Is revision to anatomic shoulder arthroplasty still an option? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND

With the historical complications when using total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to revise failed arthroplasties, and the success of the reverse prosthesis in the revision setting, the question arises whether revision to TSA is still a reasonable option? This systematic review examines revision to TSA and the factors associated with outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed for studies of TSA used to revise a failed hemiarthroplasty or TSA. The primary outcome was implant failure leading to a repeat revision arthroplasty. Secondary outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, shoulder motion and other clinical outcomes of shoulder function. Data were pooled to generate representative frequency-weighted means.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included, totaling 312 shoulders. Etiologies for revision included glenoid arthrosis (62%), glenoid component failure (36%), and other (2%). Of which, 39% of cases experienced complications and 12% required another arthroplasty revision. Secondary outcomes such as VAS pain, Constant, ASES and UCLA score improved, but none were statistically significant. Unsatisfactory outcomes were higher among patients with glenoid bone loss, instability, and soft tissue deficiencies.

DISCUSSION: Revision to anatomic TSA can be an acceptable option in certain patients. However, the high rate of complications and glenoid loosening, makes this a limited approach for a revision to anatomic TSA procedure.