These authors reviewed 38 shoulders in which a cemented humeral component was revised to a cemented reverse humeral component fixed by cementing within the existing cement mantle.
The primary indications for revision surgery were instability or subluxation (21), glenoid disease (wear or component loosening) (16) , and humeral component loosening within the cement mantle (1). Of those revised for instability, 7 had prior anatomic arthroplasties with rotator cuff tears leading to anterior (n = 2) or posterosuperior (n = 5) instability, 5 had instability associated with a reverse arthroplasty, and 9 had failed hemiarthroplasties associated with rotator cuff tears and superior escape.
There were 7 (18%) nondisplaced intraoperative fractures involving the greater tuberosity that occurred on implant removal; all healed at last follow-up. A second revision surgery was performed in 3 (8%) patients who underwent cement-in-cement humeral component revision for glenoid loosening (n = 1), periprosthetic instability associated with glenoid loosening (n = 1), and periprosthetic humerus fracture (n = 1). There was 1 “at-risk” humeral component (grade 4 or higher humeral lucency, moderate subsidence) that did not undergo revision surgery. There were 2 other humeral components with grade 3 humeral lucency, no subsidence.
The overall implant revision-free survival at 2 and 5 years was 95% and 91%, respectively.
Of note, 3 of the 17 cases revised for loosening had positive intraoperative cultures.
Comment: From this report one can see that (1) the primary reasons for revision to a reverse were instability and glenoid failure, (2) revision carries the risk of intraperative fracture, and (3) failed arthroplasties can be associated with positive cultures - a potential concern because of the retained cement.
Recementing in an extant cement mantle usually requires the use of a smaller stem.
One of the advantages of humeral stem fixation with impaction grafting is the ease of revision as shown by a recent case of a patient with arthritis after multiple failed attempts at cuff repair but who retained active elevation.
This patient elected to have an impaction-autografted CTA prosthesis which provided good comfort and function for seven years
A recent fall rendered this shoulder pseudo paralytic and the patient elected to have a revision to a reverse. The CTA prosthesis was removed without difficulty or fracture and the reverse stem was fixed securely with impaction allografting without down-sizing the stem. This approached optimized bone preservation.
When applicable, the impaction grafting approach may help reduce the risk of periprosthetic fractures after revision reverse arthroplasty.
===
Use the "Search" box to the right to find other topics of interest to you.
You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and run, reverse total shoulder, CTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'
You may be interested in some of our most visited web pages including:shoulder arthritis, total shoulder, ream and run, reverse total shoulder, CTA arthroplasty, and rotator cuff surgery as well as the 'ream and run essentials'
