Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty using convertible glenoid: a systematic review of clinical and radiological outcomes

  • Review
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present systematic review is to collect all the available evidence regarding the clinical and radiological results of revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) of modular anatomic shoulder prostheses (TSA) using a convertible metal-backed glenoid (MBG).

Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies investigating revision of TSA to RSA utilizing a convertible MBG and reporting clinical and radiological outcomes were identified.

Results

A total of five studies on the use of convertible modular glenoid component in the setting of TSA revision to RSA were finally included in the present systematic review. A total of 60 procedures were reported. Mean operative times was 65 min. Intraoperative complications included 3 cases of glenoid loosening. Only one case of dislocation was reported as postoperative complication. At mean follow-up of 32.3 months post-revision, no glenoid loosening was reported, VAS score decreased from 7.7 to 1.5, Constant Score increased from 24.8 to 57.6.

Conclusions

Revision to RSA after failed TSA using a convertible modular glenoid component was associated with a low rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, low surgical time and led to good results in term of pain relieve and functional outcomes. Given the complexity and risk associated with revision of anatomic shoulder prosthesis having a convertible glenoid may help to simplify the procedure and improve clinical results.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data presented in this study are available in the articles included in the systematic review.

References

  1. Longo UG, Papalia R, Castagna A et al (2022) Shoulder replacement: an epidemiological nationwide study from 2009 to 2019. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23:889. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05849-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Chalmers PN, Salazar DH, Romeo AA et al (2018) Comparative utilization of reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a comprehensive analysis of a high-volume center. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 26:e504–e510. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wagner ER, Farley KX, Higgins I et al (2020) The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty: rise and future projections compared with hip and knee arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29:2601–2609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Neer CS (1974) Replacement arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56:1–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Castagna A, Garofalo R (2019) Journey of the glenoid in anatomic total shoulder replacement. Shoulder Elbow 11:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573218790119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM (2004) Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1058274604001296

  7. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR (1997) Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 6:495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1058-2746(97)90081-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brochin RL, Zastrow RK, Patel AV et al (2022) Long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty in patients under age 60 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 31:S63–S70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Raiss P, Bruckner T, Rickert M, Walch G (2014) Longitudinal observational study of total shoulder replacements with cement: fifteen to twenty-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:198–205. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bohsali KI, Bois AJ, Wirth MA (2017) Complications of shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:256–269. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gonzalez J-F, Alami GB, Baque F et al (2011) Complications of unconstrained shoulder prostheses. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:666–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Young A, Walch G, Boileau P et al (2011) A multicentre study of the long-term results of using a flat-back polyethylene glenoid component in shoulder replacement for primary osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:210–216. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.93B2.25086

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Walch G, Young AA, Melis B et al (2011) Results of a convex-back cemented keeled glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis: multicenter study with a follow-up greater than 5 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 20:385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Young AA, Walch G, Pape G et al (2012) Secondary rotator cuff dysfunction following total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:685–693. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Khan A, Bunker TD, Kitson JB (2009) Clinical and radiological follow-up of the Aequalis third-generation cemented total shoulder replacement: a minimum ten-year study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:1594–1600. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B12.22139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Australian Orthopaedic Association (2022) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty 2022 ANNUAL REPORT. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2022

  17. Gauci M-O, Cavalier M, Gonzalez J-F et al (2020) Revision of failed shoulder arthroplasty: epidemiology, etiology, and surgical options. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29:541–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.07.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bonnevialle N, Melis B, Neyton L et al (2013) Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22:745–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cheung EV, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2007) Polyethylene insert exchange for wear after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16:574–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sheth M, Sholder D, Abboud J et al (2020) Revision of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to hemiarthroplasty: does it work? Arch Bone Jt Surg 8:147–1153. https://doi.org/10.22038/abjs.2019.34244.1897

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Neyton L, Erickson J, Ascione F et al (2019) Grammont Award 2018: scapular fractures in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (Grammont style): prevalence, functional, and radiographic results with minimum 5-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 28:260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.07.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Knowles NK, Columbus MP, Wegmann K et al (2020) Revision shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and comparison of North American vs. European outcomes and complications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29:1071–1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.12.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grammont PM, Baulot E (1993) Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture. Orthopedics 16:65–68. https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-19930101-11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I (2006) Neer Award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15:527–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wagner E, Houdek MT, Elhassan BT et al (2016) Glenoid bone-grafting in revision to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: surgical technique. JBJS Essent Surg Tech 6:e35. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.ST.15.00023

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Rashid MS, Cunningham L, Shields DW et al (2023) Clinical and radiological outcomes of Lima ProMade custom 3D printed glenoid components in primary and revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with severe glenoid bone loss: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg S1058–2746(23):00415–00419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.04.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Flurin P-H, Janout M, Roche CP et al (2013) Revision of the loose glenoid component in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013) 71(Suppl 2):68–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L et al (2012) Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:342–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Austin L, Zmistowski B, Chang ES, Williams GR (2011) Is reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reasonable alternative for revision arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:2531–2537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1685-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bartels DW, Marigi E, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J (2021) Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for anatomical glenoid component loosening was not universally successful: a detailed analysis of 127 consecutive shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103:879–886. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.00555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sharareh B, Yao JJ, Matsen FA, Hsu JE (2022) What is the optimal management of a loose glenoid component after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg S1058–2746(22):00808–00814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2022.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Castagna A, Randelli M, Garofalo R et al (2010) Mid-term results of a metal-backed glenoid component in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1410–1415. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.23578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Katz D, Kany J, Valenti P et al (2013) New design of a cementless glenoid component in unconstrained shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective medium-term analysis of 143 cases. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:27–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1109-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Werner BC, Dines JS, Dines DM (2016) Platform systems in shoulder arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 9:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9317-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Crosby LA, Wright TW, Yu S, Zuckerman JD (2017) Conversion to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with and without humeral stem retention: the role of a convertible-platform stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99:736–742. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Castagna A, Delcogliano M, de Caro F et al (2013) Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: clinical and radiological results using a modular system. Int Orthop 37:1297–1305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1907-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Kany J, Amouyel T, Flamand O et al (2015) A convertible shoulder system: is it useful in total shoulder arthroplasty revisions? Int Orthop 39:299–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2563-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Weber-Spickschen TS, Alfke D, Agneskirchner JD (2015) The use of a modular system to convert an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results. Bone Joint J 97-B:1662–1667. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.35176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kany J, Jose J, Katz D et al (2017) The main cause of instability after unconstrained shoulder prosthesis is soft tissue deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 26:e243–e251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Valenti P, Katz D, Kany J, Werthel J-D (2018) Convertible glenoid components facilitate revisions to reverse shoulder arthroplasty easier: retrospective review of 13 cases. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 47. https://doi.org/10.12788/ajo.2018.0008

  41. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A (1999) Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 14:756–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(99)90232-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Matsen FA, Clinton J, Lynch J et al (2008) Glenoid component failure in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:885–896. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Otte RS, Naylor AJ, Blanchard KN et al (2020) Salvage reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort analysis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29:S134–S138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Franke KJ, Christmas KN, Simon P et al (2021) The effect of glenoid bone loss and rotator cuff status in failed anatomic shoulder arthroplasty after revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 30:844–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.07.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Shields E, Wiater JM (2019) Patient outcomes after revision of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff failure or component loosening: a matched cohort study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 27:e193–e198. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Walker M, Willis MP, Brooks JP et al (2012) The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 21:514–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sheth MM, Sholder D, Getz CL et al (2019) Revision of failed hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 28:1074–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.10.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kirsch JM, Khan M, Thornley P et al (2018) Platform shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27:756–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2017.08.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Papadonikolakis A, Matsen FA (2014) Metal-backed glenoid components have a higher rate of failure and fail by different modes in comparison with all-polyethylene components: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:1041–1047. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.00674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Castagna A, Delle Rose G, Borroni M et al (2022) The glenoid: a weak link in total shoulder arthroplasty: metal backs as possible solutions and future perspectives. Obere Extremität 17:59–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11678-022-00690-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Magosch P, Habermeyer P, Vetter P (2021) Radiologic midterm results of cemented and uncemented glenoid components in primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder: a matched pair analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04021-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4 Pieve Emanuele, 20072, Milan, Italy

    Riccardo Ranieri, Giuseppe Anzillotti & Alessandro Castagna

  2. Shoulder and Sport Medicine Unit, Miulli Hospital, Strada Prov. 127 Acquaviva – Santeramo Km, 4, 100 Acquaviva Delle Fonti, 70021, Bari, Italy

    Raffaele Garofalo

  3. Shoulder and Elbow Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, via Manzoni 56 Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy

    Giacomo Delle Rose, Mario Borroni, Raffaele Garofalo & Alessandro Castagna

Authors
  1. Riccardo Ranieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giuseppe Anzillotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giacomo Delle Rose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mario Borroni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raffaele Garofalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alessandro Castagna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Giuseppe Anzillotti and Riccardo Ranieri. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Riccardo Ranieri and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riccardo Ranieri.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This is a review study. No ethical approval is required.

Consent to participate

Not required.

Consent to publish

Not required.

Competing interests

Alessandro Castagna declares conflicts of interest: Lima consultant and royalties.

All other authors, their immediate family, and any research foundation, with which they are affiliated, did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ranieri, R., Anzillotti, G., Rose, G.D. et al. Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty using convertible glenoid: a systematic review of clinical and radiological outcomes. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06188-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06188-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation