographic. However, studies examining the functional outcomes of revision RTSA in younger populations compared with older populations are lacking. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the functional outcomes of revision RTSA in patients 65 years old and younger compared with older patients who underwent revision RTSA. We hypothesized that younger patients would have similar outcomes to older patients and both groups would demonstrate improvement in outcomes., Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on a prospectively collected research database at a single tertiary referral center of all patients who underwent RTSA between 2007 and 2018. Patients 65 years old or younger who underwent a revision RTSA and had minimum 2-year follow-up were evaluated. A control group of patients ≥70 years old who underwent revision RTSA were also evaluated. Demographics, surgical factors, active range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared. The ROM parameters measured were forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and level of internal rotation. The PROMs collected included American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, University of California-Los Angeles score, Constant score, normalized Constant, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index 130. The differences in outcomes were compared against the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit reported for primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty., Results: A total of 81 patients undergoing revision RTSA were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years with 42 patients in the study group and 39 patients in the control group. Both groups demonstrated similar demographics and rates of prior surgeries. Preoperative outcome scores were lower in the study group (≤65 years old) than those in the older control group with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index 130 remaining worse postoperatively. Both groups experienced statistically significant improvements in ROM from before operation to after operation, with slightly higher improvements in overhead motion in the younger cohort. Both the study group and the control group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all PROMs with improvement above the substantial clinical benefit for the Constant and Simple Shoulder Test scores. Despite lower functional outcomes reported in the study group postoperatively, the improvement from before operation to after operation in all PROMs was similar between groups., Conclusion: Revision RTSA is a viable option for patients ≤65 years old with a poorly functioning shoulder arthroplasty. ROM and outcome improvements are similar compared with older patients undergoing revision RTSA, but the preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes are worse in the younger patients.