DUAL PLATFORM FOURTH GENERATION SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY SYSTEM: MEDIUM-TERM RESULTS

Komperla S, Giles W, Flatt E, et al. DUAL PLATFORM FOURTH GENERATION SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY SYSTEM: MEDIUM-TERM RESULTS. Orthop Procs. 2021;103-B(SUPP_16):72-72. doi:10.1302/1358-992X.2021.16.072

Komperla, Siddharth, et al. “DUAL PLATFORM FOURTH GENERATION SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY SYSTEM: MEDIUM-TERM RESULTS.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 103-B, no. SUPP_16, 2021, pp. 72-72., https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.16.072

Komperla, S., Giles, W., Flatt, E., Gandhi, M. J., Eyre-Brook, A. E., Jones, V., Papanna, M., Eves, T., & Thyagarajan, D. (2021). DUAL PLATFORM FOURTH GENERATION SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY SYSTEM: MEDIUM-TERM RESULTS. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 103-B(SUPP_16), 72-72. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.16.072

Komperla, S., Giles, W., Flatt, E., Gandhi, M. J., Eyre-Brook, A. E., Jones, V. et al. (2021) “DUAL PLATFORM FOURTH GENERATION SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY SYSTEM: MEDIUM-TERM RESULTS.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 103-B(SUPP_16), pp. 72-72. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.16.072

Komperla, Siddharth, William Giles, Elinor Flatt, Maulik J Gandhi, Alistair Eyre-Brook Eyre-Brook, Valerie Jones, Madhavan Papanna, Tim Eves, and David Thyagarajan. “DUAL PLATFORM FOURTH GENERATION SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY SYSTEM: MEDIUM-TERM RESULTS.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 103-B, no. SUPP_16 (2021): 72-72. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.16.072

Komperla S, Giles W, Flatt E, Gandhi MJ, Eyre-Brook AE, Jones V, et al. DUAL PLATFORM FOURTH GENERATION SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY SYSTEM: MEDIUM-TERM RESULTS. Orthop Procs. 2021 Dec 1;103-B(SUPP_16):72-72. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.16.072

Copy to clipboard

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

Shoulder replacements have evolved and current 4th generation implants allow intraoperative flexibility to perform anatomic, reverse, trauma, and revision shoulder arthroplasty. Despite high success rates with shoulder arthroplasty, complication rates high as 10–15% have been reported and progressive glenoid loosening remains a concern.

Objectives

To report medium term outcomes following 4th generation VAIOS® shoulder replacement.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data following VAIOS® shoulder arthroplasty performed by the senior author between 2014–2020. This included anatomical (TSR), reverse(rTSR), revision and trauma shoulder replacements. The primary outcome was implant survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Secondary outcomes were Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS), radiological outcomes and complications.

Results

172 patients met our inclusion criteria with 114 rTSR, 38 anatomical TSR, and 20 hemiarthroplasty. Reverse TSR- 55 primary, 31 revision, 28 for trauma. Primary rTSR- 0 revisions, average 3.35-year follow-up. Revision rTSR-1 revision (4.17%), average 3.52-year follow-up. Trauma rTSR- 1 revision (3.57%), average 4.56-year follow-up OSS: Average OSS improved from 15.39 to 33.8 (Primary rTSR) and from 15.11 to 29.1 (Revision rTSR). Trauma rTSR-Average post-operative OSS was 31.4 Anatomical TSR38 patients underwent primary anatomical TSR, 8 were revisions following hemiarthroplasty. In 16/38 patients, glenoid bone loss was addressed by bone grafting before implantation of the metal back glenoid component. Mean age at time of surgery was 68.3 years (53 – 81 years). Mean follow-up was 34 months (12 – 62 months). The average Oxford shoulder score improved from 14 (7–30) to 30 (9–48). There were 3 revisions (7.8%); two following subscapularis failure requiring revision conversion to reverse shoulder replacement and one for glenoid graft failure.

Conclusions

The medium-term results of the VAIOS® system suggest much lower revision rates across multiple configurations of the system than previously reported, as well as a low incidence of scapular notching. This system allows conversion to rTSR during primary and revision surgery.