Humeral prosthetic failure of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty: A report of three cases

Wilde, Lieven De; Walch, Gilles

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.014

Cited by 41 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At latest followup (65 months after the revision surgery), this patient had a Constant-Murley score of 84, a VAS score for pain of 0, an ADLER score of 28, and an active abduction of 180°. One of the two patients who had dislocated early after surgery developed aseptic loosening (negative cultures) with failure of the epiphyseal prosthesis 5 years postoperatively [16]. The prosthesis was replaced by a new long humeral stem prosthesis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Tumors of the Proximal Humerus Reduce Impairment?

Wilde

Boileau

Bracht

2011

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Normal function of the upper limb is seldom restored after limb-sparing surgery for tumors of the proximal humerus. The literature suggests superior shoulder function is achieved in the short term with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty compared to other techniques when performed for conditions with rotator cuff deficiency. It is unclear whether this superiority is maintained when reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is performed for tumors. Questions/purposes When performed for tumors, we determined whether reverse total shoulder arthroplasty restores function and improves motion, the complications associated with the surgery, and whether reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with autologous grafting is associated with bone resorption. Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 14 patients who had undergone reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for tumors of the proximal humerus. Four patients died, leaving nine patients for review. The surviving patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically. The minimum followup was 0.6 years (mean, 7.7 years; range, 0.6-12 years). Results At last followup, mean active abduction was 157°a nd mean functional Constant-Murley score was 76%. One patient had a deep infection and one developed a loose prosthesis; both were treated with single-stage exchange. At last followup, both patients had reasonable function without evidence of infection or loosening. Radiographic graft resorption was seen in all but one patient. Conclusions Our observations suggest, at medium-term followup, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is a reasonable option for tumors of the proximal humerus. It has low morbidity, restores a mean active abduction of 157°, and limits the impairment of activities of daily living.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To address this well-known problem in CTA, a modified latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer has recently been proposed [5,26]. To assure the longevity of the implant, a composite reconstruction consisting of an intercalary irradiated autograft augmented with a prosthesis is a valid technique to retain the bone stock [16,36].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Tumors of the Proximal Humerus Reduce Impairment?

Wilde

Boileau

Bracht

2011

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The revision rate for inverse prostheses with aseptic glenoid loosening is thus about 3.5 % [10]. Wear on the reversed shoulder prosthesis is probably associated with loosening of the stem [26], but to date there have been no large studies or studies examining retrieved glenoid components from reversed shoulder prostheses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a reconstruction reverse shoulder for tumour surgery and tribological comparision with an anatomical shoulder arthroplasty

Dieckmann

Liem

Gosheger

et al. 2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The functional results after reconstruction of the proximal humerus in tumour surgery are poor. Therefore, a reversed proximal humerus replacement was developed in our institution (MUTARS humerus inverse). A low degree of wear on the polyethylene is required because of the patients' youth and demands on shoulder function. A special type of polyethylene with shock-absorbing properties has been developed to minimise polyethylene wear in the MUTARS inverse proximal humerus replacement. We compared the tribological properties of an anatomical shoulder prosthesis (CAPICA) with the new reversed proximal humerus replacement (MUTARS humerus inverse). Methods Both prostheses were tested up to 5×10 6 cycles. Every millionth cycle the surface was inspected and a gravimetric measurement was performed. A measurement of surface roughness was done before testing and after 5×10 6 cycles. Results In both prostheses after 5×10 6 cycles there were no major defects, such as delamination, observed. In the reversed proximal humerus replacement abrasion of 28 mg/ 10 6 cycles was detected. The mean abrasion of the anatomical prosthesis was 9.28 mg/ 10 6 cycles. Conclusion The glenoid component of the first reversed humerus replacement (MUTARS humerus inverse) has wear properties comparable to those of normal reversed shoulder prostheses. This is important, as this type of prosthesis is used in young patients after resection of bone tumours, with a good functional outcome. It can, therefore, be expected that the revision rate due to wear will be as high as in patients with normal reversed shoulder prostheses.

show abstract

“…They conclude that the problems were related to the design of the implant or to surgical errors during the implantation procedure [38]. We saw this type of complication in two cases, one of which followed reconstruction after trauma (Fig.…”

Section: De Wilde and Walch Published A Report Of Three Casesmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The Delta reverse shoulder was the oldest and the most widely used implant in its three consecutive versions (Delta 1, Delta 2 and Delta Xtend), which is probably why problems with this type of prosthesis are frequently reported in the literature [3,8,28,[34][35][36][37][38], but other implants were recorded with similar complications [7,8,16,37,[39][40][41].…”

Section: Specific Problems Related To the Implantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complications with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and recent evolutions

Scarlat¹

2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its description by Paul Grammont from Dijon, France, several tens of thousands of reverse total shoulder arthroplasties (RTSA) have been performed for diverse conditions. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the complications of this procedure in the literature and in clinical practice. A total of 240 papers concerning RTSA published between 1996 and 2012 have been identified. Over 80 papers describe complications associated with this type of implant. A list of prostheses satisfying European and US standards, CE and FDA approved, has been produced on the basis of information provided by the manufacturers. Data from the literature do not support a meta-analysis. The inventory of best practices shows excellent results in the short and medium term in specific indications, while the number of complications varies between 10 and 65 % in long-term series. Complications can be classified into (A) non-specific including infections (superficial and deep), phlebitis, haematoma, neurological complications of the suprascapular, radial and axillary nerves and (B) specific complications associated with RTSA including (1) on the glenoid side: intraoperative fracture of the glenoid and acromion, late fracture of the scapula, impingement at the scapular neck (notching), glenoid loosening, dissociation of the glenoid component (snatching of the glenosphere) and fractures of the glenoid baseplate; (2) on the humeral side: metaphyseal deterioration, humeral loosening, instability of the shoulder, stiffness with limitation of external and/or internal rotation; and (3) muscular complications with fatty degeneration of the deltoid. Additionally we have identified specific situations related to the type of implant such as the disassembly of the humeral or the glenoid component, dissociation of the polyethylene humeral plate, dissociation of the metaphysis and osteolysis of the tuberosities. The integration of results from different clinical series is difficult because of the lack of a database and the multitude of implants used.

show abstract

Humeral prosthetic failure of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty: A report of three cases

Cited by 41 publications

References 5 publications

Does Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Tumors of the Proximal Humerus Reduce Impairment?

Does Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Tumors of the Proximal Humerus Reduce Impairment?

Evaluation of a reconstruction reverse shoulder for tumour surgery and tribological comparision with an anatomical shoulder arthroplasty

Complications with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and recent evolutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About