Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
REVIEW ARTICLE  
[LN]

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1079    
    Printed37    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded6    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 2: Systematic review of reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications


1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Parc de Salut Mar - Hospital del Mar & Hospital de l'Esperança, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain
2 Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Institute, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Correspondence Address:
Thomas W Wright
Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Institute, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, 3450 Hull Road, Gainesville, Florida, 32611
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.154771

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2015  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 60-67

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (608 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Purpose: Many factors influence the reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study was to compare those depending on the surgical approach, type of prosthesis, and indication for surgery through a comprehensive, systematic review. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted (1985 to June 2012) using PubMed, CINAHL, EBSCO-SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Levels I-IV evidence, in-vivo human studies (written in English with minimum of 2 years of follow-up and sample size of 10 patients) reporting reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications after RSA were included. The data obtained were analyzed depending on the surgical approach, type of prosthesis (with medialized or lateralized center of rotation), or indication for surgery. Results: About 37 studies were included involving 3150 patients (mean [SD] percentage of females, age, and follow-up of 72% [13], 71.6 years [3.8], and 45 months [20], respectively). Use of deltopectoral approach and lateralized prostheses had significantly higher risk of need for revision surgery (P = 0.008) and glenoid loosening (P = 0.01), but lower risk of scapular notch (P < 0.001), compared with medialized prostheses with same approach. RSA for revision of anatomic prosthesis demonstrated higher risk of reoperation (P < 0.001), revision (P < 0.001), hematoma (P = 0.001), instability (P < 0.001), and infection (P = 0.02) compared with most of the other indications. Conclusions: Lateralized prostheses had significantly higher glenoid loosening and need for revision surgery, but a significantly lower rate of scapular notching compared to medialized prostheses. The risk of reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications after RSA was increased in revision cases compared with other indications. Level of Evidence: Level IV.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 


 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 REVIEW ARTICLE
 




1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Parc de Salut Mar - Hospital del Mar & Hospital de l'Esperança, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain
2 Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Institute, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Correspondence Address:
Thomas W Wright
Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine Institute, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Florida, 3450 Hull Road, Gainesville, Florida, 32611
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.154771

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: Many factors influence the reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study was to compare those depending on the surgical approach, type of prosthesis, and indication for surgery through a comprehensive, systematic review. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted (1985 to June 2012) using PubMed, CINAHL, EBSCO-SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Levels I-IV evidence, in-vivo human studies (written in English with minimum of 2 years of follow-up and sample size of 10 patients) reporting reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications after RSA were included. The data obtained were analyzed depending on the surgical approach, type of prosthesis (with medialized or lateralized center of rotation), or indication for surgery. Results: About 37 studies were included involving 3150 patients (mean [SD] percentage of females, age, and follow-up of 72% [13], 71.6 years [3.8], and 45 months [20], respectively). Use of deltopectoral approach and lateralized prostheses had significantly higher risk of need for revision surgery (P = 0.008) and glenoid loosening (P = 0.01), but lower risk of scapular notch (P < 0.001), compared with medialized prostheses with same approach. RSA for revision of anatomic prosthesis demonstrated higher risk of reoperation (P < 0.001), revision (P < 0.001), hematoma (P = 0.001), instability (P < 0.001), and infection (P = 0.02) compared with most of the other indications. Conclusions: Lateralized prostheses had significantly higher glenoid loosening and need for revision surgery, but a significantly lower rate of scapular notching compared to medialized prostheses. The risk of reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications after RSA was increased in revision cases compared with other indications. Level of Evidence: Level IV.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article