Re-intervention and revision rates following primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty – review of a local shoulder arthroplasty registry. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 44, 2365–2370 (2020).

Re-intervention and revision rates following primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty – review of a local shoulder arthroplasty registry

Glanzmann, M.C., Audigé, L., Schwyzer, HK. et al.
Shoulder

Purpose

Our primary aim was to describe the re-intervention and revision rates after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) documented in a local shoulder arthroplasty registry. We also identify the main indication for revision and re-intervention, which may be relevant for patient outcome post-RSA.

Methods

Since July 2006, RSAs are consecutively documented in our clinic registry and prospectively controlled with follow-ups. Any intervention after primary RSA requiring a return to the operating room for any shoulder-related indication was termed a re-intervention. Revisions were defined as surgeries involving any exchange, removal, or addition of at least one component. The study endpoints were survival rates at two, five and ten years follow-up for both definitions.

Results

Until July 2017, 63 from a total of 1480 primary RSAs required at least one re-intervention and 33 patients had a revision. Open reduction and internal fixation for fractures around the implant (n = 14) were the predominating indications for re-intervention. The re-intervention rate for instability was 0.5%. For re-interventions, survival rates were 97.7, 95.4 and 90.8% at two, five and ten years, respectively, and the respective rates for revisions were 98.7, 97.5 and 95.3%.

Conclusion

The revision rate after primary RSA for our patient registry is low. A relevant number of additional interventions were noted that did not require any component revision but may impair the final outcome post-RSA. By only reporting revision rates, the number of post-RSA re-interventions is clearly underestimated. We recommend the documentation of all events leading to any re-intervention in arthroplasty registries.


Download article