Complications and revisions in anatomic and reverse short stem shoulder arthroplasty

Abstract

Introduction One current trend in the field of shoulder arthroplasty is a design shift to shorter and metaphyseal fixed humeral stem components. The aim of this investigation is to analyze complications resulting in revision surgery after anatomic (ASA) and reverse (RSA) short stem arthroplasty. We hypothesize that complications are influenced by the type of prosthesis and indication for arthroplasty. Materials and methods A total of 279 short stem shoulder prostheses were implanted by the same surgeon (162 ASA; 117 RSA), and 223 of these prostheses were implanted as primary procedures; in 54 cases, arthroplasty was performed secondary to prior open surgery. Main indications were osteoarthritis (OA) (n = 134), cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (n = 74) and posttraumatic deformities (PTr) (n = 59). Patients were evaluated at 6 weeks (follow-up 1; FU1), 2 years (FU2) and the time span of the last follow-up defined as FU3 with a minimum FU of 2 years. Complications were categorized into early complications (within FU1), intermediate complications (within FU2) and late complications (> 2 years; FU3). Results In total, 268 prostheses (96.1%) were available for FU1; 267 prostheses (95.7%) were available for FU2 and 218 prostheses (77.8%) were available for FU3. The average time for FU3 was 53.0 months (range 24–95). A complication leading to revision occurred in 21 prostheses (7.8%), 6 (3.7%) in the ASA group and 15 (12.7%) in the RSA group (p < 0.005). The most frequent cause for revision was infection (n = 9; 42.9%). After primary implantation, 3 complications (2.2%) occurred in the ASA and 10 complications (11.0%) in the RSA group (p < 0.005). The complication rate was 2.2% in patients with OA, 13.5% in CTA and 11.9% in PTr. Conclusions Primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty had a significantly higher rate of complications and revisions than primary and secondary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty, respectively. Therefore, indications for reverse shoulder arthroplasty should be critically questioned in each individual case.

Trends in Shoulder Arthroplasty in Germany: A 10-Year Epidemiological Analysis of Patients with Primary Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder

“…Moreover, recently developed metal-back glenoid components with titanium inlays and humeral-side polyethylene implants seem to be able to overcome premature glenoid loosening due to asymmetrical wear [42]. These advancements have led to extended durability, reduced complication rates, and overall improved functional outcomes [43,44].…”