Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 469, Issue 9, pp 2496–2504

A Complication-based Learning Curve From 200 Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasties

  • Laurence B. Kempton
  • Elizabeth Ankerson
  • J. Michael Wiater
Symposium: Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

Reported early complication rates in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty have widely varied from 0% to 75% in part due to a lack of standard inclusion criteria. In addition, it is unclear whether revision arthroplasty is associated with a higher rate of complications than primary arthroplasty.

Questions/purpose

We therefore (1) determined the types and rates of early complications in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using defined criteria, (2) characterized an early complication-based learning curve for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, and (3) determined whether revision arthroplasties result in a higher incidence of complications.

Patients and Methods

From October 2004 to May 2008, an initial series of 200 reverse total shoulder arthroplasties was performed in 191 patients by a single surgeon. Forty of the 200 arthroplasties were revision arthroplasties. Of these, 192 shoulders were available for minimum 6-month followup (mean, 19.4 months; range, 6–49.2 months). We determined local and systemic complications and distinguished major from minor complications.

Results

Nineteen shoulders involved local complications (9.9%), including seven major and 12 minor complications. Nine involved perioperative systemic complications (4.7%), including eight major complications and one minor complication. The local complication rate was higher in the first 40 shoulders (23.1%) versus the last 160 shoulders (6.5%). Seven of 40 (17.5%) revision arthroplasties involved local complications, including two major and five minor complications compared to 12 of 152 (7.9%) primary arthroplasties, including five major and seven minor complications. Nerve palsies occurred less frequently in primary arthroplasties (0.6%) compared to revisions (9.8%).

Conclusions

The early complication-based learning curve for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is approximately 40 cases. There was a trend toward more complications in revision versus primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and more neuropathies in revisions.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the guidelines online for a complete description of level of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Suppl S):147S–161S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boulahia A, Edwards TB, Walch G, Baratta RV. Early results of a reverse design prosthesis in the treatment of arthritis of the shoulder in elderly patients with a large rotator cuff tear. Orthopedics. 2002;25:129–133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Schleck C. Complications of total shoulder arthroplasty: are they fewer or different? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15:19–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010;303:1259–1265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edwards TB, Williams M, Labriola J, Elkousy H, Gartsman G, O’Connor D. Subscapularis insufficiency and the risk of shoulder dislocation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18:892–826.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;87:1697–1705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gerber C, Pennington SD, Nyffeler RW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17:284–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;88:1742–1747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hammond J, Queale W, Kim T, McFarland E. Surgeon experience and clinical and economic outcomes for shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:2318–2324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King J, Stamper DL, Schaad DC, Leopold SS. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with traditional total knee arthroplasty: assessment of the learning curve and the postoperative recuperative period. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1497–1503.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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;89:292–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nitin J, Peitrobon R, Hocker S, Guller U, Shankar A, Higgins L. The relationship between surgeon and hospital volume and outcomes for shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:496–505.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Olsen M, Davis ET, Waddell JP, Schemitsch EH. Imageless computer navigation for placement of the femoral component in resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:310–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rittmeister M, Kerschbaumer F. Grammont reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and nonreconstructible rotator cuff lesions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10:17–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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;86:388–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wall B, Nove-Josserand L, O’Connor D, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1476–1485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Werner CM, Steinmann PA, 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;87:1476–1486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wierks C, Skolasky R, Ji J, McFarland E. Reverse total shoulder replacement: intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:225–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurence B. Kempton
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Ankerson
    • 2
  • J. Michael Wiater
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryWilliam Beaumont HospitalRoyal OakUSA
  2. 2.William Beaumont Hospital Research Institute Royal OakUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryOakland University William Beaumont School of MedicineRochester USA
  4. 4.Beverly Hills Orthopaedic SurgeryBeverly HillsUSA

Personalised recommendations