The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I
Background: Globally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has moved away from the Grammont design to modern prosthesis designs. The purpose of this 2-part study was to systematically review each of the most common complications of RSA, limiting each search to publications in 2010 or later. In this p...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2020-12-01
|
| Series: | JSES International |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638320301250 |
| id |
doaj-9fd74b8db7454e9195c3c21958f3fd0f |
|---|---|
| record_format |
Article |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
English |
| format |
Article |
| sources |
DOAJ |
| author |
Sarav S. Shah, MD Benjamin T. Gaal, BA Alexander M. Roche, BA Surena Namdari, MD Brian M. Grawe, MD Macy Lawler, BS Stewart Dalton, MD Joseph J. King, MD Joshua Helmkamp, BS Grant E. Garrigues, MD Thomas W. Wright, MD Bradley S. Schoch, MD Kyle Flik, MD Randall J. Otto, MD Richard Jones, MD Andrew Jawa, MD Peter McCann, MD Joseph Abboud, MD Gabe Horneff, MD Glen Ross, MD Richard Friedman, MD Eric T. Ricchetti, MD Douglas Boardman, MD Robert Z. Tashjian, MD Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD |
| spellingShingle |
Sarav S. Shah, MD Benjamin T. Gaal, BA Alexander M. Roche, BA Surena Namdari, MD Brian M. Grawe, MD Macy Lawler, BS Stewart Dalton, MD Joseph J. King, MD Joshua Helmkamp, BS Grant E. Garrigues, MD Thomas W. Wright, MD Bradley S. Schoch, MD Kyle Flik, MD Randall J. Otto, MD Richard Jones, MD Andrew Jawa, MD Peter McCann, MD Joseph Abboud, MD Gabe Horneff, MD Glen Ross, MD Richard Friedman, MD Eric T. Ricchetti, MD Douglas Boardman, MD Robert Z. Tashjian, MD Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I JSES International Reverse shoulder arthroplasty complications scapular notching loosening infection neurologic injury |
| author_facet |
Sarav S. Shah, MD Benjamin T. Gaal, BA Alexander M. Roche, BA Surena Namdari, MD Brian M. Grawe, MD Macy Lawler, BS Stewart Dalton, MD Joseph J. King, MD Joshua Helmkamp, BS Grant E. Garrigues, MD Thomas W. Wright, MD Bradley S. Schoch, MD Kyle Flik, MD Randall J. Otto, MD Richard Jones, MD Andrew Jawa, MD Peter McCann, MD Joseph Abboud, MD Gabe Horneff, MD Glen Ross, MD Richard Friedman, MD Eric T. Ricchetti, MD Douglas Boardman, MD Robert Z. Tashjian, MD Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD |
| author_sort |
Sarav S. Shah, MD |
| title |
The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I |
| title_short |
The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I |
| title_full |
The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I |
| title_fullStr |
The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I |
| title_full_unstemmed |
The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part I |
| title_sort |
modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part i |
| publisher |
Elsevier |
| series |
JSES International |
| issn |
2666-6383 |
| publishDate |
2020-12-01 |
| description |
Background: Globally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has moved away from the Grammont design to modern prosthesis designs. The purpose of this 2-part study was to systematically review each of the most common complications of RSA, limiting each search to publications in 2010 or later. In this part (part I), we examined (1) scapular notching (SN), (2) periprosthetic infection (PJI), (3) mechanical failure (glenoid or humeral component), and (4) neurologic injury (NI). Methods: Four separate PubMed database searches were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Overall, 113 studies on SN, 62 on PJI, 34 on mechanical failure, and 48 on NI were included in our reviews. Univariate analysis was performed with the χ2 or Fisher exact test. Results: The Grammont design had a higher SN rate vs. all other designs combined (42.5% vs. 12.3%, P < .001). The onlay humeral design had a lower rate than the lateralized glenoid design (10.5% vs. 14.8%, P < .001). The PJI rate was 2.4% for primary RSA and 2.6% for revision RSA. The incidence of glenoid and humeral component loosening was 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively. The Grammont design had an increased NI rate vs. all other designs combined (0.9% vs. 0.1%, P = .04). Conclusions: Focused systematic reviews of the recent literature with a large volume of RSAs demonstrate that with the use of non-Grammont modern prosthesis designs, complications including SN, PJI, glenoid component loosening, and NI are significantly reduced compared with previous studies. As the indications for RSA continue to expand, it is imperative to accurately track the rates and types of complications to justify its cost and increased indications. |
| topic |
Reverse shoulder arthroplasty complications scapular notching loosening infection neurologic injury |
| url |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638320301250 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT saravsshahmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT benjamintgaalba themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT alexandermrocheba themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT surenanamdarimd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT brianmgrawemd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT macylawlerbs themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT stewartdaltonmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT josephjkingmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT joshuahelmkampbs themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT grantegarriguesmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT thomaswwrightmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT bradleysschochmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT kyleflikmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT randalljottomd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT richardjonesmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT andrewjawamd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT petermccannmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT josephabboudmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT gabehorneffmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT glenrossmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT richardfriedmanmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT erictricchettimd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT douglasboardmanmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT robertztashjianmd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT lawrencevgulottamd themodernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT saravsshahmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT benjamintgaalba modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT alexandermrocheba modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT surenanamdarimd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT brianmgrawemd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT macylawlerbs modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT stewartdaltonmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT josephjkingmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT joshuahelmkampbs modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT grantegarriguesmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT thomaswwrightmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT bradleysschochmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT kyleflikmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT randalljottomd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT richardjonesmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT andrewjawamd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT petermccannmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT josephabboudmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT gabehorneffmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT glenrossmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT richardfriedmanmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT erictricchettimd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT douglasboardmanmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT robertztashjianmd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti AT lawrencevgulottamd modernreverseshoulderarthroplastyandanupdatedsystematicreviewforeachcomplicationparti |
| _version_ |
1724209177162678272 |
| spelling |
doaj-9fd74b8db7454e9195c3c21958f3fd0f2021-03-22T08:45:23ZengElsevierJSES International2666-63832020-12-0144929943The modern reverse shoulder arthroplasty and an updated systematic review for each complication: part ISarav S. Shah, MD0Benjamin T. Gaal, BA1Alexander M. Roche, BA2Surena Namdari, MD3Brian M. Grawe, MD4Macy Lawler, BS5Stewart Dalton, MD6Joseph J. King, MD7Joshua Helmkamp, BS8Grant E. Garrigues, MD9Thomas W. Wright, MD10Bradley S. Schoch, MD11Kyle Flik, MD12Randall J. Otto, MD13Richard Jones, MD14Andrew Jawa, MD15Peter McCann, MD16Joseph Abboud, MD17Gabe Horneff, MD18Glen Ross, MD19Richard Friedman, MD20Eric T. Ricchetti, MD21Douglas Boardman, MD22Robert Z. Tashjian, MD23Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD24Corresponding author: Sarav S. Shah, MD, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications“ 9400 W Higgins Rd, Rosemont, IL 60018, USA.; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USAAmerican Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Multicenter Task Force on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Complications, Rosemont, IL, USABackground: Globally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has moved away from the Grammont design to modern prosthesis designs. The purpose of this 2-part study was to systematically review each of the most common complications of RSA, limiting each search to publications in 2010 or later. In this part (part I), we examined (1) scapular notching (SN), (2) periprosthetic infection (PJI), (3) mechanical failure (glenoid or humeral component), and (4) neurologic injury (NI). Methods: Four separate PubMed database searches were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Overall, 113 studies on SN, 62 on PJI, 34 on mechanical failure, and 48 on NI were included in our reviews. Univariate analysis was performed with the χ2 or Fisher exact test. Results: The Grammont design had a higher SN rate vs. all other designs combined (42.5% vs. 12.3%, P < .001). The onlay humeral design had a lower rate than the lateralized glenoid design (10.5% vs. 14.8%, P < .001). The PJI rate was 2.4% for primary RSA and 2.6% for revision RSA. The incidence of glenoid and humeral component loosening was 2.3% and 1.4%, respectively. The Grammont design had an increased NI rate vs. all other designs combined (0.9% vs. 0.1%, P = .04). Conclusions: Focused systematic reviews of the recent literature with a large volume of RSAs demonstrate that with the use of non-Grammont modern prosthesis designs, complications including SN, PJI, glenoid component loosening, and NI are significantly reduced compared with previous studies. As the indications for RSA continue to expand, it is imperative to accurately track the rates and types of complications to justify its cost and increased indications.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638320301250Reverse shoulder arthroplastycomplicationsscapular notchinglooseninginfectionneurologic injury |