header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

RESULTS OF REVISION SHOULDER ARTHROPLASTY USING INVERSE IMPLANTS



Abstract

Aim: Revision of shoulder replacements in patients with irreparably damaged rotator cuffs and disintegrated coracoacromial arch are typical indications for the Delta-III-prosthesis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of one-stage exchange procedures with and without reconstruction of the glenoid (n =21) and compare them with the preoperative status.

Methods: Eighty-four patients who had undergone one-stage prosthesis exchange were included in the prospective analysis. Pain and functional results were recorded using our own specifically compiled follow-up questionnaire and evaluated according to the Constant/Murley Shoulder Score. The indications for exchange surgery were impingement and pain due to cranial dislocation of the prosthesis head in fifty-four cases, cranio-ventral dislocation in nineteen, periprosthetic infection in six, aseptic loosening in four, and postoperative ankylosis of the shoulder with heterotopic ossifications in one case.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 68.1 years (49–82). Prior to our exchange surgery sixteen patients had already undergone one and five patients two exchange procedures with implantation of a standard prosthesis. Thirty-eight patients had had several non-arthroplasty revision operations. After exchange for a Delta prosthesis eighty-three of the patients were pain-free or experienced tolerable pain only when the joint was subjected to a longer period of strain. The Constant/Murley Shoulder Score improved from a mean preoperative value of 27 to 58 points within 36–48 months. The overall complication rate was 13.1%. Bony reconstruction of the glenoid did not appear to have any significant influence on the outcome of the exchange procedure.

Conclusion: Patients’ satisfaction with the result of one-stage exchange of shoulder replacements using inverse implants is high due to the reliable and fast alleviation of pain, the satisfactory function of the joint and the fact that the need for nursing care can be avoided. The almost maximum functional result is already achieved after three months and with continued physiotherapy further gradual improvement is possible up to one year after surgery due to an increase in muscle strength. The outcome may be impaired by impingement at the lower glenoid rim leading to erosion and possible loosening of the component.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org