Towards standardised definitions of shoulder arthroplasty complications: a systematic review of terms and definitions
- 517 Downloads
A transparent, reliable and accurate reporting of complications is essential for an evidence-based evaluation of shoulder arthroplasty (SA). We systematically reviewed the literature for terms and definitions related to negative events associated with SA.
Materials and methods
Various biomedical databases were searched for reviews, clinical studies and case reports of complications associated with SA. Any general definition of a complication, classification system, all reported terms related to complications and negative events with their definitions were extracted. Terms were grouped and organised in a hierarchical structure. Definitions of negative events were tabulated and compared.
From 1086 initial references published between 2010 and 2014, 495 full-text papers were reviewed. Five reports provided a general definition of the term “surgical complication” and 29 used a classification system of complications. A total of 1399 extracted terms were grouped based on similarities and involved implant or anatomical parts. One hundred and six reports (21.4%) defined at least one negative event for 28 different terms. There were 64 definitions related to humeral or glenoid loosening, and 25 systems documenting periprosthetic radiolucency. Other definitions considered notching, stress shielding, implant failure and tuberosity malposition.
A clear standardised set of SA complication definitions is lacking. Few authors reported complications based on definitions mainly considering radiological criteria without clinical parameters. This review should initiate and support the development of a standardised SA complication core set.
KeywordsShoulder Arthroplasty Negative events Complications Standardisation Systematic review
The authors acknowledge the support of Dr Martina Gosteli, medical librarian at the University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, for implementing the final literature database search. Melissa Wilhelmi, PhD, medical writer at the Schulthess Clinic, Zurich, Switzerland, is greatly thanked for editing the manuscript and supporting the submission process.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Support for this research was provided by Schulthess Clinic and University Hospital of Basel. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
There is no funding source.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 3.Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K, Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Ko CY (2009) Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg 250:363–376. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b4148f PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Sink EL, Leunig M, Zaltz I, Gilbert JC, Clohisy J, Academic Network for Conservational Hip Outcomes Research Group (2012) Reliability of a complication classification system for orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:2220–2226. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2343-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Audigé L, Blum R, Muller AM, Flury M, Durchholz H (2015) Complications following arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair: a systematic review of terms and definitions with focus on shoulder stiffness. Orthop J Sports Med 3:2325967115587861. doi: 10.1177/2325967115587861 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Koster J (2014) PubReMiner. http://hgserver2.amc.nl/cgi-bin/miner/miner2.cgi. Accessed 08 Aug 2016
- 22.Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42:377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Silliman JF, Hawkins RJ (1994) Complications following shoulder arthroplasty. In: Friedman RJ (ed) Arthroplasty of the shoulder. Thieme, St Louis, pp 242–253Google Scholar
- 32.Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27Google Scholar
- 33.O’Driscoll SW, Wright TW, Cofield RH, Ilstrup D, Mansat P (1999) Problèmes glénoïdiens: Évaluation radiographique du composant glénoïdien dans les prothèses totales d’épaule. In: Mansat M (ed) Prothèses d’épaule. Cahiers d’enseignement de la SOFCOT, No. 68. Expansion Scientifique Publications, Paris, pp 337–344Google Scholar
- 34.MacDonald DA (1993) The shoulder and elbow. In: Pynsent PB, Fairbank JC, Carr A (eds) Outcome measures in orthopaedics. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, pp 144–173Google Scholar
- 35.Lévigne C (2006) Scapular notching in reverse arthroplasty. In: Walch G, Boileau P, Molé D, Favard L, Lévigne L, Sirveaux F (eds) Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty. Nice Shoulder Course. Sauramps Médical, Montpellier, pp 353–372Google Scholar
- 43.Phipatanakul WP, Norris TR (2009) Complications and treatment of reverse shoulder prosthesis. In: Dines D, Williams G, Laurencin C (eds) Arthritis and arthroplasty: the shoulder. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 242–251Google Scholar
- 46.Roche CP, Marczuk Y, Wright TW, Flurin PH, Grey S, Jones R, Routman HD, Gilot G, Zuckerman JD (2013) Scapular notching and osteophyte formation after reverse shoulder replacement: radiological analysis of implant position in male and female patients. Bone Joint J 95-B:530–535. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B4.30442 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Paisley KC, Kraeutler MJ, Lazarus MD, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Smith MJ (2014) Relationship of scapular neck length to scapular notching after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty by use of plain radiographs. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:882–887. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 49.De Biase CF, Ziveri G, Delcogliano M, de Caro F, Gumina S, Borroni M, Castagna A, Postacchini R (2013) The use of an eccentric glenosphere compared with a concentric glenosphere in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: two-year minimum follow-up results. Int Orthop 37:1949–1955. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1947-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 51.Turner TM, Sumner DR, Urban RM, Igloria R, Galante JO (1997) Maintenance of proximal cortical bone with use of a less stiff femoral component in hemiarthroplasty of the hip without cement. An investigation in a canine model at six months and two years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1381–1390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.Leroux TS, Basques BA, Frank RM, Griffin JW, Nicholson GP, Cole BJ, Romeo AA, Verma NN (2016) Outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: a population-based study comparing adverse event and readmission rates to inpatient total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.04.006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 65.Rasmussen JV, Brorson S, Hallan G, Dale H, Aarimaa V, Mokka J, Jensen SL, Fenstad AM, Salomonsson B (2016) Is it feasible to merge data from national shoulder registries? A new collaboration within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.034 Google Scholar