Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Periprosthetic Fractures in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Current Concepts and Advances in Management

  • Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (C Chambers and E Craig, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Expanded indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have raised awareness of associated complications, including periprosthetic fractures. The purpose of this article was to provide a comprehensive update on how, when, and why RSA-related periprosthetic fractures occur, as well as to describe the current treatment strategies.

Recent Findings

Periprosthetic acromial and scapular spine fractures occur in up to 4.3% of cases and periprosthetic humeral fractures occur in approximately 3.5% of RSA procedures. Fractures of the coracoid process and clavicle have also been reported. Current literature has identified several risk factors for intraoperative or postoperative fracture, including underlying osteoporosis, revision arthroplasty, use of a superiorly placed screw during metaglene fixation, and disruption of the scapular ring by transection of the coracoacromial ligament.

Summary

Periprosthetic fracture associated with RSA is a clinically significant event that warrants prolonged postoperative vigilance, timely diagnosis, and shared patient decision-making regarding treatment. Further research is needed to identify optimal treatment strategies and characterize long-term clinical outcomes following RSA-related periprosthetic fracture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Garcia-Fernandez C, Lopiz-Morales Y, Rodriguez A, Lopez-Duran L, Martinez FM. Periprosthetic humeral fractures associated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: incidence and management. Int Orthop. Germany. 2015;39:1965–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wajnsztejn A, Foni NO, Oizerovici D, Pires RES, Ejnisman B. Periprosthetic humeral fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Case report. Einstein (Sao Paulo). Brazil. 2018;16:eRC4037.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Saltzman BM, Leroux T, Collins MJ, Arns TA, Forsythe B. Short stem reverse total shoulder arthroplasty periprosthetic type a fracture. Orthopedics. United States. 2017;40:e721–4.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schairer WW, Nwachukwu BU, Lyman S, Craig EV, Gulotta LV. National utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2015;24:91–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Day JS, Paxton ES, Lau E, Gordon VA, Abboud JA, Williams GR. Use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2015;24:766–72.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Palsis JA, Simpson KN, Matthews JH, Traven S, Eichinger JK, Friedman RJ. Current trends in the use of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. Orthopedics. United States. 2018;41:e416–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 2011;93:2249–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. •• Kennon JC, Lu C, McGee-Lawrence ME, Crosby LA. Scapula fracture incidence in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using screws above or below metaglene central cage: clinical and biomechanical outcomes. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2017;26:1023–30 This study demonstrated improved biomechanical strength was achieved in cadaveric scapulae when metaglene fixation was performed with screws placed inferior to the central axis of the glenoid, as compared with a screw configuration in which screws were placed above and below the central axis. In a retrospective review of 318 RSA cases, the study further established a correlation between inferior-only metaglene fixation and a reduced incidence of scapula fractures.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Farshad M, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-from the most to the least common complication. Int Orthop. Germany. 2010;34:1075–82.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2011;20:146–57.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bohsali KI, Bois AJ, Wirth MA. Complications of shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 2017;99:256–69.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rugg CM, Coughlan MJ, Lansdown DA. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: biomechanics and indications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. United States. 2019;12:542–53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mayne IP, Bell SN, Wright W, Coghlan JA. Acromial and scapular spine fractures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Shoulder Elb. United States. 2016;8:90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  14. •• Taylor SA, Shah S, Chen X, Gentile J, Gulotta LV, Dines JS, Dines DD, Cordasco FA, Warren RF, Kontaxis A. Scapular ring preservation: coracoacromial ligament transection increases scapular spine strains following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;(In press). Through biomechanical testing of RSA performed in 8 cadaveric shoulders, this study demonstrated that transection of the coracoacromial ligament during RSA increases the forces transmitted to the scapular spine. The findings suggest that preservation of the coracoacromial ligament may reduce the risk of periprosthetic scapular spine fracture.

  15. King JJ, Dalton SS, Gulotta LV, Wright TW, Schoch BS. How common are acromial and scapular spine fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty?: a systematic review. Bone Joint J. England. 2019;101-B:627–34.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ascione F, Kilian CM, Laughlin MS, Bugelli G, Domos P, Neyton L, et al. Increased scapular spine fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a humeral onlay short stem: an analysis of 485 consecutive cases. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2018;27:2183–90.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Liou W, Yang Y, Petersen-Fitts GR, Lombardo DJ, Stine S, Sabesan VJ. Effect of lateralized design on muscle and joint reaction forces for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2017;26:564–72.

    Google Scholar 

  18. •• Zmistowski B, Gutman M, Horvath Y, Abboud JA, Williams GRJ, Namdari S. Acromial stress fracture following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: incidence and predictors. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States; 2019; This retrospective analysis of 1,170 RSA cases performed at a single institution over a six-year period demonstrated a 4.2% incidence of acromial stress fractures and 6.4% incidence of acromial stress reactions. The study identified female sex, a reduced deltoid length, and increased glenohumeral center-of-rotation medialization as predictors of acromial stress pathology.

  19. •• Neyton L, Erickson J, Ascione F, Bugelli G, Lunini E, Walch G. Grammont Award 2018: Scapular fractures in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (Grammont style): prevalence, functional, and radiographic results with minimum 5-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2019;28:260–7 This retrospective study reported clinical outcomes data on 1035 RSAs at a minimum five-year follow-up. They reported a periprosthetic scapular fracture incidence of 1.3% and demonstrated worse clinical outcomes in patients who sustained a scapular spine fracture in comparison with a control cohort of patients who underwent RSA.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cho C-H, Jung J-W, Na S-S, Bae K-C, Lee K-J, Kim D-H. Is acromial fracture after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty a negligible complication?: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Surg. Korea (South). 2019;11:427–35.

    Google Scholar 

  21. • Patterson DC, Chi D, Parsons BO, Cagle PJJ. Acromial spine fracture after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2019;28:792–801.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Teusink MJ, Otto RJ, Cottrell BJ, Frankle MA. What is the effect of postoperative scapular fracture on outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty? J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2014;23:782–90.

    Google Scholar 

  23. • Levy JC, Anderson C, Samson A. Classification of postoperative acromial fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 2013;95:e104.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Combes D, Lancigu R, Desbordes de Cepoy P, Caporilli-Razza F, Hubert L, Rony L, et al. Imaging of shoulder arthroplasties and their complications: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. Germany. 2019;10:90.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dekker TJ, Steele JR, Vinson EV, Garrigues GE. Current peri-operative imaging concepts surrounding shoulder arthroplasty. Skeletal Radiol. Germany. 2019;48:1485–97.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hess F, Zettl R, Smolen D, Knoth C. Anatomical reconstruction to treat acromion fractures following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Int Orthop. Germany. 2018;42:875–81.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Casp AJ, Montgomery SRJ, Cancienne JM, Brockmeier SF, Werner BC. Osteoporosis and implant-related complications after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. United States. 2020;28:121–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Otto RJ, Virani NA, Levy JC, Nigro PT, Cuff DJ, Frankle MA. Scapular fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: evaluation of risk factors and the reliability of a proposed classification. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2013;22:1514–21.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Walch G, Mottier F, Wall B, Boileau P, Mole D, Favard L. Acromial insufficiency in reverse shoulder arthroplasties. J shoulder. Elb Surg. United States. 2009;18:495–502.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Werner BC, Gulotta LV, Dines JS, Dines DM, Warren RF, Craig EV, et al. Acromion compromise does not significantly affect clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a matched case-control study. HSS J. United States. 2019;15:147–52.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Smith CD, Guyver P, Bunker TD. Indications for reverse shoulder replacement: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. England. 2012;94:577–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Phadnis J, Huang T, Watts A, Krishnan J, Bain GI. Cemented or cementless humeral fixation in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty? A systematic review. Bone Joint J. England. 2016;98-B:65–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wong MT, Langohr GDG, Athwal GS, Johnson JA. Implant positioning in reverse shoulder arthroplasty has an impact on acromial stresses. J shoulder. Elb Surg. United States. 2016;25:1889–95.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Giles JW, Langohr GDG, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. The rotator cuff muscles are antagonists after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2016;25:1592–600.

    Google Scholar 

  35. •• Eno J-JT, Kontaxis A, Novoa-Boldo A, Windsor E, Chen X, Erickson BJ, et al. The biomechanics of subscapularis repair in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: the effect of lateralization and insertion site. J Orthop Res. United States. 2020;38:888–94 In this biomechanical study, 9 shoulder models were used to compare native, inferior, and superior subscapularis repair sites during RSA on subscapularis tension. The study demonstrated that repairing the subscapularis tendon to a more superior location on the lesser tuberosity can prevent overtensioning of the subscapularis, thereby improving its function.

    Google Scholar 

  36. • Werner BC, Wong AC, Mahony GT, Craig EV, Dines DM, Warren RF, et al. Clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without subscapularis repair: the importance of considering glenosphere lateralization. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. United States. 2018;26:e114–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Daalder MA, Venne G, Sharma V, Rainbow M, Bryant T, Bicknell RT. Trabecular bone density distribution in the scapula relevant to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Open Access. Netherlands. 2018;2:174–81.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Merolla G, Walch G, Ascione F, Paladini P, Fabbri E, Padolino A, et al. Grammont humeral design versus onlay curved-stem reverse shoulder arthroplasty: comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2018;27:701–10.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Crosby LA, Hamilton A, Twiss T. Scapula fractures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: classification and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States. 2011;469:2544–9.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Stevens CG, Murphy MR, Stevens TD, Bryant TL, Wright TW. Bilateral scapular fractures after reverse shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2015;24:e50–5.

    Google Scholar 

  41. •• Wagner ER, Houdek MT, Elhassan BT, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Cofield RH, Sperling JW. What are risk factors for intraoperative humerus fractures during revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty and do they influence outcomes? Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States. 2015;473:3228–34 This study retrospectively analyzed 230 shoulders that underwent conversion from an anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to a RSA. Eighty-one percent of identified humerus fractures occurred during component removal. The study identified female sex, a history of instability, and prior hemiarthroplasty as factors predisposing to intraoperative periprosthetic humerus fracture.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Atoun E, Van Tongel A, Hous N, Narvani A, Relwani J, Abraham R, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a short metaphyseal humeral stem. Int Orthop Germany. 2014;38:1213–8.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Athwal GS, Sperling JW, Rispoli DM, Cofield RH. Periprosthetic humeral fractures during shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 2009;91:594–603.

    Google Scholar 

  44. • Bacle G, Nove-Josserand L, Garaud P, Walch G. Long-term outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a follow-up of a previous study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 2017;99:454–61.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Petkovic D, Kovacevic D, Levine WN, Jobin CM. Management of the ffailed arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. United States. 2019;27:39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Collins DN. CORR insights((R)): what are risk factors for intraoperative humerus fractures during revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty and do they influence outcomes? Clin Orthop Relat Res. United States. 2015;473:3635–7.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Van Thiel GS, Halloran JP, Twigg S, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. The vertical humeral osteotomy for stem removal in revision shoulder arthroplasty: results and technique. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 2011;20:1248–54.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schnetzke M, Coda S, Walch G, Loew M. Clinical and radiological results of a cementless short stem shoulder prosthesis at minimum follow-up of two years. Int Orthop. Germany. 2015;39:1351–7.

    Google Scholar 

  49. • Jost PW, Dines JS, Griffith MH, Angel M, Altchek DW, Dines DM. Total shoulder arthroplasty utilizing mini-stem humeral components: technique and short-term results. HSS J. United States. 2011;7:213–7.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wright TW, Cofield RH. Humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 1995;77:1340–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Kumar S, Sperling JW, Haidukewych GH, Cofield RH. Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. United States. 2004;86:680–9.

    Google Scholar 

  52. • Campbell JT, Moore RS, Iannotti JP, Norris TR, Williams GR. Periprosthetic humeral fractures: mechanisms of fracture and treatment options. J Shoulder Elb Surg. United States. 1998;7:406–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cameron B, Iannotti JP. Periprosthetic fractures of the humerus and scapula: management and prevention. Orthop Clin North Am. United States. 1999;30:305–18.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Mineo GV, Accetta R, Franceschini M, Pedrotti Dell’Acqua G, Calori GM, Meersseman A. Management of shoulder periprosthetic fractures: our institutional experience and review of the literature. Injury. Netherlands. 2013;44(Suppl 1):S82–5.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Anakwenze OA, Pifer MA, Singh A. Clavicle stress fracture after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J shoulder. Elb Surg. United States. 2014;23:e170–2.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kim YS, Wang S-I, Lee JH. Clavicle fracture after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a case report with literature review. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. Turkey. 2016;50:111–4.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mufty S, Milants P, Reynaert P, Mulier T. Clavicular stress fracture following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a case report. JBJS Case Connect. United States. 2016;6:e18.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Anakwenze OA, Kancherla VK, Carolan GF, Abboud J. Coracoid fracture after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a report of 2 cases. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). United States. 2015;44:E469–72.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Christopher M. Brusalis & Samuel A. Taylor

  2. Department of Sports Medicine and Shoulder Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Samuel A. Taylor

Authors
  1. Christopher M. Brusalis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel A. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel A. Taylor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Christopher Brusalis declares that he has no conflict of interest. Samuel Taylor declares that he has the following potential conflict of interest: paid consultant for DJO Global.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brusalis, C.M., Taylor, S.A. Periprosthetic Fractures in Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Current Concepts and Advances in Management. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 13, 509–519 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09654-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09654-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation