Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 2: Systematic review of reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications
Eduard Alentorn-Geli, Gonzalo Samitier,1 Carlos Torrens, and Thomas W. Wright1Shoulder
Purpose:
Many factors influence the reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study was to compare those depending on the surgical approach, type of prosthesis, and indication for surgery through a comprehensive, systematic review.
Materials and Methods:
A literature search was conducted (1985 to June 2012) using PubMed, CINAHL, EBSCO–SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Levels I–IV evidence, in-vivo human studies (written in English with minimum of 2 years of follow-up and sample size of 10 patients) reporting reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications after RSA were included. The data obtained were analyzed depending on the surgical approach, type of prosthesis (with medialized or lateralized center of rotation), or indication for surgery.
Results:
About 37 studies were included involving 3150 patients (mean [SD] percentage of females, age, and follow-up of 72% [13], 71.6 years [3.8], and 45 months [20], respectively). Use of deltopectoral approach and lateralized prostheses had significantly higher risk of need for revision surgery (P = 0.008) and glenoid loosening (P = 0.01), but lower risk of scapular notch (P < 0.001), compared with medialized prostheses with same approach. RSA for revision of anatomic prosthesis demonstrated higher risk of reoperation (P < 0.001), revision (P < 0.001), hematoma (P = 0.001), instability (P < 0.001), and infection (P = 0.02) compared with most of the other indications.
Conclusions:
Lateralized prostheses had significantly higher glenoid loosening and need for revision surgery, but a significantly lower rate of scapular notching compared to medialized prostheses. The risk of reoperations, revisions, problems, and complications after RSA was increased in revision cases compared with other indications.
Level of Evidence:
Level IV.
Link to article