Impact of Cement Use and Stem Length on Clinical Outcomes in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Is a Short Stem with Cementless Fixation a Viable Option?
Hyosung Lee, Joseph J King, Jonathan O Wright, Jordyn Pendarvis, Joseph Hartman, Kevin W Farmer, Aimee M Struk, Thomas W Wright
{"title":"Impact of Cement Use and Stem Length on Clinical Outcomes in Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Is a Short Stem with Cementless Fixation a Viable Option?","authors":"Hyosung Lee, Joseph J King, Jonathan O Wright, Jordyn Pendarvis, Joseph Hartman, Kevin W Farmer, Aimee M Struk, Thomas W Wright","doi":"10.1016/j.jse.2025.08.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is performed as a salvage procedure after failed shoulder arthroplasty. However, it presents substantial challenges compared to primary rTSA due to altered anatomy and compromised bone quality. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of revision rTSA based on the revision humeral stem fixation methods (cemented vs. cementless) and stem length (short vs. standard vs. long).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis using a prospectively maintained shoulder arthroplasty database from a single institution. All revision rTSAs performed between 2005 and 2023 with a minimum two-year follow-up were included. Patients were excluded for revision from a primary antibiotic spacer placed in the native shoulder or a history of multiple arthroplasty procedures. The final cohort consisted of 113 revision rTSAs (45 cemented vs. 68 cementless; 16 short vs. 79 standard vs. 18 long). Demographic data, surgical characteristics, outcome scores, active range of motion, complications and re-revision rates were compared across cohorts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Revision rTSA showed no significant differences in active range of motion or outcome scores between the cemented and cementless humeral fixation cohorts. The short and standard stem cohorts demonstrated greater improvement in active abduction compared to the long stem cohort (34 ± 32 vs. 0 ± 18; P = .045; 37 ± 41 vs. 0 ± 18; P = .001). Similarly, they exhibited greater improvement in the Constant score (23.5 ± 17.7 vs. 3.5 ± 10.5; P = .018; 19.1 ± 19.5 vs. 3.5 ± 10.5; P = .012). Overall re-revision rates in the cemented and cementless cohorts were 7.2% and 14.9%, respectively, and humeral stem re-revision rates were 7.2% and 9.9%, respectively. (P = .204 and P = .746). Overall re-revision rates in the short, standard, and long stem cohorts were 3.7%, 13.7%, and 11.5%, respectively, and humeral stem re-revision rates were 0%, 10.3%, and 11.5%, respectively. (P = .361 and P = .199) CONCLUSION: The use of a short stem in revision rTSA demonstrated clinical outcomes comparable to other stem lengths. Complications and re-revision rates did not significantly differ by cement use or stem length.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Prognosis Study.</p>","PeriodicalId":50051,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2025.08.013","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is performed as a salvage procedure after failed shoulder arthroplasty. However, it presents substantial challenges compared to primary rTSA due to altered anatomy and compromised bone quality. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of revision rTSA based on the revision humeral stem fixation methods (cemented vs. cementless) and stem length (short vs. standard vs. long).
Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis using a prospectively maintained shoulder arthroplasty database from a single institution. All revision rTSAs performed between 2005 and 2023 with a minimum two-year follow-up were included. Patients were excluded for revision from a primary antibiotic spacer placed in the native shoulder or a history of multiple arthroplasty procedures. The final cohort consisted of 113 revision rTSAs (45 cemented vs. 68 cementless; 16 short vs. 79 standard vs. 18 long). Demographic data, surgical characteristics, outcome scores, active range of motion, complications and re-revision rates were compared across cohorts.
Results: Revision rTSA showed no significant differences in active range of motion or outcome scores between the cemented and cementless humeral fixation cohorts. The short and standard stem cohorts demonstrated greater improvement in active abduction compared to the long stem cohort (34 ± 32 vs. 0 ± 18; P = .045; 37 ± 41 vs. 0 ± 18; P = .001). Similarly, they exhibited greater improvement in the Constant score (23.5 ± 17.7 vs. 3.5 ± 10.5; P = .018; 19.1 ± 19.5 vs. 3.5 ± 10.5; P = .012). Overall re-revision rates in the cemented and cementless cohorts were 7.2% and 14.9%, respectively, and humeral stem re-revision rates were 7.2% and 9.9%, respectively. (P = .204 and P = .746). Overall re-revision rates in the short, standard, and long stem cohorts were 3.7%, 13.7%, and 11.5%, respectively, and humeral stem re-revision rates were 0%, 10.3%, and 11.5%, respectively. (P = .361 and P = .199) CONCLUSION: The use of a short stem in revision rTSA demonstrated clinical outcomes comparable to other stem lengths. Complications and re-revision rates did not significantly differ by cement use or stem length.
Level of evidence: Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Prognosis Study.
期刊介绍：
The official publication for eight leading specialty organizations, this authoritative journal is the only publication to focus exclusively on medical, surgical, and physical techniques for treating injury/disease of the upper extremity, including the shoulder girdle, arm, and elbow. Clinically oriented and peer-reviewed, the Journal provides an international forum for the exchange of information on new techniques, instruments, and materials. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery features vivid photos, professional illustrations, and explicit diagrams that demonstrate surgical approaches and depict implant devices. Topics covered include fractures, dislocations, diseases and injuries of the rotator cuff, imaging techniques, arthritis, arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and rehabilitation.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
