Revising Failed Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Comprehensive Techniques for Precise Explantation of Well-Fixed Implants.

Background: With the increased utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), there has been a corresponding increase in the incidence of and demand for revision RTSA3. In cases in which the patient has undergone multiple previous surgeries and presents with well-fixed shoulder implants, even the most experienced shoulder surgeon can be overwhelmed and frustrated. Having a simple and reproducible treatment algorithm to plan and execute a successful revision surgery will ease the anxiety of a revision operation and avoid future additional revisions. The extraction techniques described here strive to preserve the humeral and glenoid anatomy, hopefully facilitating the reimplantation steps to follow. Description: The main principles of implant removal include several consistent, simple steps. In order to revise a well-fixed humeral implant, (1) identify the old implants; (2) create a preoperative plan that systematically evaluates the glenoid and humeral deficiencies; (3) prepare consistent surgical tools, such as an oscillating saw, osteotomes, and/or a tamp; (4) follow the deltoid; (5) dissect the soft tissue with a sponge; (6) dissect the bone with use of an osteotome; and (7) remove the humeral stem in rotation. In cases in which there is also a well-fixed glenoid implant, the surgical procedure will require additional steps, including (8) exposure of the anteroinferior glenoid, (9) disengagement of the glenosphere, and (10) removal of the glenoid baseplate in rotation. Alternatives: Alternatives to revision RTSA include nonoperative treatment, implant retention with conversion of modular components, extensile revision surgical techniques, and/or mechanical implant removal. With the advent of modular humeral and glenoid components, surgeons may choose to change the implant components instead of removing the entire humeral and glenoid implants; however, repeat complications may occur if the previous implant or implant position was not completely revised. When confronted with a tough humeral explantation, an extensile surgical approach involves creating a cortical window or humeral osteotomy to expose the humeral implant. This approach can compromise the humeral shaft integrity, leading to alternative and less ideal reconstruction implant choices, the use of cerclage wires, and/or the use of a strut graft, all of which may complicate postoperative mobilization. If glenoid implant removal is necessary, the glenosphere is removed first, followed by the underlying baseplate component(s). If the glenosphere is stuck or if screws are cold-welded, the use of a conventional mechanical extraction technique with a burr or diamond saw may be required; however, this may lead to additional metal debris and intraoperative sparks. Rationale: Revision RTSA can lead to high complication rates, ranging from 12% to 70%2, which will often require additional revision surgeries4. The first steps to all revision RTSA procedures include careful surgical exposure and component explantation. A simplified approach to expose the humerus and glenoid, coupled with a systematic and atraumatic approach to remove the implants without inadvertent injuries, will prevent surgical complications and the need for re-revision. The proposed comprehensive technique hopefully will allow precise removal of the humeral and glenoid implants while also preserving the remnant humerus or glenoid for future reconstruction. Expected Outcomes: Few studies have evaluated postoperative patient outcomes in revision RTSA. Chalmers et al. performed a meta-analysis and found that patients were able to achieve a mean elevation of 106°, a mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 63, and a mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score of 522. Boileau showed very similar outcomes, with a mean elevation of 107° and a mean adjusted Constant score of 621. These outcomes are slightly inferior to those of primary RTSA, but patients remain satisfied with their improvement from their preoperative function. Important Tips: Preoperative preparation will reduce intraoperative reparation. Know the existing implant and the unique features of its design, understand the patient anatomy including bone defects, and anticipate all of the potential tools that may be needed.Know your anatomy. The anteromedial deltoid edge will help you identify the scarred-in humeral shaft.Da Vinci said that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Some of the most common surgical tools and instruments can be more effective than custom-designed ones.The implant should be removed in rotation.There are some company-specific explantation instruments that can be very helpful. Give the appropriate ones a try, but be prepared to consider alternative solutions. Acronyms and Abbreviations: RTSA = reverse total shoulder arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyFE = forward elevation.

Comparison of early and late aseptic baseplate failure in primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without structural glenoid autograft.

BACKGROUND: Early reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) designs demonstrated high glenoid baseplate complication and revision rates. Although contemporary designs have reduced the incidence of glenoid baseplate failures, there are reports of elevated failure risks in RTSA with glenoid bone grafting within the first 2 years. This study aims to evaluate the incidence and etiology of aseptic glenoid baseplate failure with a contemporary central screw baseplate. The null hypothesis is that majority of the baseplate failure occurs within the first 2 years and that use of glenoid bone grafting does not lead to a higher risk of baseplate failure. METHODS: In 2014-2019, a total of 753 consecutive patients who underwent primary RSA using the same inlay press-fit humeral stem and monoblock central screw baseplate were retrospectively reviewed. Fracture and septic arthropathy cases were excluded. All patients underwent preoperative radiographic and computed tomographic evaluation. If there was significant glenoid erosion (Walch A2, B2, B3, C1, C2, E2, E3, and/or E4 variants), patient-specific structural glenoid bone grafting was performed. All patients underwent standardized radiographic follow-up, and failure was strictly defined as any hardware breakage and/or shift in glenoid baseplate position. Failures were defined as "early" if occurring within 2 years and "late" if occurring >2 years after surgery. Comparative analysis was performed to evaluate demographics, glenoid graft use, and graft union rates between the cohorts. RESULTS: There were 23 patients with baseplate failures (23 of 753, 3.0%) at a mean of 23 months. Twenty-two failures (96%) occurred in patients who received structural glenoid bone grafting. Only 1 failure (0.2%) occurred when bone grafting was not indicated (P < .001). The most common failure pattern was associated with the B2 glenoid (16 of 23, 70%). There were 5 early failures (22%) and 18 late failures (78%). There were no differences in any patient demographic characteristics between cohorts. All 5 early failures had graft nonunion, and 4 of them occurred without trauma. In the 18 late failures, 9 (50%) occurred without trauma (P = .135). Seventeen of these patients had glenoid grafting, among which 9 (53%) had graft nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary RTSA glenoid baseplate designs have an acceptably low incidence of failure. However, the addition of structural bone graft to correct glenoid wear leads to higher aseptic baseplate failure rate. The majority of these patients suffer failure after the 2-year postoperative mark, highlighting the necessity of longer follow-up. Further analysis is necessary to quantify glenoid characteristics (severity of glenoid erosion, critical size of graft) associated with failure.

Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Bone Versus Metallic Augmented, Central Screw Type Baseplate in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Matched Case-Control Study.

Background: Although glenoid bone grafting and metallic augmented baseplates have demonstrated success in restoring the glenohumeral joint line in the recent literature, there remain no consensus guidelines defining the use of one versus the other. Methods: Between 2017 and 2020, 15 primary RTSA with screw-in metallically augmented glenoid baseplates were identified and 2:1 matched by age, sex, and body mass index with primary bony-augmented glenoid baseplate patients. Patients with previous glenoid implantation or fracture were excluded. Charts, routine radiographic series (Grashey, Scapula Y, Axillary lateral), and 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) scans were retrospectively reviewed. Structural patient-specific metal or bony augmentation was indicated based on preoperative glenoid morphology as identified by 3D CT. Aseptic failure was identified as hardware breakage and/or shift in glenoid baseplate component position. Results: There were 45 eligible cases with mean age of 65.7 years (range 44-85 years) and 65.5 years (range 42-82 years) for the metallic-augmented and bone graft group, respectively. Correspondingly, mean follow up was 22.6 months (range 12-53 months), and 27.3 months (range 11-53 months). At latest follow up, there were no baseplate failures in the metallic augment group and 2 baseplate failures (7%) in the bone graft group at a mean of 42.5 months (range 32-53 months) postoperatively. Mean age of the bone failure group was 64.5 years (range 64-65 years). Conclusion: Contemporary reversed shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate designs appear to have low incidence of failure. Further analysis is necessary to determine if a critical degree of glenoid retroversion or inclination is preferable with a specific form of augmentation. Level of Evidence: III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison.

Cementless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty implantation with humeral matchstick autograft augmentation: early radiographic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Humeral-sided complications account for up to 21% of all revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) surgeries. Stress shielding with large bulky stems can lead to proximal bone resorption per Wolff law, complicating further surgeries. Previously published studies suggest that lowering the metaphyseal implant fill ratio can lead to fewer adaptive radiographic changes and decreased bone resorption. Inspired by these studies, cementless primary RTSA implantation technique with humeral matchstick autografts was proposed to augment cementless humeral constructs, foster the use of a smaller size stem, and create primary stability of the humeral implant even in osteoporotic or in-between size medullary canals. In this study, retrospective review of this cementless RTSA technique with short-term radiographic evaluation was performed. METHODS: Forty-six nonconsecutive patients underwent primary RTSA with a short-stem cementless prosthesis (Stryker Ascend Flex) augmented by matchstick bone grafting from January to July 2020. Patient demographics were recorded, and follow-up radiographs were retrospectively reviewed to assess metaphyseal fill ratios and incidence of stress shielding at minimum 1-year follow-up. Discrepancies between templated and final stem sizes were recorded, along with all intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of the 46 patients originally identified, there were 5 men and 41 women with a mean age of 71 years (standard deviation [SD] 7, range 53-88). Mean templated stem size was 4 (SD 2, range 1-8), whereas the mean final implant size was 2 (SD 1, range 1-3). Mean fill ratios were 0.76 (SD 0.06, range 0.54-0.89) along the metaphysis and 0.67 (SD 0.09, range 0.49-0.83) along the diaphysis. There were no intraoperative humeral fractures from implantation. All patients were available for radiographic follow-up with a mean of 19 months (SD 8, range 12-40). There were 3 cases (7%) of proximal humeral stress shielding, with average fill ratios of 0.857 and 0.807 in the metaphysis and diaphysis, respectively. There were 3 patients (7%) who underwent revision surgeries for baseplate failure and periprosthetic humeral fracture. There were no cases of early humeral loosening. DISCUSSION: Matchstick autograft humeral augmentation is a simple, promising surgical technique with low intraoperative complication rates and good short-term radiographic outcomes. When the implant fill ratio is successfully reduced, there is a possible lower risk of humeral stress shielding. The authors believe this technique can help maximize implant stability in cementless shoulder arthroplasty and preserve humeral bone stock for future revision surgeries.

Yoke procedure as a salvage treatment option for failed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with irreconstructible glenoid.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid bone loss is a known challenge in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. In severe deficiency, even placing the baseplate in alternative centerline or using an augmented baseplate may be insufficient. This study reports on the use of a soft tissue resurfacing technique using Achilles tendon allograft, coined Yoke procedure, for salvage treatment of glenoid deficient shoulder requiring reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent the Yoke procedure between 2014 and 2020 by a single surgeon at a single academic center were identified and had their charts retrospectively reviewed. Demographics and surgical information were recorded. Preoperative X-rays and 3D-computed tomography scans were reviewed to classify patient glenoid types, evaluate glenoid medialization, and measure shoulder angles. Preoperative and postoperative range of motions and patient-reported outcome scores were evaluated, including anterior elevation, external rotation, internal rotation, visual analog scale, subjective shoulder value score, Simple Shoulder Test, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. Postoperative radiographs and follow-up notes were reviewed to evaluate postoperative complication profiles at 1 year. RESULTS: Seven patients with a median age of 69 years (range, 54-77 years) underwent Yoke procedure and had a median 12-month follow-up (range, 9-56 months). All patients were female and had a median of 2 prior shoulder surgeries (range, 0-13). Of all the patients, the most common comorbidity was osteoporosis (6) followed by rheumatoid arthritis (3). Of the 5 patients who had previous arthroplasty, the most common indications were baseplate failure (4), followed by instability (3) and infection (3). The median visual analog scale score improved from 8 (range, 3-9) to 2 (range, 1-4). The median Simple Shoulder Test improved from 8% (range, 0%-42%) to 33% (range, 17%-83%). The median ASES score improved from 15 (range, 5-38) to 52 (range, 40-78). The median anterior elevation and external rotation improved from 20° (range, 0°-75°) to 100° (range, 40°-145°) and 10° (range, 0°-20°) to 20° (range, 0°-55°), respectively. There was no change in median internal rotation. As of the last follow-up, one patient reported postoperative complications of anterior-superior implant escape, heterotopic ossification, and scapular notching. CONCLUSION: The Yoke procedure is a promising salvage treatment that can offer patients consistent pain reduction and moderate functional improvements at short-term follow-up. In the setting of poor bone quality and severe glenoid deficiency, glenoid baseplate implantation may not be absolutely necessary for a pain-relieving, functionally acceptable outcome.

Arthroplasty as Primary Treatment for Metadiaphyseal Proximal Humerus Fractures: A Viable Alternative to Osteosynthesis for the Elderly.

Introduction: in the elderly patient population, where fracture comminution, osteoporotic fractures, and associated arthritis or rotator cuff pathologies dominate, metadiaphyseal proximal humeral fracture is a challenging subset of fractures to treat. This study reports on cementless long-stem reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) as primary treatment of metadiaphyseal proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. Materials & Methods: Between January 2018 and October 2021, 22 consecutive patients sustained proximal humerus fractures with metadiaphyseal extension and underwent surgery with cementless long-stem RTSA. Patients older than 60 years with minimum 1 year of clinical and radiographic follow-up were included. Patient demographics, range of motion, and patient reported outcomes [Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scale, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), and American Shoulder Elbow Surgeon (ASES) scores] were retrospectively collected. Postoperative X-rays were evaluated for fracture and tuberosity union. Results: There were 14 eligible patients with a median age of 71 years (range 61-91 years) and a median 13 months follow-up. At final follow-up, the median active elevation was 120° (range 80°-150°), external rotation was 40° (range 0°-50°), and internal rotation was 40° (range 0°-80°). Median VAS was 2 (range 0-8), SST was 71% (range 33%-92%), SSV was 78% (range 20-90%), and ASES was 73 (range 17-90). All patients exhibited radiographic union. There were five minor complications in three patients: postoperative neuropathy, tuberosity nonunion, scapula notching, and proximal humeral stress shielding. Conclusion: Cementless long-stem RTSA is a viable alternative to primary fracture fixation in the elderly patient population with metadiaphyseal proximal humerus fractures.

Success of staged revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in eradication of periprosthetic joint infection.

INTRODUCTION: Management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in shoulder arthroplasty remains a challenge, with no established gold standard treatment. This study presents the unique experience of a high-volume single-surgeon, single-institution approach on staged revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for infection. The authors theorize that staged revision RTSA is an effective treatment for PJI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, 38 patients underwent a staged RTSA for treatment of PJI. Patient histories were collected and classified using Cierny-Mader classification. Infection workup for all patients included radiographs, laboratory indices, and computed tomographic aspiration arthrogram. PJI was identified based on high clinical and radiographic suspicion, elevated serologic markers, and/or aspirate culture results per 2018 International Consensus Meeting Shoulder guidelines on Orthopedic Infections. All patients underwent first stage with implant removal, irrigation and débridement, and antibiotic spacer placement. Next, intravenous antibiotics were administered by infectious disease consultants for a minimum of 6 weeks. Infection workup was then repeated and, if normalized, final-stage revision commenced with antibiotic spacer removal and revision to RTSA. If indices were persistently abnormal, an additional stage of débridement and spacer placement procedure was performed. Treatment failure was defined as recurrent periprosthetic infection after final prosthesis implantation or persistently elevated indices despite adequate débridement and spacer placement. RESULTS: Mean age of the cohort was 68 (standard deviation [SD] 8.9) years and mean follow-up was 33 (SD 14) months with 34 Cierny-Mader C hosts and 4 B hosts. Patients underwent a mean of 2 (SD 1.1) previous surgeries. The staged revision protocol was successful in 34 (89.5%) patients for management of PJI. Four patients (10.5%) were considered failures with recurrent infections at a mean of 13 months (range 2-26 months) after the final RTSA implantation and underwent repeat staged revisions. Of the 34 patients who had successful infection eradication, 31 had 2-stage treatment and 3 had to undergo 3 stages. There were no treatment-associated mortalities and 10 major complications (26%), including permanent neuropathy, instability, and periprosthetic fractures. The most common cultured microorganism was Cutibacterium acnes (18%), with no polymicrobial infections detected. DISCUSSION: Although there are multiple treatment options for PJI management, staged revision remains an effective means of treatment. Although there were several patients who required an additional stage of treatment, and a significant complication rate, staged revision RTSA proved successful in the ultimate eradication of the PJI.