Clinical and radiological results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with or without lateralization as revision procedure for failed arthroplasty

Q2 Medicine
Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk MD , Laurent Audigé DVM, PhD , Florian Freislederer MD , Philipp Moroder MD , David Endell MD , Raphael Trefzer MD , Markus Scheibel MD
{"title":"Clinical and radiological results of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with or without lateralization as revision procedure for failed arthroplasty","authors":"Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk MD ,&nbsp;Laurent Audigé DVM, PhD ,&nbsp;Florian Freislederer MD ,&nbsp;Philipp Moroder MD ,&nbsp;David Endell MD ,&nbsp;Raphael Trefzer MD ,&nbsp;Markus Scheibel MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jseint.2024.10.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>As reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) becomes a common treatment option in the revision setting, common problems associated with Grammont’s design such as scapular notching, instability, and rotator cuff weakening occur. Design changes associated with superior outcomes in primary rTSA, such as glenoid or humeral lateralization have not yet been examined in the revision settings. The purpose of this consecutive series of revision rTSA is to evaluate the clinical and radiological short-term results after aseptic and septic revision rTSA and explore potential benefits of metallic glenoid and humerus lateralization.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this study, patients treated with an rTSA between 2014 and 2020 after failed shoulder arthroplasty were included. Forty-five consecutive patients were divided into comparative groups using lateralized rTSA with metallic baseplate augmentation (latrTSA) and additional humeral lateralization using a 145° onlay curved stem (bi-latrTSA); or no baseplate offset with a Grammont-type 155° stem (non-latrTSA). Further, outcome of postinfection revision rTSAs was compared to aseptic loosening. Constant-Murley-Score, subjective shoulder value, shoulder range of motion including Apley’s scratch test, abduction strength, and pain levels were assessed. Radiographs were reviewed for implant loosening, scapular notching, fractures, and osteolysis. Lateralization and distalization shoulder angle were measured at the final follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty-eight patients showed significant improvement in all functional measurements at the final 2-year follow-up compared to the baseline (<em>P</em> &lt; .01). There were no significant differences in favor of glenoid or bipolar lateralization. However, no scapular notching was seen in patients with both humeral and glenoid lateraliazion (non-latrTSA: 33%; latrTSA: 8%; bi-latrTSA: 0%; <em>P</em> = .103), with no signs of implant loosening. Patients with bi-latrTSA showed significantly greater lateralization shoulder angle (<em>P</em> = .017); distalization shoulder angle was lower, but not significantly (<em>P</em> = .230). Postinfectious rTSA after aseptic loosening (n = 19; 55%) presented better internal rotation (<em>P</em> = .036) compared to postinfectious rTSA. The overall complication rate was 16% and 8% leading to revision.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>rTSA is a viable option for revision cases and presents good results after failed shoulder arthroplasty, including the infected shoulder. The effect of metallic augmentation on clinical results is not comparable to those in literature in primary rTSA setting due to advanced preoperative medialization. However, scapular notching was prevented in all cases with bipolar lateralization.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34444,"journal":{"name":"JSES International","volume":"9 2","pages":"Pages 477-485"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSES International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638324004560","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

As reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) becomes a common treatment option in the revision setting, common problems associated with Grammont’s design such as scapular notching, instability, and rotator cuff weakening occur. Design changes associated with superior outcomes in primary rTSA, such as glenoid or humeral lateralization have not yet been examined in the revision settings. The purpose of this consecutive series of revision rTSA is to evaluate the clinical and radiological short-term results after aseptic and septic revision rTSA and explore potential benefits of metallic glenoid and humerus lateralization.

Methods

In this study, patients treated with an rTSA between 2014 and 2020 after failed shoulder arthroplasty were included. Forty-five consecutive patients were divided into comparative groups using lateralized rTSA with metallic baseplate augmentation (latrTSA) and additional humeral lateralization using a 145° onlay curved stem (bi-latrTSA); or no baseplate offset with a Grammont-type 155° stem (non-latrTSA). Further, outcome of postinfection revision rTSAs was compared to aseptic loosening. Constant-Murley-Score, subjective shoulder value, shoulder range of motion including Apley’s scratch test, abduction strength, and pain levels were assessed. Radiographs were reviewed for implant loosening, scapular notching, fractures, and osteolysis. Lateralization and distalization shoulder angle were measured at the final follow-up.

Results

Thirty-eight patients showed significant improvement in all functional measurements at the final 2-year follow-up compared to the baseline (P < .01). There were no significant differences in favor of glenoid or bipolar lateralization. However, no scapular notching was seen in patients with both humeral and glenoid lateraliazion (non-latrTSA: 33%; latrTSA: 8%; bi-latrTSA: 0%; P = .103), with no signs of implant loosening. Patients with bi-latrTSA showed significantly greater lateralization shoulder angle (P = .017); distalization shoulder angle was lower, but not significantly (P = .230). Postinfectious rTSA after aseptic loosening (n = 19; 55%) presented better internal rotation (P = .036) compared to postinfectious rTSA. The overall complication rate was 16% and 8% leading to revision.

Conclusion

rTSA is a viable option for revision cases and presents good results after failed shoulder arthroplasty, including the infected shoulder. The effect of metallic augmentation on clinical results is not comparable to those in literature in primary rTSA setting due to advanced preoperative medialization. However, scapular notching was prevented in all cases with bipolar lateralization.
背景随着反向全肩关节置换术(rTSA)成为翻修手术中常见的治疗方法,与格拉蒙设计相关的常见问题也随之出现,如肩胛骨切迹、不稳定性和肩袖功能减弱。在翻修手术中,盂侧化或肱骨侧化等与初治rTSA优越疗效相关的设计变更尚未得到研究。本连续系列翻修rTSA的目的是评估无菌性和化脓性翻修rTSA后的临床和放射学短期结果,并探索金属盂和肱骨侧化的潜在益处。方法在本研究中,纳入了2014年至2020年间肩关节置换术失败后接受rTSA治疗的患者。45名连续患者被分为两组进行比较,一组使用带金属基底板增量的侧向rTSA(latrTSA),另一组使用145°弧形杆(bi-latrTSA)进行额外的肱骨侧向;或使用无基底板偏移的Grammont型155°杆(non-latrTSA)。此外,还将感染后翻修rTSA的结果与无菌性松动进行了比较。对恒定-默里评分、肩部主观价值、肩部活动范围(包括阿普雷划痕试验)、外展力量和疼痛程度进行了评估。对X光片进行审查,以确定是否存在假体松动、肩胛骨切迹、骨折和骨溶解。最后随访时测量了肩关节外侧化和远端化角度。结果38名患者在最后2年随访时的所有功能测量结果与基线相比均有显著改善(P <.01)。髋关节盂侧化和双极侧化均无明显改善。不过,肱骨和盂侧化患者均未出现肩胛骨切迹(非盂侧化:33%;盂侧化:8%;双盂侧化:0%;P = .103),也没有植入物松动的迹象。双latrTSA患者的侧化肩角明显更大(P = .017);远化肩角较小,但不明显(P = .230)。无菌性松动后的感染性 rTSA(n = 19;55%)与感染性 rTSA 后相比,内旋效果更好(P = .036)。结论rTSA是翻修病例的可行选择,在包括感染性肩关节在内的肩关节置换术失败后效果良好。由于术前内侧化程度较高,金属增量对临床效果的影响与文献中初次rTSA的效果不相上下。不过,所有双极侧化的病例都避免了肩胛骨切迹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JSES International
JSES International Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
174
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信