Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Survivorship of a Medialized Glenoid and Lateralized Onlay Humerus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is High at Midterm Follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
HSS Journal ®

Abstract

Background

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a common treatment of a variety of disabling shoulder conditions. The purpose of this study was to determine revision-free survivorship after RSA using a medialized glenoid and lateralized onlay-type humerus implant and to identify etiologies of revision.

Methods

All RSAs performed using the Comprehensive® Reverse Shoulder System (Zimmer Biomet, Inc.; Warsaw, IN, USA) at one institution from 2008 to 2014 were identified through a retrospective review. Charts were reviewed to determine whether the RSA was a primary or revision surgery. Patients were contacted by telephone, and survivorship was defined as no subsequent surgery after RSA. Of the 526 RSAs performed, responses were obtained from 403 patients (77%). A Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to determine survivorship over time. A χ2 test was used to determine differences between revision rates after RSA.

Results

Minimum follow-up was 3 years, and average follow-up was 4.83 ± 1.60 years. Survivorship was 96% at 2 years and 93% at 5 years after RSA. Revisions were performed for instability (n = 8), humeral tray-taper junction failure (n = 5), acute fracture (n = 4), infection (n = 3), glenoid loosening (n = 3), osteolysis (n = 1), or notching (n = 1). Fourteen of the 151 patients (9.2%) who had surgery prior to RSA required revision after RSA. Having shoulder surgery prior to RSA was associated with higher rates of subsequent revision after RSA.

Conclusion

Overall, survivorship after RSA using a medialized glenoid and lateralized onlay-type humerus RSA is high, and prostheses implanted in native shoulders have lower rates of revision at midterm follow-up. Instability (1.9%) was the most common reason for revision.

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

  1. Bacle G, Nové-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. 2017;99(6):454–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Edwards TB, Williams MD, Labriola JE, Elkousy HA, Gartsman GM, O’Connor DP. Subscapularis insufficiency and the risk of shoulder dislocation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):892–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Favard L, Levigne C, Nerot C, Gerber C, De Wilde L, Mole D. Reverse prostheses in arthropathies with cuff tear: are survivorship and function maintained over time? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2469–2475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Frankle M, Siegal S, Pupello D, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M. The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency: a minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1697–1705.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Giles JW, Langohr GDG, Johnson JA, Athwal GS. Implant design variations in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty influence the required deltoid force and resultant joint load. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3615–3626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Grammont P, Baulot E. Delta shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff rupture. Orthopedics 1993;16(1):65–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Guery J, Favard L, Sirveaux F, Oudet D, Mole D, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: survivorship analysis of eighty replacements followed for five to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2006;88(8):1742–1747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Levy J, Frankle M, Mighell M, Pupello D. The use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(2):292–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 Elbow Surg. 2017;26(4):564–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McDonald LS, Dines JS, Chin C, Warren RF, Dines DM. Humeral tray-taper failure in modular reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. HSS Journal. 2016;12(1):8–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mizuno N, Denard PJ, Raiss P, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis in patients with a biconcave glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(14):1297–1304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mulieri P, Dunning P, Klein S, Pupello D, Frankle M. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tear without glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2010;92(15):2544–2556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rittmeister M, Kerschbaumer F. Grammont reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and nonreconstructible rotator cuff lesions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(1):17–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Saltzman BM, Chalmers PN, Gupta AK, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Complication rates comparing primary with revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):1647–1654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Mole D. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff: results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br . 2004;86(3):388–395.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. US Food and Drug Administration. Zimmer Biomet recalls Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder due to a high fracture rate. December 15, 2016. Available from https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/listofrecalls/ucm541862.htm .

  17. Wall B, O’Connor DP, Edwards TB, Nové-Josserand L, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(7):1476–1485.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Werner C, Steinmann P, Gilbart M, Gerber C. Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2005;87(7):1476–1486.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Werner BC, Wong AC, Mahony GT, et al. Clinical outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without subscapularis repair: the importance of considering glenosphere lateralization. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018;26(5):e114–e119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Young AA, Smith MM, Bacle G, Moraga C, Walch G. Early results of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2011;93(20):1915–1923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors received funding from Zimmer Biomet in support of their research and preparation of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sports Medicine and Shoulder Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th St., New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Ryan C. Rauck MD, Eric P. Eck BS, Brenda Chang MS, Joshua S. Dines MD, David M. Dines MD, Russell F. Warren MD & Lawrence V. Gulotta MD

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, TRIA Orthopaedic Center, Bloomington, MN, USA

    Edward V. Craig MD

Authors
  1. Ryan C. Rauck MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric P. Eck BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brenda Chang MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Edward V. Craig MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joshua S. Dines MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David M. Dines MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Russell F. Warren MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lawrence V. Gulotta MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan C. Rauck MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Ryan C. Rauck, MD, Eric P. Eck, BS, Brenda Chang, MS, Edward V. Craig, MD, Joshua S. Dines, MD, David M. Dines, MD, Russell F. Warren, MD, and Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD, all report receiving grant funding from Zimmer Biomet in support of this research and this article. In addition, Edward V. Craig, MD, reports royalties from Zimmer Biomet and from Wolters Kluwer, outside the submitted work. Joshua S. Dines, MD, reports personal fees and grants from Arthrex, editorial board membership from American Journal of Orthopaedics, and a patent with royalties paid from Conmed, outside the submitted work. David M. Dines, MD, reports financial or material support and royalties from Zimmer Biomet, during the conduct of the study, plus personal fees from Wright Medical Technology, Inc., outside the submitted work. Russell F. Warren, MD, reports stock or stock options from Ivy Sports Medicine and Orthonet and royalties from Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew, outside the submitted work. Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD, reports personal fees as a speaker from Zimmer Biomet, during the conduct of the study.

Human/Animal Rights

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was waived from all patients for being included in this study.

Required Author Forms

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

Additional information

Level of Evidence: Level IV: Therapeutic Retrospective Cohort Study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rauck, R.C., Eck, E.P., Chang, B. et al. Survivorship of a Medialized Glenoid and Lateralized Onlay Humerus Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Is High at Midterm Follow-up. HSS Jrnl 16 (Suppl 2), 293–299 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-019-09721-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-019-09721-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation