User login
Patient-Specific Guides/Instrumentation in Shoulder Arthroplasty
ABSTRACT
Optimal outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty TSA and reverse shoulder arthroplasty RSA are dependent on proper implant position. Multiple cadaver studies have demonstrated improved accuracy of implant positioning with use of patient-specific guides/instrumentation compared to traditional methods. At this time, there are 3 commercially available single use patient-specific instrumentation systems and 1 commercially available reusable patient-specific instrumentation system. Currently though, there are no studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patient-specific guides to those of traditional methods of glenoid placement, and limited research has been done comparing the accuracy of each system’s 3-dimensional planning software. Future work is necessary to elucidate the ideal indications for the use of patient-specific guides and instrumentation, but it is likely, particularly in the setting of advanced glenoid deformity, that these systems will improve a surgeon's ability to put the implant in the best position possible.
Continue to: Optimal functional recovery...
Optimal functional recovery and implant longevity following both total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) depend, in large part, on proper placement of the glenoid component. Glenoid component malpositioning has an adverse effect on shoulder stability, range of motion (ROM), impingement, and glenoid implant longevity.
Traditionally, glenoid component positioning has been done manually by the surgeons based on their review of preoperative films and knowledge of glenoid anatomy. Anatomic studies have demonstrated high individual variability in the version of the native glenoid, thus making ideal placement of the initial glenoid guide pin difficult using standard guide pin guides.1
The following 2 methods have been described for improving the accuracy of glenoid guide pin insertion and subsequent glenoid implant placement: (1) computerized navigation and (2) patient-specific guides/instrumentation. Although navigated shoulder systems have demonstrated improved accuracy in glenoid placement compared with traditional methods, navigated systems require often large and expensive systems for implementation. The majority of them also require placement of guide pins or arrays on scapular bony landmarks, likely leading to an increase in operative time and possible iatrogenic complications, including fracture and pin site infections.
This review focuses on the use of patient-specific guides/instrumentation in shoulder arthroplasty. This includes the topic of proper glenoid and glenosphere placement as well as patient-specific guides/instrumentation and their accuracy.
GLENOID PLACEMENT
Glenohumeral osteoarthritis is the most common indication for TSA2 and commonly results in glenoid deformity. Using computed tomography (CT) scans of 45 arthritic shoulders and 19 normal shoulders, Mullaji and colleagues3 reported that the anteroposterior dimensions of the glenoid were increased by an average of 5 mm to 8 mm in osteoarthritic shoulders and by an average of 6 mm in rheumatoid arthritic shoulders compared to those in normal shoulders. A retrospective review of serial CT scans performed preoperatively on 113 osteoarthritic shoulders by Walch and colleagues4 demonstrated an average retroversion of 16°, and it has been the basis for the commonly used Walch classification of glenoid wear in osteoarthritis. Increased glenoid wear and increased glenoid retroversion make the proper restoration of glenoid version, inclination, and offset during shoulder arthroplasty more difficult and lead to increased glenoid component malpositioning.
Continue to: The ideal placement of the glenoid...
The ideal placement of the glenoid to maximize function, ROM, and implant longevity is in a mechanically neutral alignment with no superoinferior inclination1 and neutral version with respect to the transverse axis of the scapula.5
Improper glenoid positioning has an adverse effect on the functional results of shoulder arthroplasty. Yian and colleagues6 evaluated 47 cemented, pegged glenoids using standard radiography and CT scans at a mean follow-up of 40 months. They observed a significant correlation between increased glenoid component retroversion and lower Constant scores. Hasan and colleagues7 evaluated 139 consecutive patients who were dissatisfied with the result of their primary arthroplasty and found that 28% of them had at least 1 substantially malpositioned component identified either on radiography or during a revision surgery. They also found a significant correlation between stiffness, instability, and component malposition in their cohort.
Glenoid longevity is also dependent on proper component positioning, with the worst outcomes coming if the glenoid is malaligned with either superior or inferior inclination. Hasan and colleagues7 found that of their 74 patients with failed TSAs, 44 patients (59%) demonstrated mechanical loosening of their glenoid components either radiographically or during revision surgery, and 10 of their 44 patients with loose glenoids (23%) also had a malpositioned component. Using finite element analysis, Hopkins and colleagues8 analyzed the stresses through the cement mantle in glenoid prostheses that were centrally aligned, superiorly inclined, inferiorly inclined, anteverted, and retroverted. They found that malalignment of the glenoid increases the stresses through the cement mantle, leading to increased likelihood of mantle failure compared to that of centrally aligned glenoids, especially if there is malalignment with superior or inferior inclination or retroversion.
The accuracy of traditional methods of glenoid placement using an initial guide pin is limited and decreases with increasing amounts of glenoid deformity and retroversion. Iannotti and colleagues 9 investigated 13 patients undergoing TSA with an average preoperative retroversion of 13° and evaluated them using a 3-dimensional (3-D) surgical simulator. They found that the postoperative glenoid version was within 5° of ideal version in only 7 of their 13 patients (54%) and within 10° of ideal version in only 10 of their 13 patients (77%). In their study, the ideal version was considered to be the version as close to perpendicular to the plane of the scapula as possible with complete contact of the back side of the component on glenoid bone and maintenance of the center peg of the component within bone. In addition, they found that of their 7 patients with preoperative retroversion >10°, only 1 patient (14%) had a postoperative glenoid with <10° of retroversion with regard to the plane of the scapula and that all 6 of their patients with preoperative glenoid retroversion of <10° had a postoperative glenoid version of <10°.
Preoperative CT scans are much more accurate at determining glenoid version and thus how much glenoid correction is required to reestablish neutral version than plain radiography. Nyffeler and colleagues10 compared CT scans with axillary views for comparing glenoid version in 25 patients with no shoulder prosthesis present and 25 patients with a TSA in place. They found that glenoid retroversion was overestimated on plain radiographs in 86% of their patients with an average difference between CT and plain radiography of 6.4° and a maximum difference of 21°. They also found poor interobserver reliability in the plain radiography group and good interobserver reliability in the CT group, with coefficients of correlation of 0.77 for the plain radiography group and 0.93 for the CT group. Thus, they concluded that glenoid version cannot be accurately measured by plain radiography and that CT should be used. Hoenecke and colleagues11 subsequently evaluated 33 patients scheduled for TSA and found that CT version measurements made on 2-dimensional (2-D) CT slices compared with 3-D-reconstructed models of the same CT slices differed by an average of 5.1° because the axial CT slices were most often made perpendicular to the axis of the patient’s torso and not perpendicular to the body of the scapula. Accurate version assessment is critically important in planning for the degree of correction required to restore neutral glenoid version, and differences of 6.4° between CT assessment and plain radiography, and 5.1° between 2-D and 3-D CT scan assessments may lead to inadequate version correction intraoperatively and inferior postoperative results.
Continue to: GLENOSPHERE PLACEMENT
GLENOSPHERE PLACEMENT
The most common indication for reverse TSA is rotator cuff arthropathy characterized by rotator cuff dysfunction and end-stage glenohumeral arthritis.12 These patients require accurate and reproducible glenoid placement to optimize their postoperative range of motion and stability and minimize scapular notching.
Ideal glenosphere placement is the location and orientation that maximizes impingement-free ROM and stability while avoiding notching. Individual patient anatomy determines ideal placement; however, several guidelines for placement include inferior translation on the glenoid with neutral to inferior inclination. Gutiérrez and colleagues13 developed a computer model to assess the hierarchy of surgical factors affecting the ROM after a reverse TSA. They found that lateralizing the center of rotation gave the largest increase in impingement-free abduction, followed closely by inferior translation of the glenosphere on the glenoid.
Avoiding scapular notching is also a very important factor in ideal glenosphere placement. Scapular notching can be described as impingement of the humeral cup against the scapular neck during arm adduction and/or humeral rotation. Gutiérrez and colleagues13 also found that decreasing the neck shaft angle to create a more varus proximal humerus was the most important factor in increasing the impingement-free adduction. Roche and colleagues14 reviewed the radiographs of 151 patients who underwent primary reverse TSA at a mean follow-up of 28.3 months postoperatively; they found that 13.2% of their patients had a notch and that, on average, their patients who had no scapular notch had significantly more inferior glenosphere overhang than those who had a scapular notch. Poon and colleagues15 found that a glenosphere overhang of >3.5 mm prevented notching in their randomized control trial comparing concentrically and eccentrically placed glenospheres. Multiple other studies have demonstrated similar results and recommended inferior glenoid translation and inferior glenoid inclination to avoid scapular notching.16,17 Lévigne and colleagues18 retrospectively reviewed 337 reverse TSAs and observed a correlation between scapular notching and radiolucencies around the glenosphere component, with 14% of patients with scapular notching displaying radiolucencies vs 4% of patients without scapula notching displaying radiolucencies.
Several studies have also focused on the ideal amount of inferior glenoid inclination to maximize impingement-free ROM. Li and colleagues17 performed a computer simulation study on the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System (Zimmer Biomet) to determine impingement-free internal and external ROM with varying amounts of glenosphere offset, translation, and inclination. They found that progressive glenosphere inferior inclination up to 30° improved impingement-free rotational ROM at all degrees of scaption. Gutiérrez and colleagues19 used computer modeling to compare concentrically placed glenospheres in neutral inclination with eccentrically placed glenospheres in varying degrees of inclination. They found that the lowest forces across the baseplate occurred in the lateralized and inferiorly inclined glenospheres, and the highest forces occurred in the lateralized and superiorly inclined glenospheres. Together, these studies show that inferior glenoid inclination increases impingement-free ROM and, combined with lateralization, may result in improved glenosphere longevity due to significantly decreased forces at the RSA glenoid baseplate when compared to that at superiorly inclined glenoids.
The ideal amount of mediolateral glenosphere offset has not been well defined. Grammont design systems place the center of rotation of the glenosphere medial to the glenoid baseplate together with valgus humeral component neck shaft angles of around 155°. These design elements are believed to decrease shear stresses through the glenoid baseplate to the glenoid interface and improve shoulder stability, but they are also associated with reduced impingement-free ROM and increased rates of scapular notching.13 This effect is accentuated in patients with preexisting glenoid bone loss and/or congenitally short scapular necks that further medialize the glenosphere. Medialization of the glenosphere may also shorten the remaining rotator cuff muscles and result in decreased implant stability and external rotation strength. Several implant systems have options to vary the amount of lateral offset. The correct amount of lateral offset for each patient requires the understanding that improving patients’ impingement-free ROM by increasing the amount of lateral offset comes at the price of increasing the shear forces experienced by the interface between the glenoid baseplate and the glenoid. As glenoid fixation technology improves increased lateralization of glenospheres without increased rates of glenoid baseplate, loosening should improve the ROM after reverse TSA.
Continue to: Regardless of the intraoperative goals...
Regardless of the intraoperative goals for placement and orientation of the glenosphere components, it is vitally important to accurately and consistently meet those goals for achieving optimal patient outcomes. Verborgt and colleagues20 implanted 7 glenospheres in cadaveric specimens without any glenohumeral arthritis using standard techniques to evaluate the accuracy of glenosphere version and inclination. Their goal was to place components in neutral version and with 10° of inferior inclination. Their average glenoid version postoperatively was 8.7° of anteversion, and their average inclination was 0.9° of superior inclination. Throckmorton and colleagues21 randomized 35 cadaveric shoulders to receive either an anatomic or a reverse total shoulder prosthesis from high-, mid-, and low-volume surgeons. They found that components placed using traditional guides averaged 6° of deviation in version and 5° of deviation in inclination from their target values, with no significant differences between surgeons of different volumes.
PATIENT-SPECIFIC GUIDES/INSTRUMENTATION
Patient-specific guides/instrumentation and intraoperative navigation are the 2 techniques that have been used to improve the accuracy of glenoid and glenosphere placement. Both techniques require the use of high-resolution CT scans and computer software to determine the proper position for glenoid or glenosphere placement based on the patient’s individual anatomy. Patient-specific guides and instrumentation use the data acquired from a CT scan to generate a preoperative plan for the location and orientation of the glenoid baseplate. Once the surgeon approves the preoperative plan, a patient-specific guide is created using the patient’s glenoid as a reference for the location and orientation of the central guide pin. The location of the central guide pin on the glenoid determines the center of the glenoid baseplate, and the guide pin’s orientation determines the version and inclination of the glenoid or the glenosphere. Once the guide pin is placed in the glenoid, the remainder of the glenoid implantation uses the guide pin as a reference, and, in that way, patient-specific guides control the orientation of the glenoid at the time of surgery.
Intraoperative navigation uses an optical tracking system to determine the location and orientation of the central guide pin. Navigation systems require intraoperative calibration of the optical tracking system before they can track the location of implantation relative to bony landmarks on the patient’s scapula. Their advantage over patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is that they do not require the manufacture of a custom guide; however, they may add significantly increased cost and surgical time due to the need for calibration prior to use and the cost of the navigation system along with any disposable components associated with it. Kircher and colleagues22 performed a prospective randomized clinical study of navigation-aided TSA compared with conventional TSA and found that operating time was significantly increased for the navigated group with an average operating room time of 169.5 minutes compared to 138 minutes for the conventional group. They also found that navigation had to be abandoned in 37.5% of their navigated patients due to technical errors during glenoid referencing.
COMMERCIAL PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS
The 2 types of PSI that are currently available are single-use PSI and reusable PSI. The single-use PSI involves the fabrication of unique guides based on surgeon-approved preoperative plans generated by computer-software-processed preoperative CT scans. The guides are fabricated to rest on the glenoid articular surface and direct the guide pin to the correct location and in the correct direction to place the glenoid baseplate in the desired position with the desired version and inclination. Most of these systems also provide a 3-D model of the patient’s glenoid so that surgeons can visualize glenoid deformities and the correct guide placement on the glenoid. Single-use PSI systems are available from DJO Global, Wright Medical Group, and Zimmer Biomet. The second category of PSI is reusable and is available from Arthrex. The guide pin for this system is adjusted to fit individual patient anatomy and guide the guide pin into the glenoid in a location and orientation preplanned on the CT-scan-based computer software or using a 3-D model of the patient’s glenoid (Table).
Table. Details of Available Patient-Specific Instrumentation Systems
| System | Manufacturer | Single-Use/Reusable | Guides |
| MatchPoint System | DJO Global | Single-use | Central guide pin |
| Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI | Wright Medical Group | Single-use | Central guide pin |
| Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments Shoulder | Zimmer Biomet | Single-use | Central guide pin, reaming guide, roll guide, screw drill guide |
| Virtual Implant Positioning System | Arthrex | Reusable | Central guide pin |
The DJO Global patient-specific guide is termed as the MatchPoint System. This system creates 3-D renderings of the scapula and allows the surgeon to manipulate the glenoid baseplate on the scapula. The surgeon chooses the glenoid baseplate, location, version, and inclination on the computerized 3-D model. The system then fabricates a guide pin matching the computerized template that references the patient’s glenoid surface with a hook to orient it against the coracoid. A 3-D model of the glenoid is also provided along with the customized guide pin.
Continue to: Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI...
Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI (Wright Medical Group) allows custom placement of the glenoid version, inclination, and position on computerized 3-D models of the patient’s scapula. This PSI references the glenoid with 4 feet that captures the edge of the patient’s glenoid at specific locations and is unique because it allows the surgeon to control where on the glenoid edge to 4 feet contact as long as 1 foot is placed on the posterior edge of the glenoid and the remaining 3 feet are placed on the anterior edge of the glenoid. A 3-D model of the glenoid is also provided with this guide.
The Zimmer Biomet patient-specific guide is termed as the Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments Shoulder. Its computer software allows custom placement of the glenoid as well, but it also includes computerized customization of the reaming depth, screw angles, and screw lengths to optimize fixation. Their system includes a central guide pin to set the glenoid baseplate’s location and orientation, a reaming guide to control reaming depth and direction, a roll guide to control the glenoid baseplate’s rotation, and a drill guide to control the screw direction. They also provide a 3-D model of the glenoid.
The Arthrex Virtual Implant Positioning (VIP) System is similar to other systems in that its 3-D planning software is based on CT images uploaded by the surgeon. The unique aspect of this system is that the guide pin is adjusted by the surgeon for each individual patient based on instructions generated by the planning software; however, after use, the instruments are resterilized and reused on subsequent patients (Figures 1A, 1B). In this manner, their instruments are reusable and allow custom adjustment for each patient with the ability to set the pin location and glenoid version in a patient-specific manner. This has the potential benefit of keeping costs down. For more complex deformity cases, the Arthrex VIP System can also 3-D-print a sterile model of the glenoid to help surgeons appreciate the deformity better (Figure 2).
DATA ON PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTS
Several studies have measured the accuracy of patient-specific guides and have compared the accuracy of patient-specific guides to that of traditional methods. Levy and colleagues23 investigated the accuracy of single-use patient-specific guides compared to that of preoperative plans. They used patient-specific guides on 14 cadaveric shoulders based on plans developed by virtual preoperative 3-D planning system using CT images. Once the guide pin was drilled using the patient-specific guide, they obtained a second CT scan to compare the accuracy of the patient-specific guide to the surgical plan generated preoperatively. They found that the translational accuracy of the starting point for the guide pin averaged 1.2 mm ± 0.7 mm, the accuracy of the inferior inclination was 1.2° ± 1.2°, and the accuracy of the glenoid version was 2.6° ± 1.7°. They concluded that patient-specific guides were highly accurate in reproducing the starting point, inclination, and version set on preoperative guides.
Walch and colleagues24 subsequently performed a similar study using 15 cadaveric scapulae without any other shoulder soft tissue or bone attached. They also used CT-scan-based 3-D planning software to plan their glenoid placement with a subsequently fabricated single-use patient-specific guide used to place a guide pin. They obtained a second CT scan after guide pin implantation and compared the preoperative plan with the subsequent guide pin. They found a mean entry point position error of 1.05 mm ± 0.31 mm, a mean inclination error of 1.42° ± 1.37°, and a mean version error of 1.64° ± 1.01°.
Continue to: Throckmorton and colleagues...
Throckmorton and colleagues21 used 70 cadaveric shoulders with radiographically confirmed arthritis and randomized them to undergo either anatomic or reverse TSA using either a patient-specific guide or standard instrumentation. Postoperative CT scans were used to evaluate the glenoid inclination, version, and starting point. They found that glenoid components implanted using patient-specific guides were more accurate than those placed using traditional instrumentation. The average deviation from intended inclination was 3° for patient-specific guides and 7° for traditional instrumentation, the average deviation from intended version was 5° for patient-specific guides and 8° for traditional instrumentation, and the average deviation in intended starting point was 2 mm for patient-specific guides and 3 mm for traditional instrumentation. They also analyzed significantly malpositioned components as defined by a variation in version or inclination of >10° or >4 mm in starting point. They found that 6 of their 35 glenoids using patient-specific guides were significantly malpositioned compared to 23 of 35 glenoids using traditional instrumentation. They concluded that patient-specific guides were more accurate and reduced the number of significantly malpositioned implants when compared with traditional instrumentation.
Early and colleagues25 analyzed the effect of severe glenoid bone defects on the accuracy of patient-specific guides compared with traditional guides. Using 10 cadaveric shoulders, they created anterior, central, or posterior glenoid defects using a reamer and chisel to erode the bone past the coracoid base. Subsequent CT scans were performed on the specimens, and patient-specific guides were fabricated and used for reverse TSA in 5 of the 10 specimens. A reverse TSA was performed using traditional instrumentation in the remaining 5 specimens. They found that the average deviation in inclination and version from preoperative plan was more accurate in the patient-specific guide cohort than that in the traditional instrument cohort, with an average deviation in inclination and version of 1.2° ± 1.2° and 1.8° ± 1.2° respectively for the cohort using patient-specific instruments vs 2.8° ± 1.8° and 3.5° ± 3° for the cohort using traditional instruments. They also found that their total bone screw lengths were longer in the patient-specific guide group than those in the traditional group, with screws averaging 52% of preoperatively planned length in the traditional instrument cohort vs 89% of preoperatively planned length in the patient-specific instrument cohort.
Gauci and colleagues26 measured the accuracy of patient-specific guides in vivo in 17 patients receiving TSA. Preoperative CT scans were used to fabricate patient-specific guides, and postoperative CT scans were used to measure version, inclination, and error of entry in comparison with the templated goals used to create patient-specific guides. They found a mean error in version and inclination of 3.4° and 1.8°, respectively, and a mean error in entry of 0.9 mm of translation on the glenoid. Dallalana and colleagues27 performed a very similar study on 20 patients and found a mean deviation in glenoid version of 1.8° ± 1.9°, a mean deviation in glenoid inclination of 1.3° ± 1.0°, a mean translation in anterior-posterior plane of 0.5 mm ± 0.3 mm, and a mean translation in the superior-inferior plane of 0.8 mm ± 0.5 mm.
Hendel and colleagues28 performed a randomized prospective clinical trial comparing patient-specific guides with traditional methods for glenoid insertion. They randomized 31 patients to receive a glenoid implant using either a patient-specific guide or traditional methods and compared glenoid retroversion and inclination with their preoperative plan. They found an average version deviation of 6.9° in the traditional method cohort and 4.3° in the patient-specific guide cohort. Their average deviation in inclination was 11.6° in the traditional method cohort and 2.9° in the patient-specific guide cohort. For patients with preoperative retroversion >16°, the average deviation was 10° in the standard surgical cohort and 1.2° in the patient-specific instrument cohort. Their data suggest that increasing preoperative retroversion leads to an increased version variation from preoperative plan.
Iannotti and colleagues29 randomly assigned 46 patients to preoperatively undergo either CT scan with 3-D templating of glenoid component without patient-specific guide fabrication or CT scan with 3-D templating and patient-specific guide fabrication prior to receiving a TSA. They recorded the postoperative inclination and version for each patient and compared them to those of a nonrandomized control group of 17 patients who underwent TSA using standard instrumentation. They found no difference between the cohorts with or without patient-specific guide use with regard to implant location, inclination, or version; however, they did find a difference between the combined 3-D templating cohort compared with their standard instrumentation cohort. They concluded that 3-D templating significantly improved the surgeons’ ability to correctly position the glenoid component with or without the fabrication and the use of a patient-specific guide.
Continue to: Denard and colleagues...
Denard and colleagues30 compared the preoperative glenoid version and inclination measurements obtained using the Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI software and the VIP System 3D planning software. They analyzed the preoperative CT scans of 63 consecutive patients undergoing either TSA or reverse TSA using both the Blueprint and the VIP System 3D planning software and compared the resulting native glenoid version and inclination measured by the software. They found a statistically significant difference (P = 0.04) in the version measurements provided by the different planning software; however, the differences found in inclination did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.463). In 19 of the 63 patients (30%), the version measurements between the systems were >5°, and in 29 of the 63 patients (46%), the inclination measurements between the systems were 5° or greater. In addition, 12 of the 63 patients (19%) had both version and inclination measurement differences of >5° between the systems. In total, they found that 35 of the 63 patients had at least 1 measurement that varied by >5° between the systems, and that in 15 patients (24%), 1 measurement varied by >10°. Their data demonstrate considerable variability in the preoperative measurements provided by different 3-D planning software systems, and that further study of each commercially available 3-D planning software system is needed to evaluate their accuracy.
CONCLUSION
Optimal outcomes following TSA and reverse TSA are dependent on proper implant position. Multiple studies have demonstrated improved accuracy in implant positioning with the use of patient-specific guides compared to that with traditional methods. Currently, there are no studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patient-specific guides to those of traditional methods of glenoid placement, and limited research had been done comparing the accuracy of each system’s 3-D planning software with each other and with standardized measurements of glenoid version and inclination. Further research is required to determine the accuracy of each commercially available 3-D planning software system as well as the clinical benefit of patient-specific guides in shoulder arthroplasty.
1. Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H. Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(4):327-332. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.115269.
2. Norris TR, Iannotti JP. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(2):130-135. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.121146.
3. Mullaji AB, Beddow FH, Lamb GH. CT measurement of glenoid erosion in arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(3):384-388.
4. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
5. RJ Friedman, KB Hawthorne, BM Genez. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg. 1992;74(7):1032-1037. doi:10.2106/00004623-199274070-00009.
6. Yian EH, Werner CM, Nyffeler RW, et al. Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(9):1928-1936. doi:10.2106/00004623-200509000-00004.
7. Hasan SS, Leith JM, Campbell B, Kapil R, Smith KL, Matsen FA. Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(5):431-441.
8. Hopkins AR, Hansen UN, Amis AA, Emery R. The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):668-675. doi:10.1016/S1058274604001399.
9. Iannotti JP, Greeson C, Downing D, Sabesan V, Bryan JA. Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):48-55. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.02.011.
10. Nyffeler RW, Jost B, Pfirrmann CWA, Gerber C. Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(5):493-496. doi:10.1016/S1058274603001812.
11. Hoenecke HR, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D'Lima DD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):166-171. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.08.009.
12. Wall B, Nové-Josserand L, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(7):1476-1485. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00666.
13. Gutiérrez S, Comiskey 4, Charles A, Luo Z, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2606-2615. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00012.
14. Roche CP, Marczuk Y, Wright TW, et al. Scapular notching and osteophyte formation after reverse shoulder replacement: Radiological analysis of implant position in male and female patients. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(4):530-535. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B4.30442.
15. Poon PC, Chou J, Young SW, Astley T. A comparison of concentric and eccentric glenospheres in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(16):e138. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00941.
16. Nyffeler RW, Werner CML, Gerber C. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):524-528. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.010.
17. Li X, Knutson Z, Choi D, et al. Effects of glenosphere positioning on impingement-free internal and external rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):807-813. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.013.
18. Lévigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):925-935. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010.
19. Gutiérrez S, Walker M, Willis M, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Effects of tilt and glenosphere eccentricity on baseplate/bone interface forces in a computational model, validated by a mechanical model, of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):732-739. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.035.
20. Verborgt O, De Smedt T, Vanhees M, Clockaerts S, Parizel PM, Van Glabbeek F. Accuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty with and without navigation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):21-26. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.014.
21. Throckmorton TW, Gulotta LV, Bonnarens FO, et al. Patient-specific targeting guides compared with traditional instrumentation for glenoid component placement in shoulder arthroplasty: A multi-surgeon study in 70 arthritic cadaver specimens. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(6):965-971. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.013.
22. Kircher J, Wiedemann M, Magosch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Improved accuracy of glenoid positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty with intraoperative navigation: a prospective-randomized clinical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4):515-520. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.014.
23. Levy JC, Everding NG, Frankle MA, Keppler LJ. Accuracy of patient-specific guided glenoid baseplate positioning for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(10):1563-1567. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.051.
24. Walch G, Vezeridis PS, Boileau P, Deransart P, Chaoui J. Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):302-309. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.029.
25. Eraly K, Stoffelen D, Vander Sloten J, Jonkers I, Debeer P. A patient-specific guide for optimizing custom-made glenoid implantation in cases of severe glenoid defects: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(5):837-845. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.034.
26. Gauci MO, Boileau P, Baba M, Chaoui J, Walch G. Patient-specific glenoid guides provide accuracy and reproducibility in total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(8):1080-1085. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37257.
27. Dallalana RJ, McMahon RA, East B, Geraghty L. Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2016;10(2):59-66. doi:10.4103/09736042.180717.
28. Hendel MD, Bryan JA, Barsoum WK, et al. Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94(23):2167-2175. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01209.
29. Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E, et al. Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg. 2015;97(8):651-658. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.00493.
30. Denard PJ, Provencher MT, Lädermann A, Romeo AA, Dines JS. Version and inclination obtained with 3D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty: do different programs produce the same results? SECEC-ESSSE Congress, Berlin 2017. 2017.
ABSTRACT
Optimal outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty TSA and reverse shoulder arthroplasty RSA are dependent on proper implant position. Multiple cadaver studies have demonstrated improved accuracy of implant positioning with use of patient-specific guides/instrumentation compared to traditional methods. At this time, there are 3 commercially available single use patient-specific instrumentation systems and 1 commercially available reusable patient-specific instrumentation system. Currently though, there are no studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patient-specific guides to those of traditional methods of glenoid placement, and limited research has been done comparing the accuracy of each system’s 3-dimensional planning software. Future work is necessary to elucidate the ideal indications for the use of patient-specific guides and instrumentation, but it is likely, particularly in the setting of advanced glenoid deformity, that these systems will improve a surgeon's ability to put the implant in the best position possible.
Continue to: Optimal functional recovery...
Optimal functional recovery and implant longevity following both total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) depend, in large part, on proper placement of the glenoid component. Glenoid component malpositioning has an adverse effect on shoulder stability, range of motion (ROM), impingement, and glenoid implant longevity.
Traditionally, glenoid component positioning has been done manually by the surgeons based on their review of preoperative films and knowledge of glenoid anatomy. Anatomic studies have demonstrated high individual variability in the version of the native glenoid, thus making ideal placement of the initial glenoid guide pin difficult using standard guide pin guides.1
The following 2 methods have been described for improving the accuracy of glenoid guide pin insertion and subsequent glenoid implant placement: (1) computerized navigation and (2) patient-specific guides/instrumentation. Although navigated shoulder systems have demonstrated improved accuracy in glenoid placement compared with traditional methods, navigated systems require often large and expensive systems for implementation. The majority of them also require placement of guide pins or arrays on scapular bony landmarks, likely leading to an increase in operative time and possible iatrogenic complications, including fracture and pin site infections.
This review focuses on the use of patient-specific guides/instrumentation in shoulder arthroplasty. This includes the topic of proper glenoid and glenosphere placement as well as patient-specific guides/instrumentation and their accuracy.
GLENOID PLACEMENT
Glenohumeral osteoarthritis is the most common indication for TSA2 and commonly results in glenoid deformity. Using computed tomography (CT) scans of 45 arthritic shoulders and 19 normal shoulders, Mullaji and colleagues3 reported that the anteroposterior dimensions of the glenoid were increased by an average of 5 mm to 8 mm in osteoarthritic shoulders and by an average of 6 mm in rheumatoid arthritic shoulders compared to those in normal shoulders. A retrospective review of serial CT scans performed preoperatively on 113 osteoarthritic shoulders by Walch and colleagues4 demonstrated an average retroversion of 16°, and it has been the basis for the commonly used Walch classification of glenoid wear in osteoarthritis. Increased glenoid wear and increased glenoid retroversion make the proper restoration of glenoid version, inclination, and offset during shoulder arthroplasty more difficult and lead to increased glenoid component malpositioning.
Continue to: The ideal placement of the glenoid...
The ideal placement of the glenoid to maximize function, ROM, and implant longevity is in a mechanically neutral alignment with no superoinferior inclination1 and neutral version with respect to the transverse axis of the scapula.5
Improper glenoid positioning has an adverse effect on the functional results of shoulder arthroplasty. Yian and colleagues6 evaluated 47 cemented, pegged glenoids using standard radiography and CT scans at a mean follow-up of 40 months. They observed a significant correlation between increased glenoid component retroversion and lower Constant scores. Hasan and colleagues7 evaluated 139 consecutive patients who were dissatisfied with the result of their primary arthroplasty and found that 28% of them had at least 1 substantially malpositioned component identified either on radiography or during a revision surgery. They also found a significant correlation between stiffness, instability, and component malposition in their cohort.
Glenoid longevity is also dependent on proper component positioning, with the worst outcomes coming if the glenoid is malaligned with either superior or inferior inclination. Hasan and colleagues7 found that of their 74 patients with failed TSAs, 44 patients (59%) demonstrated mechanical loosening of their glenoid components either radiographically or during revision surgery, and 10 of their 44 patients with loose glenoids (23%) also had a malpositioned component. Using finite element analysis, Hopkins and colleagues8 analyzed the stresses through the cement mantle in glenoid prostheses that were centrally aligned, superiorly inclined, inferiorly inclined, anteverted, and retroverted. They found that malalignment of the glenoid increases the stresses through the cement mantle, leading to increased likelihood of mantle failure compared to that of centrally aligned glenoids, especially if there is malalignment with superior or inferior inclination or retroversion.
The accuracy of traditional methods of glenoid placement using an initial guide pin is limited and decreases with increasing amounts of glenoid deformity and retroversion. Iannotti and colleagues 9 investigated 13 patients undergoing TSA with an average preoperative retroversion of 13° and evaluated them using a 3-dimensional (3-D) surgical simulator. They found that the postoperative glenoid version was within 5° of ideal version in only 7 of their 13 patients (54%) and within 10° of ideal version in only 10 of their 13 patients (77%). In their study, the ideal version was considered to be the version as close to perpendicular to the plane of the scapula as possible with complete contact of the back side of the component on glenoid bone and maintenance of the center peg of the component within bone. In addition, they found that of their 7 patients with preoperative retroversion >10°, only 1 patient (14%) had a postoperative glenoid with <10° of retroversion with regard to the plane of the scapula and that all 6 of their patients with preoperative glenoid retroversion of <10° had a postoperative glenoid version of <10°.
Preoperative CT scans are much more accurate at determining glenoid version and thus how much glenoid correction is required to reestablish neutral version than plain radiography. Nyffeler and colleagues10 compared CT scans with axillary views for comparing glenoid version in 25 patients with no shoulder prosthesis present and 25 patients with a TSA in place. They found that glenoid retroversion was overestimated on plain radiographs in 86% of their patients with an average difference between CT and plain radiography of 6.4° and a maximum difference of 21°. They also found poor interobserver reliability in the plain radiography group and good interobserver reliability in the CT group, with coefficients of correlation of 0.77 for the plain radiography group and 0.93 for the CT group. Thus, they concluded that glenoid version cannot be accurately measured by plain radiography and that CT should be used. Hoenecke and colleagues11 subsequently evaluated 33 patients scheduled for TSA and found that CT version measurements made on 2-dimensional (2-D) CT slices compared with 3-D-reconstructed models of the same CT slices differed by an average of 5.1° because the axial CT slices were most often made perpendicular to the axis of the patient’s torso and not perpendicular to the body of the scapula. Accurate version assessment is critically important in planning for the degree of correction required to restore neutral glenoid version, and differences of 6.4° between CT assessment and plain radiography, and 5.1° between 2-D and 3-D CT scan assessments may lead to inadequate version correction intraoperatively and inferior postoperative results.
Continue to: GLENOSPHERE PLACEMENT
GLENOSPHERE PLACEMENT
The most common indication for reverse TSA is rotator cuff arthropathy characterized by rotator cuff dysfunction and end-stage glenohumeral arthritis.12 These patients require accurate and reproducible glenoid placement to optimize their postoperative range of motion and stability and minimize scapular notching.
Ideal glenosphere placement is the location and orientation that maximizes impingement-free ROM and stability while avoiding notching. Individual patient anatomy determines ideal placement; however, several guidelines for placement include inferior translation on the glenoid with neutral to inferior inclination. Gutiérrez and colleagues13 developed a computer model to assess the hierarchy of surgical factors affecting the ROM after a reverse TSA. They found that lateralizing the center of rotation gave the largest increase in impingement-free abduction, followed closely by inferior translation of the glenosphere on the glenoid.
Avoiding scapular notching is also a very important factor in ideal glenosphere placement. Scapular notching can be described as impingement of the humeral cup against the scapular neck during arm adduction and/or humeral rotation. Gutiérrez and colleagues13 also found that decreasing the neck shaft angle to create a more varus proximal humerus was the most important factor in increasing the impingement-free adduction. Roche and colleagues14 reviewed the radiographs of 151 patients who underwent primary reverse TSA at a mean follow-up of 28.3 months postoperatively; they found that 13.2% of their patients had a notch and that, on average, their patients who had no scapular notch had significantly more inferior glenosphere overhang than those who had a scapular notch. Poon and colleagues15 found that a glenosphere overhang of >3.5 mm prevented notching in their randomized control trial comparing concentrically and eccentrically placed glenospheres. Multiple other studies have demonstrated similar results and recommended inferior glenoid translation and inferior glenoid inclination to avoid scapular notching.16,17 Lévigne and colleagues18 retrospectively reviewed 337 reverse TSAs and observed a correlation between scapular notching and radiolucencies around the glenosphere component, with 14% of patients with scapular notching displaying radiolucencies vs 4% of patients without scapula notching displaying radiolucencies.
Several studies have also focused on the ideal amount of inferior glenoid inclination to maximize impingement-free ROM. Li and colleagues17 performed a computer simulation study on the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System (Zimmer Biomet) to determine impingement-free internal and external ROM with varying amounts of glenosphere offset, translation, and inclination. They found that progressive glenosphere inferior inclination up to 30° improved impingement-free rotational ROM at all degrees of scaption. Gutiérrez and colleagues19 used computer modeling to compare concentrically placed glenospheres in neutral inclination with eccentrically placed glenospheres in varying degrees of inclination. They found that the lowest forces across the baseplate occurred in the lateralized and inferiorly inclined glenospheres, and the highest forces occurred in the lateralized and superiorly inclined glenospheres. Together, these studies show that inferior glenoid inclination increases impingement-free ROM and, combined with lateralization, may result in improved glenosphere longevity due to significantly decreased forces at the RSA glenoid baseplate when compared to that at superiorly inclined glenoids.
The ideal amount of mediolateral glenosphere offset has not been well defined. Grammont design systems place the center of rotation of the glenosphere medial to the glenoid baseplate together with valgus humeral component neck shaft angles of around 155°. These design elements are believed to decrease shear stresses through the glenoid baseplate to the glenoid interface and improve shoulder stability, but they are also associated with reduced impingement-free ROM and increased rates of scapular notching.13 This effect is accentuated in patients with preexisting glenoid bone loss and/or congenitally short scapular necks that further medialize the glenosphere. Medialization of the glenosphere may also shorten the remaining rotator cuff muscles and result in decreased implant stability and external rotation strength. Several implant systems have options to vary the amount of lateral offset. The correct amount of lateral offset for each patient requires the understanding that improving patients’ impingement-free ROM by increasing the amount of lateral offset comes at the price of increasing the shear forces experienced by the interface between the glenoid baseplate and the glenoid. As glenoid fixation technology improves increased lateralization of glenospheres without increased rates of glenoid baseplate, loosening should improve the ROM after reverse TSA.
Continue to: Regardless of the intraoperative goals...
Regardless of the intraoperative goals for placement and orientation of the glenosphere components, it is vitally important to accurately and consistently meet those goals for achieving optimal patient outcomes. Verborgt and colleagues20 implanted 7 glenospheres in cadaveric specimens without any glenohumeral arthritis using standard techniques to evaluate the accuracy of glenosphere version and inclination. Their goal was to place components in neutral version and with 10° of inferior inclination. Their average glenoid version postoperatively was 8.7° of anteversion, and their average inclination was 0.9° of superior inclination. Throckmorton and colleagues21 randomized 35 cadaveric shoulders to receive either an anatomic or a reverse total shoulder prosthesis from high-, mid-, and low-volume surgeons. They found that components placed using traditional guides averaged 6° of deviation in version and 5° of deviation in inclination from their target values, with no significant differences between surgeons of different volumes.
PATIENT-SPECIFIC GUIDES/INSTRUMENTATION
Patient-specific guides/instrumentation and intraoperative navigation are the 2 techniques that have been used to improve the accuracy of glenoid and glenosphere placement. Both techniques require the use of high-resolution CT scans and computer software to determine the proper position for glenoid or glenosphere placement based on the patient’s individual anatomy. Patient-specific guides and instrumentation use the data acquired from a CT scan to generate a preoperative plan for the location and orientation of the glenoid baseplate. Once the surgeon approves the preoperative plan, a patient-specific guide is created using the patient’s glenoid as a reference for the location and orientation of the central guide pin. The location of the central guide pin on the glenoid determines the center of the glenoid baseplate, and the guide pin’s orientation determines the version and inclination of the glenoid or the glenosphere. Once the guide pin is placed in the glenoid, the remainder of the glenoid implantation uses the guide pin as a reference, and, in that way, patient-specific guides control the orientation of the glenoid at the time of surgery.
Intraoperative navigation uses an optical tracking system to determine the location and orientation of the central guide pin. Navigation systems require intraoperative calibration of the optical tracking system before they can track the location of implantation relative to bony landmarks on the patient’s scapula. Their advantage over patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is that they do not require the manufacture of a custom guide; however, they may add significantly increased cost and surgical time due to the need for calibration prior to use and the cost of the navigation system along with any disposable components associated with it. Kircher and colleagues22 performed a prospective randomized clinical study of navigation-aided TSA compared with conventional TSA and found that operating time was significantly increased for the navigated group with an average operating room time of 169.5 minutes compared to 138 minutes for the conventional group. They also found that navigation had to be abandoned in 37.5% of their navigated patients due to technical errors during glenoid referencing.
COMMERCIAL PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS
The 2 types of PSI that are currently available are single-use PSI and reusable PSI. The single-use PSI involves the fabrication of unique guides based on surgeon-approved preoperative plans generated by computer-software-processed preoperative CT scans. The guides are fabricated to rest on the glenoid articular surface and direct the guide pin to the correct location and in the correct direction to place the glenoid baseplate in the desired position with the desired version and inclination. Most of these systems also provide a 3-D model of the patient’s glenoid so that surgeons can visualize glenoid deformities and the correct guide placement on the glenoid. Single-use PSI systems are available from DJO Global, Wright Medical Group, and Zimmer Biomet. The second category of PSI is reusable and is available from Arthrex. The guide pin for this system is adjusted to fit individual patient anatomy and guide the guide pin into the glenoid in a location and orientation preplanned on the CT-scan-based computer software or using a 3-D model of the patient’s glenoid (Table).
Table. Details of Available Patient-Specific Instrumentation Systems
| System | Manufacturer | Single-Use/Reusable | Guides |
| MatchPoint System | DJO Global | Single-use | Central guide pin |
| Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI | Wright Medical Group | Single-use | Central guide pin |
| Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments Shoulder | Zimmer Biomet | Single-use | Central guide pin, reaming guide, roll guide, screw drill guide |
| Virtual Implant Positioning System | Arthrex | Reusable | Central guide pin |
The DJO Global patient-specific guide is termed as the MatchPoint System. This system creates 3-D renderings of the scapula and allows the surgeon to manipulate the glenoid baseplate on the scapula. The surgeon chooses the glenoid baseplate, location, version, and inclination on the computerized 3-D model. The system then fabricates a guide pin matching the computerized template that references the patient’s glenoid surface with a hook to orient it against the coracoid. A 3-D model of the glenoid is also provided along with the customized guide pin.
Continue to: Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI...
Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI (Wright Medical Group) allows custom placement of the glenoid version, inclination, and position on computerized 3-D models of the patient’s scapula. This PSI references the glenoid with 4 feet that captures the edge of the patient’s glenoid at specific locations and is unique because it allows the surgeon to control where on the glenoid edge to 4 feet contact as long as 1 foot is placed on the posterior edge of the glenoid and the remaining 3 feet are placed on the anterior edge of the glenoid. A 3-D model of the glenoid is also provided with this guide.
The Zimmer Biomet patient-specific guide is termed as the Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments Shoulder. Its computer software allows custom placement of the glenoid as well, but it also includes computerized customization of the reaming depth, screw angles, and screw lengths to optimize fixation. Their system includes a central guide pin to set the glenoid baseplate’s location and orientation, a reaming guide to control reaming depth and direction, a roll guide to control the glenoid baseplate’s rotation, and a drill guide to control the screw direction. They also provide a 3-D model of the glenoid.
The Arthrex Virtual Implant Positioning (VIP) System is similar to other systems in that its 3-D planning software is based on CT images uploaded by the surgeon. The unique aspect of this system is that the guide pin is adjusted by the surgeon for each individual patient based on instructions generated by the planning software; however, after use, the instruments are resterilized and reused on subsequent patients (Figures 1A, 1B). In this manner, their instruments are reusable and allow custom adjustment for each patient with the ability to set the pin location and glenoid version in a patient-specific manner. This has the potential benefit of keeping costs down. For more complex deformity cases, the Arthrex VIP System can also 3-D-print a sterile model of the glenoid to help surgeons appreciate the deformity better (Figure 2).
DATA ON PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTS
Several studies have measured the accuracy of patient-specific guides and have compared the accuracy of patient-specific guides to that of traditional methods. Levy and colleagues23 investigated the accuracy of single-use patient-specific guides compared to that of preoperative plans. They used patient-specific guides on 14 cadaveric shoulders based on plans developed by virtual preoperative 3-D planning system using CT images. Once the guide pin was drilled using the patient-specific guide, they obtained a second CT scan to compare the accuracy of the patient-specific guide to the surgical plan generated preoperatively. They found that the translational accuracy of the starting point for the guide pin averaged 1.2 mm ± 0.7 mm, the accuracy of the inferior inclination was 1.2° ± 1.2°, and the accuracy of the glenoid version was 2.6° ± 1.7°. They concluded that patient-specific guides were highly accurate in reproducing the starting point, inclination, and version set on preoperative guides.
Walch and colleagues24 subsequently performed a similar study using 15 cadaveric scapulae without any other shoulder soft tissue or bone attached. They also used CT-scan-based 3-D planning software to plan their glenoid placement with a subsequently fabricated single-use patient-specific guide used to place a guide pin. They obtained a second CT scan after guide pin implantation and compared the preoperative plan with the subsequent guide pin. They found a mean entry point position error of 1.05 mm ± 0.31 mm, a mean inclination error of 1.42° ± 1.37°, and a mean version error of 1.64° ± 1.01°.
Continue to: Throckmorton and colleagues...
Throckmorton and colleagues21 used 70 cadaveric shoulders with radiographically confirmed arthritis and randomized them to undergo either anatomic or reverse TSA using either a patient-specific guide or standard instrumentation. Postoperative CT scans were used to evaluate the glenoid inclination, version, and starting point. They found that glenoid components implanted using patient-specific guides were more accurate than those placed using traditional instrumentation. The average deviation from intended inclination was 3° for patient-specific guides and 7° for traditional instrumentation, the average deviation from intended version was 5° for patient-specific guides and 8° for traditional instrumentation, and the average deviation in intended starting point was 2 mm for patient-specific guides and 3 mm for traditional instrumentation. They also analyzed significantly malpositioned components as defined by a variation in version or inclination of >10° or >4 mm in starting point. They found that 6 of their 35 glenoids using patient-specific guides were significantly malpositioned compared to 23 of 35 glenoids using traditional instrumentation. They concluded that patient-specific guides were more accurate and reduced the number of significantly malpositioned implants when compared with traditional instrumentation.
Early and colleagues25 analyzed the effect of severe glenoid bone defects on the accuracy of patient-specific guides compared with traditional guides. Using 10 cadaveric shoulders, they created anterior, central, or posterior glenoid defects using a reamer and chisel to erode the bone past the coracoid base. Subsequent CT scans were performed on the specimens, and patient-specific guides were fabricated and used for reverse TSA in 5 of the 10 specimens. A reverse TSA was performed using traditional instrumentation in the remaining 5 specimens. They found that the average deviation in inclination and version from preoperative plan was more accurate in the patient-specific guide cohort than that in the traditional instrument cohort, with an average deviation in inclination and version of 1.2° ± 1.2° and 1.8° ± 1.2° respectively for the cohort using patient-specific instruments vs 2.8° ± 1.8° and 3.5° ± 3° for the cohort using traditional instruments. They also found that their total bone screw lengths were longer in the patient-specific guide group than those in the traditional group, with screws averaging 52% of preoperatively planned length in the traditional instrument cohort vs 89% of preoperatively planned length in the patient-specific instrument cohort.
Gauci and colleagues26 measured the accuracy of patient-specific guides in vivo in 17 patients receiving TSA. Preoperative CT scans were used to fabricate patient-specific guides, and postoperative CT scans were used to measure version, inclination, and error of entry in comparison with the templated goals used to create patient-specific guides. They found a mean error in version and inclination of 3.4° and 1.8°, respectively, and a mean error in entry of 0.9 mm of translation on the glenoid. Dallalana and colleagues27 performed a very similar study on 20 patients and found a mean deviation in glenoid version of 1.8° ± 1.9°, a mean deviation in glenoid inclination of 1.3° ± 1.0°, a mean translation in anterior-posterior plane of 0.5 mm ± 0.3 mm, and a mean translation in the superior-inferior plane of 0.8 mm ± 0.5 mm.
Hendel and colleagues28 performed a randomized prospective clinical trial comparing patient-specific guides with traditional methods for glenoid insertion. They randomized 31 patients to receive a glenoid implant using either a patient-specific guide or traditional methods and compared glenoid retroversion and inclination with their preoperative plan. They found an average version deviation of 6.9° in the traditional method cohort and 4.3° in the patient-specific guide cohort. Their average deviation in inclination was 11.6° in the traditional method cohort and 2.9° in the patient-specific guide cohort. For patients with preoperative retroversion >16°, the average deviation was 10° in the standard surgical cohort and 1.2° in the patient-specific instrument cohort. Their data suggest that increasing preoperative retroversion leads to an increased version variation from preoperative plan.
Iannotti and colleagues29 randomly assigned 46 patients to preoperatively undergo either CT scan with 3-D templating of glenoid component without patient-specific guide fabrication or CT scan with 3-D templating and patient-specific guide fabrication prior to receiving a TSA. They recorded the postoperative inclination and version for each patient and compared them to those of a nonrandomized control group of 17 patients who underwent TSA using standard instrumentation. They found no difference between the cohorts with or without patient-specific guide use with regard to implant location, inclination, or version; however, they did find a difference between the combined 3-D templating cohort compared with their standard instrumentation cohort. They concluded that 3-D templating significantly improved the surgeons’ ability to correctly position the glenoid component with or without the fabrication and the use of a patient-specific guide.
Continue to: Denard and colleagues...
Denard and colleagues30 compared the preoperative glenoid version and inclination measurements obtained using the Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI software and the VIP System 3D planning software. They analyzed the preoperative CT scans of 63 consecutive patients undergoing either TSA or reverse TSA using both the Blueprint and the VIP System 3D planning software and compared the resulting native glenoid version and inclination measured by the software. They found a statistically significant difference (P = 0.04) in the version measurements provided by the different planning software; however, the differences found in inclination did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.463). In 19 of the 63 patients (30%), the version measurements between the systems were >5°, and in 29 of the 63 patients (46%), the inclination measurements between the systems were 5° or greater. In addition, 12 of the 63 patients (19%) had both version and inclination measurement differences of >5° between the systems. In total, they found that 35 of the 63 patients had at least 1 measurement that varied by >5° between the systems, and that in 15 patients (24%), 1 measurement varied by >10°. Their data demonstrate considerable variability in the preoperative measurements provided by different 3-D planning software systems, and that further study of each commercially available 3-D planning software system is needed to evaluate their accuracy.
CONCLUSION
Optimal outcomes following TSA and reverse TSA are dependent on proper implant position. Multiple studies have demonstrated improved accuracy in implant positioning with the use of patient-specific guides compared to that with traditional methods. Currently, there are no studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patient-specific guides to those of traditional methods of glenoid placement, and limited research had been done comparing the accuracy of each system’s 3-D planning software with each other and with standardized measurements of glenoid version and inclination. Further research is required to determine the accuracy of each commercially available 3-D planning software system as well as the clinical benefit of patient-specific guides in shoulder arthroplasty.
ABSTRACT
Optimal outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty TSA and reverse shoulder arthroplasty RSA are dependent on proper implant position. Multiple cadaver studies have demonstrated improved accuracy of implant positioning with use of patient-specific guides/instrumentation compared to traditional methods. At this time, there are 3 commercially available single use patient-specific instrumentation systems and 1 commercially available reusable patient-specific instrumentation system. Currently though, there are no studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patient-specific guides to those of traditional methods of glenoid placement, and limited research has been done comparing the accuracy of each system’s 3-dimensional planning software. Future work is necessary to elucidate the ideal indications for the use of patient-specific guides and instrumentation, but it is likely, particularly in the setting of advanced glenoid deformity, that these systems will improve a surgeon's ability to put the implant in the best position possible.
Continue to: Optimal functional recovery...
Optimal functional recovery and implant longevity following both total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) depend, in large part, on proper placement of the glenoid component. Glenoid component malpositioning has an adverse effect on shoulder stability, range of motion (ROM), impingement, and glenoid implant longevity.
Traditionally, glenoid component positioning has been done manually by the surgeons based on their review of preoperative films and knowledge of glenoid anatomy. Anatomic studies have demonstrated high individual variability in the version of the native glenoid, thus making ideal placement of the initial glenoid guide pin difficult using standard guide pin guides.1
The following 2 methods have been described for improving the accuracy of glenoid guide pin insertion and subsequent glenoid implant placement: (1) computerized navigation and (2) patient-specific guides/instrumentation. Although navigated shoulder systems have demonstrated improved accuracy in glenoid placement compared with traditional methods, navigated systems require often large and expensive systems for implementation. The majority of them also require placement of guide pins or arrays on scapular bony landmarks, likely leading to an increase in operative time and possible iatrogenic complications, including fracture and pin site infections.
This review focuses on the use of patient-specific guides/instrumentation in shoulder arthroplasty. This includes the topic of proper glenoid and glenosphere placement as well as patient-specific guides/instrumentation and their accuracy.
GLENOID PLACEMENT
Glenohumeral osteoarthritis is the most common indication for TSA2 and commonly results in glenoid deformity. Using computed tomography (CT) scans of 45 arthritic shoulders and 19 normal shoulders, Mullaji and colleagues3 reported that the anteroposterior dimensions of the glenoid were increased by an average of 5 mm to 8 mm in osteoarthritic shoulders and by an average of 6 mm in rheumatoid arthritic shoulders compared to those in normal shoulders. A retrospective review of serial CT scans performed preoperatively on 113 osteoarthritic shoulders by Walch and colleagues4 demonstrated an average retroversion of 16°, and it has been the basis for the commonly used Walch classification of glenoid wear in osteoarthritis. Increased glenoid wear and increased glenoid retroversion make the proper restoration of glenoid version, inclination, and offset during shoulder arthroplasty more difficult and lead to increased glenoid component malpositioning.
Continue to: The ideal placement of the glenoid...
The ideal placement of the glenoid to maximize function, ROM, and implant longevity is in a mechanically neutral alignment with no superoinferior inclination1 and neutral version with respect to the transverse axis of the scapula.5
Improper glenoid positioning has an adverse effect on the functional results of shoulder arthroplasty. Yian and colleagues6 evaluated 47 cemented, pegged glenoids using standard radiography and CT scans at a mean follow-up of 40 months. They observed a significant correlation between increased glenoid component retroversion and lower Constant scores. Hasan and colleagues7 evaluated 139 consecutive patients who were dissatisfied with the result of their primary arthroplasty and found that 28% of them had at least 1 substantially malpositioned component identified either on radiography or during a revision surgery. They also found a significant correlation between stiffness, instability, and component malposition in their cohort.
Glenoid longevity is also dependent on proper component positioning, with the worst outcomes coming if the glenoid is malaligned with either superior or inferior inclination. Hasan and colleagues7 found that of their 74 patients with failed TSAs, 44 patients (59%) demonstrated mechanical loosening of their glenoid components either radiographically or during revision surgery, and 10 of their 44 patients with loose glenoids (23%) also had a malpositioned component. Using finite element analysis, Hopkins and colleagues8 analyzed the stresses through the cement mantle in glenoid prostheses that were centrally aligned, superiorly inclined, inferiorly inclined, anteverted, and retroverted. They found that malalignment of the glenoid increases the stresses through the cement mantle, leading to increased likelihood of mantle failure compared to that of centrally aligned glenoids, especially if there is malalignment with superior or inferior inclination or retroversion.
The accuracy of traditional methods of glenoid placement using an initial guide pin is limited and decreases with increasing amounts of glenoid deformity and retroversion. Iannotti and colleagues 9 investigated 13 patients undergoing TSA with an average preoperative retroversion of 13° and evaluated them using a 3-dimensional (3-D) surgical simulator. They found that the postoperative glenoid version was within 5° of ideal version in only 7 of their 13 patients (54%) and within 10° of ideal version in only 10 of their 13 patients (77%). In their study, the ideal version was considered to be the version as close to perpendicular to the plane of the scapula as possible with complete contact of the back side of the component on glenoid bone and maintenance of the center peg of the component within bone. In addition, they found that of their 7 patients with preoperative retroversion >10°, only 1 patient (14%) had a postoperative glenoid with <10° of retroversion with regard to the plane of the scapula and that all 6 of their patients with preoperative glenoid retroversion of <10° had a postoperative glenoid version of <10°.
Preoperative CT scans are much more accurate at determining glenoid version and thus how much glenoid correction is required to reestablish neutral version than plain radiography. Nyffeler and colleagues10 compared CT scans with axillary views for comparing glenoid version in 25 patients with no shoulder prosthesis present and 25 patients with a TSA in place. They found that glenoid retroversion was overestimated on plain radiographs in 86% of their patients with an average difference between CT and plain radiography of 6.4° and a maximum difference of 21°. They also found poor interobserver reliability in the plain radiography group and good interobserver reliability in the CT group, with coefficients of correlation of 0.77 for the plain radiography group and 0.93 for the CT group. Thus, they concluded that glenoid version cannot be accurately measured by plain radiography and that CT should be used. Hoenecke and colleagues11 subsequently evaluated 33 patients scheduled for TSA and found that CT version measurements made on 2-dimensional (2-D) CT slices compared with 3-D-reconstructed models of the same CT slices differed by an average of 5.1° because the axial CT slices were most often made perpendicular to the axis of the patient’s torso and not perpendicular to the body of the scapula. Accurate version assessment is critically important in planning for the degree of correction required to restore neutral glenoid version, and differences of 6.4° between CT assessment and plain radiography, and 5.1° between 2-D and 3-D CT scan assessments may lead to inadequate version correction intraoperatively and inferior postoperative results.
Continue to: GLENOSPHERE PLACEMENT
GLENOSPHERE PLACEMENT
The most common indication for reverse TSA is rotator cuff arthropathy characterized by rotator cuff dysfunction and end-stage glenohumeral arthritis.12 These patients require accurate and reproducible glenoid placement to optimize their postoperative range of motion and stability and minimize scapular notching.
Ideal glenosphere placement is the location and orientation that maximizes impingement-free ROM and stability while avoiding notching. Individual patient anatomy determines ideal placement; however, several guidelines for placement include inferior translation on the glenoid with neutral to inferior inclination. Gutiérrez and colleagues13 developed a computer model to assess the hierarchy of surgical factors affecting the ROM after a reverse TSA. They found that lateralizing the center of rotation gave the largest increase in impingement-free abduction, followed closely by inferior translation of the glenosphere on the glenoid.
Avoiding scapular notching is also a very important factor in ideal glenosphere placement. Scapular notching can be described as impingement of the humeral cup against the scapular neck during arm adduction and/or humeral rotation. Gutiérrez and colleagues13 also found that decreasing the neck shaft angle to create a more varus proximal humerus was the most important factor in increasing the impingement-free adduction. Roche and colleagues14 reviewed the radiographs of 151 patients who underwent primary reverse TSA at a mean follow-up of 28.3 months postoperatively; they found that 13.2% of their patients had a notch and that, on average, their patients who had no scapular notch had significantly more inferior glenosphere overhang than those who had a scapular notch. Poon and colleagues15 found that a glenosphere overhang of >3.5 mm prevented notching in their randomized control trial comparing concentrically and eccentrically placed glenospheres. Multiple other studies have demonstrated similar results and recommended inferior glenoid translation and inferior glenoid inclination to avoid scapular notching.16,17 Lévigne and colleagues18 retrospectively reviewed 337 reverse TSAs and observed a correlation between scapular notching and radiolucencies around the glenosphere component, with 14% of patients with scapular notching displaying radiolucencies vs 4% of patients without scapula notching displaying radiolucencies.
Several studies have also focused on the ideal amount of inferior glenoid inclination to maximize impingement-free ROM. Li and colleagues17 performed a computer simulation study on the Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System (Zimmer Biomet) to determine impingement-free internal and external ROM with varying amounts of glenosphere offset, translation, and inclination. They found that progressive glenosphere inferior inclination up to 30° improved impingement-free rotational ROM at all degrees of scaption. Gutiérrez and colleagues19 used computer modeling to compare concentrically placed glenospheres in neutral inclination with eccentrically placed glenospheres in varying degrees of inclination. They found that the lowest forces across the baseplate occurred in the lateralized and inferiorly inclined glenospheres, and the highest forces occurred in the lateralized and superiorly inclined glenospheres. Together, these studies show that inferior glenoid inclination increases impingement-free ROM and, combined with lateralization, may result in improved glenosphere longevity due to significantly decreased forces at the RSA glenoid baseplate when compared to that at superiorly inclined glenoids.
The ideal amount of mediolateral glenosphere offset has not been well defined. Grammont design systems place the center of rotation of the glenosphere medial to the glenoid baseplate together with valgus humeral component neck shaft angles of around 155°. These design elements are believed to decrease shear stresses through the glenoid baseplate to the glenoid interface and improve shoulder stability, but they are also associated with reduced impingement-free ROM and increased rates of scapular notching.13 This effect is accentuated in patients with preexisting glenoid bone loss and/or congenitally short scapular necks that further medialize the glenosphere. Medialization of the glenosphere may also shorten the remaining rotator cuff muscles and result in decreased implant stability and external rotation strength. Several implant systems have options to vary the amount of lateral offset. The correct amount of lateral offset for each patient requires the understanding that improving patients’ impingement-free ROM by increasing the amount of lateral offset comes at the price of increasing the shear forces experienced by the interface between the glenoid baseplate and the glenoid. As glenoid fixation technology improves increased lateralization of glenospheres without increased rates of glenoid baseplate, loosening should improve the ROM after reverse TSA.
Continue to: Regardless of the intraoperative goals...
Regardless of the intraoperative goals for placement and orientation of the glenosphere components, it is vitally important to accurately and consistently meet those goals for achieving optimal patient outcomes. Verborgt and colleagues20 implanted 7 glenospheres in cadaveric specimens without any glenohumeral arthritis using standard techniques to evaluate the accuracy of glenosphere version and inclination. Their goal was to place components in neutral version and with 10° of inferior inclination. Their average glenoid version postoperatively was 8.7° of anteversion, and their average inclination was 0.9° of superior inclination. Throckmorton and colleagues21 randomized 35 cadaveric shoulders to receive either an anatomic or a reverse total shoulder prosthesis from high-, mid-, and low-volume surgeons. They found that components placed using traditional guides averaged 6° of deviation in version and 5° of deviation in inclination from their target values, with no significant differences between surgeons of different volumes.
PATIENT-SPECIFIC GUIDES/INSTRUMENTATION
Patient-specific guides/instrumentation and intraoperative navigation are the 2 techniques that have been used to improve the accuracy of glenoid and glenosphere placement. Both techniques require the use of high-resolution CT scans and computer software to determine the proper position for glenoid or glenosphere placement based on the patient’s individual anatomy. Patient-specific guides and instrumentation use the data acquired from a CT scan to generate a preoperative plan for the location and orientation of the glenoid baseplate. Once the surgeon approves the preoperative plan, a patient-specific guide is created using the patient’s glenoid as a reference for the location and orientation of the central guide pin. The location of the central guide pin on the glenoid determines the center of the glenoid baseplate, and the guide pin’s orientation determines the version and inclination of the glenoid or the glenosphere. Once the guide pin is placed in the glenoid, the remainder of the glenoid implantation uses the guide pin as a reference, and, in that way, patient-specific guides control the orientation of the glenoid at the time of surgery.
Intraoperative navigation uses an optical tracking system to determine the location and orientation of the central guide pin. Navigation systems require intraoperative calibration of the optical tracking system before they can track the location of implantation relative to bony landmarks on the patient’s scapula. Their advantage over patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) is that they do not require the manufacture of a custom guide; however, they may add significantly increased cost and surgical time due to the need for calibration prior to use and the cost of the navigation system along with any disposable components associated with it. Kircher and colleagues22 performed a prospective randomized clinical study of navigation-aided TSA compared with conventional TSA and found that operating time was significantly increased for the navigated group with an average operating room time of 169.5 minutes compared to 138 minutes for the conventional group. They also found that navigation had to be abandoned in 37.5% of their navigated patients due to technical errors during glenoid referencing.
COMMERCIAL PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTATION SYSTEMS
The 2 types of PSI that are currently available are single-use PSI and reusable PSI. The single-use PSI involves the fabrication of unique guides based on surgeon-approved preoperative plans generated by computer-software-processed preoperative CT scans. The guides are fabricated to rest on the glenoid articular surface and direct the guide pin to the correct location and in the correct direction to place the glenoid baseplate in the desired position with the desired version and inclination. Most of these systems also provide a 3-D model of the patient’s glenoid so that surgeons can visualize glenoid deformities and the correct guide placement on the glenoid. Single-use PSI systems are available from DJO Global, Wright Medical Group, and Zimmer Biomet. The second category of PSI is reusable and is available from Arthrex. The guide pin for this system is adjusted to fit individual patient anatomy and guide the guide pin into the glenoid in a location and orientation preplanned on the CT-scan-based computer software or using a 3-D model of the patient’s glenoid (Table).
Table. Details of Available Patient-Specific Instrumentation Systems
| System | Manufacturer | Single-Use/Reusable | Guides |
| MatchPoint System | DJO Global | Single-use | Central guide pin |
| Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI | Wright Medical Group | Single-use | Central guide pin |
| Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments Shoulder | Zimmer Biomet | Single-use | Central guide pin, reaming guide, roll guide, screw drill guide |
| Virtual Implant Positioning System | Arthrex | Reusable | Central guide pin |
The DJO Global patient-specific guide is termed as the MatchPoint System. This system creates 3-D renderings of the scapula and allows the surgeon to manipulate the glenoid baseplate on the scapula. The surgeon chooses the glenoid baseplate, location, version, and inclination on the computerized 3-D model. The system then fabricates a guide pin matching the computerized template that references the patient’s glenoid surface with a hook to orient it against the coracoid. A 3-D model of the glenoid is also provided along with the customized guide pin.
Continue to: Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI...
Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI (Wright Medical Group) allows custom placement of the glenoid version, inclination, and position on computerized 3-D models of the patient’s scapula. This PSI references the glenoid with 4 feet that captures the edge of the patient’s glenoid at specific locations and is unique because it allows the surgeon to control where on the glenoid edge to 4 feet contact as long as 1 foot is placed on the posterior edge of the glenoid and the remaining 3 feet are placed on the anterior edge of the glenoid. A 3-D model of the glenoid is also provided with this guide.
The Zimmer Biomet patient-specific guide is termed as the Zimmer Patient Specific Instruments Shoulder. Its computer software allows custom placement of the glenoid as well, but it also includes computerized customization of the reaming depth, screw angles, and screw lengths to optimize fixation. Their system includes a central guide pin to set the glenoid baseplate’s location and orientation, a reaming guide to control reaming depth and direction, a roll guide to control the glenoid baseplate’s rotation, and a drill guide to control the screw direction. They also provide a 3-D model of the glenoid.
The Arthrex Virtual Implant Positioning (VIP) System is similar to other systems in that its 3-D planning software is based on CT images uploaded by the surgeon. The unique aspect of this system is that the guide pin is adjusted by the surgeon for each individual patient based on instructions generated by the planning software; however, after use, the instruments are resterilized and reused on subsequent patients (Figures 1A, 1B). In this manner, their instruments are reusable and allow custom adjustment for each patient with the ability to set the pin location and glenoid version in a patient-specific manner. This has the potential benefit of keeping costs down. For more complex deformity cases, the Arthrex VIP System can also 3-D-print a sterile model of the glenoid to help surgeons appreciate the deformity better (Figure 2).
DATA ON PATIENT-SPECIFIC INSTRUMENTS
Several studies have measured the accuracy of patient-specific guides and have compared the accuracy of patient-specific guides to that of traditional methods. Levy and colleagues23 investigated the accuracy of single-use patient-specific guides compared to that of preoperative plans. They used patient-specific guides on 14 cadaveric shoulders based on plans developed by virtual preoperative 3-D planning system using CT images. Once the guide pin was drilled using the patient-specific guide, they obtained a second CT scan to compare the accuracy of the patient-specific guide to the surgical plan generated preoperatively. They found that the translational accuracy of the starting point for the guide pin averaged 1.2 mm ± 0.7 mm, the accuracy of the inferior inclination was 1.2° ± 1.2°, and the accuracy of the glenoid version was 2.6° ± 1.7°. They concluded that patient-specific guides were highly accurate in reproducing the starting point, inclination, and version set on preoperative guides.
Walch and colleagues24 subsequently performed a similar study using 15 cadaveric scapulae without any other shoulder soft tissue or bone attached. They also used CT-scan-based 3-D planning software to plan their glenoid placement with a subsequently fabricated single-use patient-specific guide used to place a guide pin. They obtained a second CT scan after guide pin implantation and compared the preoperative plan with the subsequent guide pin. They found a mean entry point position error of 1.05 mm ± 0.31 mm, a mean inclination error of 1.42° ± 1.37°, and a mean version error of 1.64° ± 1.01°.
Continue to: Throckmorton and colleagues...
Throckmorton and colleagues21 used 70 cadaveric shoulders with radiographically confirmed arthritis and randomized them to undergo either anatomic or reverse TSA using either a patient-specific guide or standard instrumentation. Postoperative CT scans were used to evaluate the glenoid inclination, version, and starting point. They found that glenoid components implanted using patient-specific guides were more accurate than those placed using traditional instrumentation. The average deviation from intended inclination was 3° for patient-specific guides and 7° for traditional instrumentation, the average deviation from intended version was 5° for patient-specific guides and 8° for traditional instrumentation, and the average deviation in intended starting point was 2 mm for patient-specific guides and 3 mm for traditional instrumentation. They also analyzed significantly malpositioned components as defined by a variation in version or inclination of >10° or >4 mm in starting point. They found that 6 of their 35 glenoids using patient-specific guides were significantly malpositioned compared to 23 of 35 glenoids using traditional instrumentation. They concluded that patient-specific guides were more accurate and reduced the number of significantly malpositioned implants when compared with traditional instrumentation.
Early and colleagues25 analyzed the effect of severe glenoid bone defects on the accuracy of patient-specific guides compared with traditional guides. Using 10 cadaveric shoulders, they created anterior, central, or posterior glenoid defects using a reamer and chisel to erode the bone past the coracoid base. Subsequent CT scans were performed on the specimens, and patient-specific guides were fabricated and used for reverse TSA in 5 of the 10 specimens. A reverse TSA was performed using traditional instrumentation in the remaining 5 specimens. They found that the average deviation in inclination and version from preoperative plan was more accurate in the patient-specific guide cohort than that in the traditional instrument cohort, with an average deviation in inclination and version of 1.2° ± 1.2° and 1.8° ± 1.2° respectively for the cohort using patient-specific instruments vs 2.8° ± 1.8° and 3.5° ± 3° for the cohort using traditional instruments. They also found that their total bone screw lengths were longer in the patient-specific guide group than those in the traditional group, with screws averaging 52% of preoperatively planned length in the traditional instrument cohort vs 89% of preoperatively planned length in the patient-specific instrument cohort.
Gauci and colleagues26 measured the accuracy of patient-specific guides in vivo in 17 patients receiving TSA. Preoperative CT scans were used to fabricate patient-specific guides, and postoperative CT scans were used to measure version, inclination, and error of entry in comparison with the templated goals used to create patient-specific guides. They found a mean error in version and inclination of 3.4° and 1.8°, respectively, and a mean error in entry of 0.9 mm of translation on the glenoid. Dallalana and colleagues27 performed a very similar study on 20 patients and found a mean deviation in glenoid version of 1.8° ± 1.9°, a mean deviation in glenoid inclination of 1.3° ± 1.0°, a mean translation in anterior-posterior plane of 0.5 mm ± 0.3 mm, and a mean translation in the superior-inferior plane of 0.8 mm ± 0.5 mm.
Hendel and colleagues28 performed a randomized prospective clinical trial comparing patient-specific guides with traditional methods for glenoid insertion. They randomized 31 patients to receive a glenoid implant using either a patient-specific guide or traditional methods and compared glenoid retroversion and inclination with their preoperative plan. They found an average version deviation of 6.9° in the traditional method cohort and 4.3° in the patient-specific guide cohort. Their average deviation in inclination was 11.6° in the traditional method cohort and 2.9° in the patient-specific guide cohort. For patients with preoperative retroversion >16°, the average deviation was 10° in the standard surgical cohort and 1.2° in the patient-specific instrument cohort. Their data suggest that increasing preoperative retroversion leads to an increased version variation from preoperative plan.
Iannotti and colleagues29 randomly assigned 46 patients to preoperatively undergo either CT scan with 3-D templating of glenoid component without patient-specific guide fabrication or CT scan with 3-D templating and patient-specific guide fabrication prior to receiving a TSA. They recorded the postoperative inclination and version for each patient and compared them to those of a nonrandomized control group of 17 patients who underwent TSA using standard instrumentation. They found no difference between the cohorts with or without patient-specific guide use with regard to implant location, inclination, or version; however, they did find a difference between the combined 3-D templating cohort compared with their standard instrumentation cohort. They concluded that 3-D templating significantly improved the surgeons’ ability to correctly position the glenoid component with or without the fabrication and the use of a patient-specific guide.
Continue to: Denard and colleagues...
Denard and colleagues30 compared the preoperative glenoid version and inclination measurements obtained using the Blueprint 3D Planning + PSI software and the VIP System 3D planning software. They analyzed the preoperative CT scans of 63 consecutive patients undergoing either TSA or reverse TSA using both the Blueprint and the VIP System 3D planning software and compared the resulting native glenoid version and inclination measured by the software. They found a statistically significant difference (P = 0.04) in the version measurements provided by the different planning software; however, the differences found in inclination did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.463). In 19 of the 63 patients (30%), the version measurements between the systems were >5°, and in 29 of the 63 patients (46%), the inclination measurements between the systems were 5° or greater. In addition, 12 of the 63 patients (19%) had both version and inclination measurement differences of >5° between the systems. In total, they found that 35 of the 63 patients had at least 1 measurement that varied by >5° between the systems, and that in 15 patients (24%), 1 measurement varied by >10°. Their data demonstrate considerable variability in the preoperative measurements provided by different 3-D planning software systems, and that further study of each commercially available 3-D planning software system is needed to evaluate their accuracy.
CONCLUSION
Optimal outcomes following TSA and reverse TSA are dependent on proper implant position. Multiple studies have demonstrated improved accuracy in implant positioning with the use of patient-specific guides compared to that with traditional methods. Currently, there are no studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patient-specific guides to those of traditional methods of glenoid placement, and limited research had been done comparing the accuracy of each system’s 3-D planning software with each other and with standardized measurements of glenoid version and inclination. Further research is required to determine the accuracy of each commercially available 3-D planning software system as well as the clinical benefit of patient-specific guides in shoulder arthroplasty.
1. Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H. Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(4):327-332. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.115269.
2. Norris TR, Iannotti JP. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(2):130-135. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.121146.
3. Mullaji AB, Beddow FH, Lamb GH. CT measurement of glenoid erosion in arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(3):384-388.
4. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
5. RJ Friedman, KB Hawthorne, BM Genez. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg. 1992;74(7):1032-1037. doi:10.2106/00004623-199274070-00009.
6. Yian EH, Werner CM, Nyffeler RW, et al. Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(9):1928-1936. doi:10.2106/00004623-200509000-00004.
7. Hasan SS, Leith JM, Campbell B, Kapil R, Smith KL, Matsen FA. Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(5):431-441.
8. Hopkins AR, Hansen UN, Amis AA, Emery R. The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):668-675. doi:10.1016/S1058274604001399.
9. Iannotti JP, Greeson C, Downing D, Sabesan V, Bryan JA. Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):48-55. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.02.011.
10. Nyffeler RW, Jost B, Pfirrmann CWA, Gerber C. Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(5):493-496. doi:10.1016/S1058274603001812.
11. Hoenecke HR, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D'Lima DD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):166-171. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.08.009.
12. Wall B, Nové-Josserand L, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(7):1476-1485. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00666.
13. Gutiérrez S, Comiskey 4, Charles A, Luo Z, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2606-2615. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00012.
14. Roche CP, Marczuk Y, Wright TW, et al. Scapular notching and osteophyte formation after reverse shoulder replacement: Radiological analysis of implant position in male and female patients. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(4):530-535. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B4.30442.
15. Poon PC, Chou J, Young SW, Astley T. A comparison of concentric and eccentric glenospheres in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(16):e138. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00941.
16. Nyffeler RW, Werner CML, Gerber C. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):524-528. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.010.
17. Li X, Knutson Z, Choi D, et al. Effects of glenosphere positioning on impingement-free internal and external rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):807-813. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.013.
18. Lévigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):925-935. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010.
19. Gutiérrez S, Walker M, Willis M, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Effects of tilt and glenosphere eccentricity on baseplate/bone interface forces in a computational model, validated by a mechanical model, of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):732-739. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.035.
20. Verborgt O, De Smedt T, Vanhees M, Clockaerts S, Parizel PM, Van Glabbeek F. Accuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty with and without navigation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):21-26. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.014.
21. Throckmorton TW, Gulotta LV, Bonnarens FO, et al. Patient-specific targeting guides compared with traditional instrumentation for glenoid component placement in shoulder arthroplasty: A multi-surgeon study in 70 arthritic cadaver specimens. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(6):965-971. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.013.
22. Kircher J, Wiedemann M, Magosch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Improved accuracy of glenoid positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty with intraoperative navigation: a prospective-randomized clinical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4):515-520. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.014.
23. Levy JC, Everding NG, Frankle MA, Keppler LJ. Accuracy of patient-specific guided glenoid baseplate positioning for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(10):1563-1567. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.051.
24. Walch G, Vezeridis PS, Boileau P, Deransart P, Chaoui J. Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):302-309. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.029.
25. Eraly K, Stoffelen D, Vander Sloten J, Jonkers I, Debeer P. A patient-specific guide for optimizing custom-made glenoid implantation in cases of severe glenoid defects: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(5):837-845. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.034.
26. Gauci MO, Boileau P, Baba M, Chaoui J, Walch G. Patient-specific glenoid guides provide accuracy and reproducibility in total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(8):1080-1085. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37257.
27. Dallalana RJ, McMahon RA, East B, Geraghty L. Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2016;10(2):59-66. doi:10.4103/09736042.180717.
28. Hendel MD, Bryan JA, Barsoum WK, et al. Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94(23):2167-2175. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01209.
29. Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E, et al. Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg. 2015;97(8):651-658. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.00493.
30. Denard PJ, Provencher MT, Lädermann A, Romeo AA, Dines JS. Version and inclination obtained with 3D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty: do different programs produce the same results? SECEC-ESSSE Congress, Berlin 2017. 2017.
1. Churchill RS, Brems JJ, Kotschi H. Glenoid size, inclination, and version: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(4):327-332. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.115269.
2. Norris TR, Iannotti JP. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(2):130-135. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.121146.
3. Mullaji AB, Beddow FH, Lamb GH. CT measurement of glenoid erosion in arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(3):384-388.
4. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
5. RJ Friedman, KB Hawthorne, BM Genez. The use of computerized tomography in the measurement of glenoid version. J Bone Joint Surg. 1992;74(7):1032-1037. doi:10.2106/00004623-199274070-00009.
6. Yian EH, Werner CM, Nyffeler RW, et al. Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(9):1928-1936. doi:10.2106/00004623-200509000-00004.
7. Hasan SS, Leith JM, Campbell B, Kapil R, Smith KL, Matsen FA. Characteristics of unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(5):431-441.
8. Hopkins AR, Hansen UN, Amis AA, Emery R. The effects of glenoid component alignment variations on cement mantle stresses in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):668-675. doi:10.1016/S1058274604001399.
9. Iannotti JP, Greeson C, Downing D, Sabesan V, Bryan JA. Effect of glenoid deformity on glenoid component placement in primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):48-55. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.02.011.
10. Nyffeler RW, Jost B, Pfirrmann CWA, Gerber C. Measurement of glenoid version: conventional radiographs versus computed tomography scans. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(5):493-496. doi:10.1016/S1058274603001812.
11. Hoenecke HR, Hermida JC, Flores-Hernandez C, D'Lima DD. Accuracy of CT-based measurements of glenoid version for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):166-171. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.08.009.
12. Wall B, Nové-Josserand L, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(7):1476-1485. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00666.
13. Gutiérrez S, Comiskey 4, Charles A, Luo Z, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2606-2615. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00012.
14. Roche CP, Marczuk Y, Wright TW, et al. Scapular notching and osteophyte formation after reverse shoulder replacement: Radiological analysis of implant position in male and female patients. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(4):530-535. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B4.30442.
15. Poon PC, Chou J, Young SW, Astley T. A comparison of concentric and eccentric glenospheres in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(16):e138. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00941.
16. Nyffeler RW, Werner CML, Gerber C. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):524-528. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.010.
17. Li X, Knutson Z, Choi D, et al. Effects of glenosphere positioning on impingement-free internal and external rotation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):807-813. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.013.
18. Lévigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):925-935. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.02.010.
19. Gutiérrez S, Walker M, Willis M, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Effects of tilt and glenosphere eccentricity on baseplate/bone interface forces in a computational model, validated by a mechanical model, of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(5):732-739. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.035.
20. Verborgt O, De Smedt T, Vanhees M, Clockaerts S, Parizel PM, Van Glabbeek F. Accuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty with and without navigation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):21-26. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.014.
21. Throckmorton TW, Gulotta LV, Bonnarens FO, et al. Patient-specific targeting guides compared with traditional instrumentation for glenoid component placement in shoulder arthroplasty: A multi-surgeon study in 70 arthritic cadaver specimens. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(6):965-971. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.013.
22. Kircher J, Wiedemann M, Magosch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Improved accuracy of glenoid positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty with intraoperative navigation: a prospective-randomized clinical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4):515-520. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.014.
23. Levy JC, Everding NG, Frankle MA, Keppler LJ. Accuracy of patient-specific guided glenoid baseplate positioning for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(10):1563-1567. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.01.051.
24. Walch G, Vezeridis PS, Boileau P, Deransart P, Chaoui J. Three-dimensional planning and use of patient-specific guides improve glenoid component position: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):302-309. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.029.
25. Eraly K, Stoffelen D, Vander Sloten J, Jonkers I, Debeer P. A patient-specific guide for optimizing custom-made glenoid implantation in cases of severe glenoid defects: an in vitro study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(5):837-845. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.09.034.
26. Gauci MO, Boileau P, Baba M, Chaoui J, Walch G. Patient-specific glenoid guides provide accuracy and reproducibility in total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(8):1080-1085. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37257.
27. Dallalana RJ, McMahon RA, East B, Geraghty L. Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2016;10(2):59-66. doi:10.4103/09736042.180717.
28. Hendel MD, Bryan JA, Barsoum WK, et al. Comparison of patient-specific instruments with standard surgical instruments in determining glenoid component position: a randomized prospective clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94(23):2167-2175. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01209.
29. Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E, et al. Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg. 2015;97(8):651-658. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.00493.
30. Denard PJ, Provencher MT, Lädermann A, Romeo AA, Dines JS. Version and inclination obtained with 3D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty: do different programs produce the same results? SECEC-ESSSE Congress, Berlin 2017. 2017.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Optimal outcomes following TSA and RSA are dependent on proper implant position.
- Patient-specific guides/instrumentation result in improved accuracy of implant positioning compared to traditional methods.
- Currently, there are no clinical studies demonstrating superiority of patient-specific guide/instrumentation use on patient outcomes.
- At this time there are 3 commercially available single use patient-specific instrumentation systems (DJO Global, Wright Medical Group, and Zimmer Biomet) and 1 commercially available reusable patient-specific instrumentation system (Arthrex).
- Limited research is available comparing the accuracy of different commercially available 3-D planning systems.
Humeral Bone Loss in Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty
ABSTRACT
Revision shoulder arthroplasty is becoming more prevalent as the rate of primary shoulder arthroplasty in the US continues to increase. The management of proximal humeral bone loss in the revision setting presents a difficult problem without a clear solution. Different preoperative diagnoses often lead to distinctly different patterns of bone loss. Successful management of these cases requires a clear understanding of the normal anatomy of the proximal humerus, as well as structural limitations imposed by significant bone loss and the effect this loss has on component fixation. Our preferred technique differs depending on the pattern of bone loss encountered. The use of allograft-prosthetic composites, the cement-within-cement technique, and combinations of these strategies comprise the mainstay of our treatment algorithm. This article focuses on indications, surgical techniques, and some of the published outcomes using these strategies in the management of proximal humeral bone loss.
Continue to: The demand for shoulder arthroplasty...
The demand for shoulder arthroplasty (SA) has increased significantly over the past decade, with a 200% increase witnessed from 2011 to 2015.1 SA performed in patients younger than 55 years is expected to increase 333% between 2011 to 2030.2 With increasing rates of SA being performed in younger patient populations, rates of revision SA also can be expected to climb. Revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has arisen as a viable option in these patients, and multiple studies demonstrate excellent outcomes that can be obtained with RSA.3-11
Despite significant improvements obtained in revision SA since the mainstream acceptance of RSA, bone loss remains a problematic issue. Loss of humeral bone stock, in particular, can be a challenging problem to solve with multiple clinical implications. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that if bone loss is left unaddressed, increased bending and torsional forces on the prosthesis result, which ultimately contribute to increased micromotion and eventual component failure.12 In addition, existing challenges are associated with the lack of attachment sites for both multiple muscles and tendons. Also, there is a loss of the normal lateralized pull of the deltoid, which results in a decreased amount of force generated by this muscle.13,14 Ultimately, the increased loss of bone can lead to a devastating situation where there is not enough bone to provide adequate fixation while maintaining the appropriate humeral length necessary to achieve stability of the articulation, which will inevitably lead to instability.4,15 Therefore, techniques are needed to address proximal humeral bone loss while maintaining as much native humeral bone as possible.
PROXIMAL HUMERUS: ANATOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The anatomy of the proximal humerus has been studied in great detail and reported in a number of different studies.16-23 The average humeral head thickness (24 mm in men and 19 mm in women) and offset relative to the humeral shaft (2.1 mm posterior and 6.6 mm medial) act to tension the rotator cuff musculature appropriately and contribute to a wrapping effect that allows the deltoid to function more effectively.13,14 Knowledge regarding the rotator cuff footprint has advanced over the past 10 years, specifically with regard to the supraspinatus and infraspinatus.24 The current belief is that the supraspinatus has a triangular insertion onto the most anterior aspect of the greater tuberosity, with a maximum medial-to-lateral length of 6.9 mm and a maximum anterior-to-posterior width of 12.6 mm. The infraspinatus insertion has a trapezoidal insertion, with a maximum medial-to-lateral length of 10.2 mm and anterior-to-posterior width of 32.7 mm. The subscapularis, by far the largest of all the rotator cuff muscles, has a complex geometry with regard to its insertion on the lesser tuberosity, with 4 different insertion points and an overall lateral footprint measuring 37.6 mm and a medial footprint measuring 40.7 mm.25 Finally, the teres minor, with the smallest volume of all the rotator cuff muscles, inserts immediately inferior to the infraspinatus along the inferior facet of the greater tuberosity.26
Aside from the rotator cuff, there are various other muscles and tendons that insert about the proximal humerus and are essential for normal function. The deltoid, which inserts at a point approximately 6 cm from the greater tuberosity along the length of the humerus, with an insertion length between 5 cm to 7 cm,13,27 is the primary mover of the shoulder and essential for proper function after RSA.28,29 The pectoralis major tendon, which begins inserting at a point approximately 5.6 cm from the humeral head and spans a distance of 7.7 cm along the length of the humerus,30-32 is important not only for function but as an anatomical landmark in reconstruction. Lastly, the latissimus dorsi and teres major, which share a role in extension, adduction, and internal rotation of the glenohumeral joint, insert along the floor and medial lip of the intertubercular groove of the humerus, respectively.33,34 In addition to their role in tendon transfer procedures because of treating irreparable posterosuperior cuff and subscapularis tears,35,36 it has been suggested that these tendons may play some role in glenohumeral joint stability.37
In addition to the loss of muscular attachments, the absence of proximal humeral bone stock, in and of itself, can have deleterious effects on fixation of the humeral component. RSA is a semiconstrained device, which results in increased transmission of forces to the interface between the humeral implant and its surrounding structures, including cement (when present) and the bone itself. When there is the absence of significant amounts of bone, the remaining bone must now account for an even higher proportion of these forces. A previous biomechanical study showed that cemented humeral stems demonstrated significantly increased micromotion in the presence of proximal humeral bone loss, particularly when a modular humeral component was used.12
Continue to: TYPES OF BONE LOSS
TYPES OF BONE LOSS
There are a variety of different etiologies of proximal humeral bone loss that result in distinctly different clinical presentations. These can be fairly mild, as is the case of isolated resorption of the greater tuberosity in a non-united proximal humerus fracture (Figure 1). Alternatively, they can be severe, as seen in a grossly loose cemented long-stemmed component that is freely mobile, creating a windshield-wiper effect throughout the length of the humerus (Figure 2). This can be somewhat deceiving, however, as the amount of bone loss, as well as the pathophysiologic process that led to the bone loss, are important factors to determine ideal reconstructive methods. In the case of a failed open reduction internal fixation, where the tuberosity has failed to unite or has been resected, there is much less of a biologic response in comparison with implant loosening associated with osteolysis. This latter condition will be associated with a much more destructive inflammatory response resulting in poor tissue quality and often dramatic thinning of the cortex. If one simply measured the distance from the most proximal remaining bone stock to the area where the greater tuberosity should be, a loose stem with subsidence and ballooning of the cortices may appear to have a similar amount of bone loss as a failed hemiarthroplasty for fracture with a well-fixed stem. However, intraoperatively, one will find that the bone that appeared to be present radiographically in the case of the loose stem is of such poor quality that it cannot reasonably provide any beneficial fixation. In light of this, different treatment modalities are recommended for different types of bone loss, and the revision surgeon must be able to anticipate this and possess a full armamentarium of options to treat these challenging cases successfully.
INDICATIONS
Our technique to manage proximal humeral bone loss is dependent on both the quantity of bone loss, which can be measured radiographically, as well as the anticipated inflammatory response described above. As both the destructive process and the amount of bone loss increase, the importance of more advanced reconstructive procedures that will sustain implant security and soft-tissue management becomes apparent. In the least destructive cases with <5 cm of bone loss, successful revision can typically be accomplished with stem removal and placement of a new monoblock humeral stem. In cases where more advanced destructive pathology is present, and bone loss is >5 cm, an allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) is typically used. In both scenarios, if the stem being revised is cemented and the cement mantle remains intact, and of reasonable length, consideration is given to the cement-within-cement technique. Finally, in the most destructive cases where bone loss exceeds 10 cm and a large biological response is anticipated (eg, periprosthetic fractures with humeral loosening), the use of a longer diaphyseal-incorporating APC is often necessary. This prosthetic composite can be combined with a cement-within-cement technique as well.
It is important to comment on the implications of using modular stems in this setting. With advanced bone loss, a situation is often encountered where the newly implanted stem geometry and working length may be insufficient to acquire adequate rotational stability. In this setting, if a modular junction is positioned close to the stem and cement/bone interface, it will be exposed to very high stress concentrations which can lead to component fracture38 as well as taper corrosion, also referred to as trunnionosis. This latter phenomenon, which has been well studied in the total hip arthroplasty literature with the use of modular components,39 is especially relevant given the high torsional loads imparted at the modular junction. Ultimately, high torsional loads lead to micromotion and electrochemical ion release via degradation of the passivation layer, initiating the process of mechanically assisted crevice corrosion.40 For these reasons, when a modular stem must be used in the presence of mild to moderate bone loss, using a proximal humeral allograft to protect the junction or to provide additional fixation may be implemented with a lower threshold than when using a monoblock stem.
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: ALLOGRAFT-PROSTHETIC COMPOSITES
A standard deltopectoral approach is used, taking care to preserve all viable muscular attachments to the proximal humerus. After removal of the prosthetic humeral head, the decision to proceed with removal of the stem at this juncture is based on several factors. If the remaining proximal humeral bone is so compromised that it might not be able to withstand the forces exerted upon it during retraction for glenoid exposure, the component is left in place. Additionally, if there is consideration that the glenoid-sided bone loss may be so severe that a glenoid baseplate cannot be implanted, and the stem remains well fixed, it is retained so that it can be converted to a hemiarthroplasty.
If neither of the above issues is present, the humeral stem is removed. If a well-fixed press-fit stem is in place, it is typically removed using a combination of burrs and osteotomes to disrupt the bone-implant interface, and the stem is then carefully removed using an impactor and mallet. If a cemented stem is present, the stem is removed in a similar manner, and the cement mantle is left in place if stable, in anticipation of a cement-within-cement technique. If the mantle is disrupted, standard cement removal instruments are used to remove all cement from the canal meticulously.
Continue to: Management of the glenoid...
Management of the glenoid can have significant implications with regard to the humerus. Most notably, the size of the glenosphere has direct implications on the fixation of the humeral component. Use of larger diameter glenospheres result in increased contact area between the glenosphere and humerosocket, adding constraint to the articulation and further increasing the stresses at the implant-bone interface. As such, the use of larger glenospheres to prevent instability must be balanced with the resulting implications on humeral component fixation, especially in cases of severe bone loss.
After implanting the appropriate glenosphere, attention is then turned back to the humerus. Trial implants are sequentially used to obtain adequate humeral length and stability. Once this is accomplished, the amount of humeral bone loss is quantified by measuring the distance from the superior aspect of the medial humeral tray to the medial humeral shaft. If this number is >5 cm (Figure 3), the decision is made to proceed with an APC. The allograft humeral head is cut, cancellous bone is removed, and a step-cut is performed, with the medial portion of the allograft measuring the same length as that of bone loss and the lateral plate extending an additional several centimeters distally (Figure 4). Additional soft tissue is removed from the allograft, leaving the subscapularis stump intact for later repair with the patient’s native tissue. The allograft is secured to the patient’s proximal humerus using multiple cerclage wires, and the humeral stem is cemented into place. The final construct is shown in Figure 5.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: CASES OF ADVANCED BONE LOSS
In cases of advanced humeral bone loss, as is often seen when revising loose humeral stems, larger allografts that span a significant length of the diaphysis are often required. This type of bone loss has implications with regard to how the deltoid insertion is managed. Interestingly, even in situations when the vast majority of the remaining diaphysis consists of ectatic egg-shell bone, the deltoid tuberosity remains of fairly substantial quality due to the continued pull of the muscular insertion on this area. This fragment is isolated, carefully mobilized, and subsequently repaired back on top of the allograft using cables.
POSTOPERATIVE CARE
Patients are kept in a shoulder immobilizer for 6 weeks after surgery to facilitate allograft incorporation and subscapularis tendon healing. During this time, pendulum exercises are initiated. Active assisted range of motion (ROM) exercises begin after 6 weeks, consisting of supine forward elevation. A sling is given to be used in public. Light strengthening exercises begin at 3 months postoperatively.
DISCUSSION
In cases of mild to moderate proximal humeral bone loss, RSA using a long-stem humeral component without allograft augmentation is a viable option. Budge and colleagues38 demonstrated excellent results in a population of 15 patients with an average of 38 mm of proximal humeral bone loss without use of allografts. Interestingly, they noted 1 case of component fracture in a modular prosthesis and therefore concluded that monoblock humeral stems should be used in the absence of allograft augmentation.
Continue to: In more advanced cases of bone loss...
In more advanced cases of bone loss, our data shows that use of APCs can result in equally satisfactory results. In a series of 25 patients with an average bone loss of 54 mm, patients were able to achieve statistically significant improvements in pain, ROM, and function with high rates of allograft incorporation.9 Overall, a low rate of complications was noted, including 1 infection. This finding is consistent with an additional study looking specifically at factors associated with infection in revision SA, which found that the use of allografts was not associated with increased risk of infection.41
As stated previously, the size of allograft needed for the APC construct is related to the distinct pathology encountered. In our experience, we have noted that well-fixed stems can be treated with short metaphyseal APCs in 85% of cases. On the other hand, loose stems require long allografts measuring >10 cm in 90% of cases. As such, these cases typically require mobilization of the deltoid insertion as described above, and therefore it is important that the surgeon is prepared for this aspect of the procedure preoperatively.
Finally, the cement-within-cement technique, originally popularized for use in revision total hip arthroplasty, has demonstrated reliable results when utilized in revision SA.42 To date, there are no recommendations regarding the minimal length of existing cement mantle that is needed to perform this technique. In situations in which the length of the cement mantle is questionable, our preference is to combine the cement-within-cement technique with an APC when possible.
1. Day JS, Lau E, Ong KL, Williams GR, Ramsey ML, Kurtz SM. Prevalence and projections of total shoulder and elbow arthroplasty in the United States to 2015. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1115-1120. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.02.009.
2. Padegimas EM, Maltenfort M, Lazarus MD, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Namdari S. Future patient demand for shoulder arthroplasty by younger patients: national projections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):1860-1867. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4231-z.
3. Walker M, Willis MP, Brooks JP, Pupello D, Mulieri PJ, Frankle MA. The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(4):514-522. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.006.
4. Levy JC, Virani N, Pupello D, et al. Use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(2):189-195. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B2.
5. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
6. Deutsch A, Abboud JA, Kelly J, et al. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid component loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):706-716. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.01.007.
7. Kelly JD, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
8. Black EM, Roberts SM, Siegel E, Yannopoulos P, Higgins LD, Warner JJP. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as salvage for failed prior arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(7):1036-1042. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.019.
9. Composite P, Chacon BA, Virani N, et al. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;1:119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Klein SM, Dunning P, Mulieri P, Pupello D, Downes K, Frankle MA. Effects of acquired glenoid bone defects on surgical technique and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1144-1154. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00778.
11. Patel DN, Young B, Onyekwelu I, Zuckerman JD, Kwon YW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1478-1483. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.004.
12. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle MA. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.026.
13. Morgan SJ, Furry K, Parekh A, Agudelo JF, Smith WR. The deltoid muscle: an anatomic description of the deltoid insertion to the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(1):19-21. doi:10.1097/01.bot.0000187063.43267.18.
14. Gagey O, Hue E. Mechanics of the deltoid muscle. A new approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;375:250-257. doi:10.1097/00003086-200006000-00030.
15. De Wilde L, Plasschaert F. Prosthetic treatment and functional recovery of the shoulder after tumor resection 10 years ago: a case report. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(6):645-649. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.11.001.
16. Wataru S, Kazuomi S, Yoshikazu N, Hiroaki I, Takaharu Y, Hideki Y. Three-dimensional morphological analysis of humeral heads: a study in cadavers. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(3):392-396. doi:10.1080/00016470510030878.
17. Tillett E, Smith M, Fulcher M, Shanklin J. Anatomic determination of humeral head retroversion: the relationship of the central axis of the humeral head to the bicipital groove. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(5):255-256. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80085-2.
18. Doyle AJ, Burks RT. Comparison of humeral head retroversion with the humeral axis/biceps groove relationship: a study in live subjects and cadavers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(5):453-457. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90193-8.
19. Johnson JW, Thostenson JD, Suva LJ, Hasan SA. Relationship of bicipital groove rotation with humeral head retroversion: a three-dimensional computed tomographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(8):719-724. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00085.
20. Hromádka R, Kuběna AA, Pokorný D, Popelka S, Jahoda D, Sosna A. Lesser tuberosity is more reliable than bicipital groove when determining orientation of humeral head in primary shoulder arthroplasty. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010;32(1):31-37. doi:10.1007/s00276-009-0543-6.
21. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):331-338. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.124429.
22. Pearl ML. Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(suppl 1):99-104. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.025.
23. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82-A(11):1594-1602.
24. Mochizuki T, Sugaya H, Uomizu M, et al. Humeral insertion of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(5):962-969. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00427.
25. Arai R, Sugaya H, Mochizuki T, Nimura A, Moriishi J, Akita K. Subscapularis tendon tear: an anatomic and clinical investigation. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(9):997-1004. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2008.04.076.
26. Nimura A, Kato A, Yamaguchi K, et al. The superior capsule of the shoulder joint complements the insertion of the rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):867-872. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.034.
27. Rispoli DM, Athwal GS, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. The anatomy of the deltoid insertion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):386-390. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.012.
28. Schwartz DG, Kang SH, Lynch TS, et al. The anterior deltoid’s importance in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(3):357-364. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.02.002.
29. Walker M, Brooks J, Willis M, Frankle M. How reverse shoulder arthroplasty works. Clinical Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2440-2451. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1892-0.
30. Torrens C, Corrales M, Melendo E, Solano A, Rodríguez-Baeza A, Cáceres E. The pectoralis major tendon as a reference for restoring humeral length and retroversion with hemiarthroplasty for fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):947-950. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.041.
31. Ponce BA, Thompson KJ, Rosenzweig SD, et al. Re-evaluation of pectoralis major height as an anatomic reference for humeral height in fracture hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1567-1572. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.039.
32. LaFrance R, Madsen W, Yaseen Z, Giordano B, Maloney M, Voloshin I. Relevant anatomic landmarks and measurements for biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(6):1395-1399. doi:10.1177/0363546513482297.
33. Beck PA, Hoffer MM. Latissimus dorsi and teres major tendons: separate or conjoint tendons? J Pediatr Orthop. 1989;9(3):308-309.
34. Bhatt CR, Prajapati B, Patil DS, Patel VD, Singh BGP, Mehta CD. Variation in the insertion of the latissimus dorsi & its clinical importance. J Orthop. 2013;10(1):25-28. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2013.01.002.
35. Gerber C, Maquieira G, Espinosa N. Latissimus dorsi transfer for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88(1):113-120. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00282.
36. Elhassan B, Christensen TJ, Wagner ER. Feasibility of latissimus and teres major transfer to reconstruct irreparable subscapularis tendon tear: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(4):492-499. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.046.
37. Pouliart N, Gagey O. Significance of the latissimus dorsi for shoulder instability. II. Its influence on dislocation behavior in a sequential cutting protocol of the glenohumeral capsule. Clin Anat. 2005;18(7):500-509. doi:10.1002/ca.20181.
38. Budge MD, Moravek JE, Zimel MN, Nolan EM, Wiater JM. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of failed shoulder arthroplasty with proximal humeral bone loss: is allograft augmentation necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):739-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.008.
39. Weiser MC, Lavernia CJ. Trunnionosis in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(17):27-29. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00345.
40. Cohen J. Current concepts review. Corrosion of metal orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(10):1554.
41. Meijer ST, Paulino Pereira NR, Nota SPFT, Ferrone ML, Schwab JH, Lozano Calderón SA. Factors associated with infection after reconstructive shoulder surgery for proximal humerus tumors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(6):931-938. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.014.
42. Wagner ER, Houdek MT, Hernandez NM, Cofield RH, Sánchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW. Cement-within-cement technique in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(8):1448-1453. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.013.
ABSTRACT
Revision shoulder arthroplasty is becoming more prevalent as the rate of primary shoulder arthroplasty in the US continues to increase. The management of proximal humeral bone loss in the revision setting presents a difficult problem without a clear solution. Different preoperative diagnoses often lead to distinctly different patterns of bone loss. Successful management of these cases requires a clear understanding of the normal anatomy of the proximal humerus, as well as structural limitations imposed by significant bone loss and the effect this loss has on component fixation. Our preferred technique differs depending on the pattern of bone loss encountered. The use of allograft-prosthetic composites, the cement-within-cement technique, and combinations of these strategies comprise the mainstay of our treatment algorithm. This article focuses on indications, surgical techniques, and some of the published outcomes using these strategies in the management of proximal humeral bone loss.
Continue to: The demand for shoulder arthroplasty...
The demand for shoulder arthroplasty (SA) has increased significantly over the past decade, with a 200% increase witnessed from 2011 to 2015.1 SA performed in patients younger than 55 years is expected to increase 333% between 2011 to 2030.2 With increasing rates of SA being performed in younger patient populations, rates of revision SA also can be expected to climb. Revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has arisen as a viable option in these patients, and multiple studies demonstrate excellent outcomes that can be obtained with RSA.3-11
Despite significant improvements obtained in revision SA since the mainstream acceptance of RSA, bone loss remains a problematic issue. Loss of humeral bone stock, in particular, can be a challenging problem to solve with multiple clinical implications. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that if bone loss is left unaddressed, increased bending and torsional forces on the prosthesis result, which ultimately contribute to increased micromotion and eventual component failure.12 In addition, existing challenges are associated with the lack of attachment sites for both multiple muscles and tendons. Also, there is a loss of the normal lateralized pull of the deltoid, which results in a decreased amount of force generated by this muscle.13,14 Ultimately, the increased loss of bone can lead to a devastating situation where there is not enough bone to provide adequate fixation while maintaining the appropriate humeral length necessary to achieve stability of the articulation, which will inevitably lead to instability.4,15 Therefore, techniques are needed to address proximal humeral bone loss while maintaining as much native humeral bone as possible.
PROXIMAL HUMERUS: ANATOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The anatomy of the proximal humerus has been studied in great detail and reported in a number of different studies.16-23 The average humeral head thickness (24 mm in men and 19 mm in women) and offset relative to the humeral shaft (2.1 mm posterior and 6.6 mm medial) act to tension the rotator cuff musculature appropriately and contribute to a wrapping effect that allows the deltoid to function more effectively.13,14 Knowledge regarding the rotator cuff footprint has advanced over the past 10 years, specifically with regard to the supraspinatus and infraspinatus.24 The current belief is that the supraspinatus has a triangular insertion onto the most anterior aspect of the greater tuberosity, with a maximum medial-to-lateral length of 6.9 mm and a maximum anterior-to-posterior width of 12.6 mm. The infraspinatus insertion has a trapezoidal insertion, with a maximum medial-to-lateral length of 10.2 mm and anterior-to-posterior width of 32.7 mm. The subscapularis, by far the largest of all the rotator cuff muscles, has a complex geometry with regard to its insertion on the lesser tuberosity, with 4 different insertion points and an overall lateral footprint measuring 37.6 mm and a medial footprint measuring 40.7 mm.25 Finally, the teres minor, with the smallest volume of all the rotator cuff muscles, inserts immediately inferior to the infraspinatus along the inferior facet of the greater tuberosity.26
Aside from the rotator cuff, there are various other muscles and tendons that insert about the proximal humerus and are essential for normal function. The deltoid, which inserts at a point approximately 6 cm from the greater tuberosity along the length of the humerus, with an insertion length between 5 cm to 7 cm,13,27 is the primary mover of the shoulder and essential for proper function after RSA.28,29 The pectoralis major tendon, which begins inserting at a point approximately 5.6 cm from the humeral head and spans a distance of 7.7 cm along the length of the humerus,30-32 is important not only for function but as an anatomical landmark in reconstruction. Lastly, the latissimus dorsi and teres major, which share a role in extension, adduction, and internal rotation of the glenohumeral joint, insert along the floor and medial lip of the intertubercular groove of the humerus, respectively.33,34 In addition to their role in tendon transfer procedures because of treating irreparable posterosuperior cuff and subscapularis tears,35,36 it has been suggested that these tendons may play some role in glenohumeral joint stability.37
In addition to the loss of muscular attachments, the absence of proximal humeral bone stock, in and of itself, can have deleterious effects on fixation of the humeral component. RSA is a semiconstrained device, which results in increased transmission of forces to the interface between the humeral implant and its surrounding structures, including cement (when present) and the bone itself. When there is the absence of significant amounts of bone, the remaining bone must now account for an even higher proportion of these forces. A previous biomechanical study showed that cemented humeral stems demonstrated significantly increased micromotion in the presence of proximal humeral bone loss, particularly when a modular humeral component was used.12
Continue to: TYPES OF BONE LOSS
TYPES OF BONE LOSS
There are a variety of different etiologies of proximal humeral bone loss that result in distinctly different clinical presentations. These can be fairly mild, as is the case of isolated resorption of the greater tuberosity in a non-united proximal humerus fracture (Figure 1). Alternatively, they can be severe, as seen in a grossly loose cemented long-stemmed component that is freely mobile, creating a windshield-wiper effect throughout the length of the humerus (Figure 2). This can be somewhat deceiving, however, as the amount of bone loss, as well as the pathophysiologic process that led to the bone loss, are important factors to determine ideal reconstructive methods. In the case of a failed open reduction internal fixation, where the tuberosity has failed to unite or has been resected, there is much less of a biologic response in comparison with implant loosening associated with osteolysis. This latter condition will be associated with a much more destructive inflammatory response resulting in poor tissue quality and often dramatic thinning of the cortex. If one simply measured the distance from the most proximal remaining bone stock to the area where the greater tuberosity should be, a loose stem with subsidence and ballooning of the cortices may appear to have a similar amount of bone loss as a failed hemiarthroplasty for fracture with a well-fixed stem. However, intraoperatively, one will find that the bone that appeared to be present radiographically in the case of the loose stem is of such poor quality that it cannot reasonably provide any beneficial fixation. In light of this, different treatment modalities are recommended for different types of bone loss, and the revision surgeon must be able to anticipate this and possess a full armamentarium of options to treat these challenging cases successfully.
INDICATIONS
Our technique to manage proximal humeral bone loss is dependent on both the quantity of bone loss, which can be measured radiographically, as well as the anticipated inflammatory response described above. As both the destructive process and the amount of bone loss increase, the importance of more advanced reconstructive procedures that will sustain implant security and soft-tissue management becomes apparent. In the least destructive cases with <5 cm of bone loss, successful revision can typically be accomplished with stem removal and placement of a new monoblock humeral stem. In cases where more advanced destructive pathology is present, and bone loss is >5 cm, an allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) is typically used. In both scenarios, if the stem being revised is cemented and the cement mantle remains intact, and of reasonable length, consideration is given to the cement-within-cement technique. Finally, in the most destructive cases where bone loss exceeds 10 cm and a large biological response is anticipated (eg, periprosthetic fractures with humeral loosening), the use of a longer diaphyseal-incorporating APC is often necessary. This prosthetic composite can be combined with a cement-within-cement technique as well.
It is important to comment on the implications of using modular stems in this setting. With advanced bone loss, a situation is often encountered where the newly implanted stem geometry and working length may be insufficient to acquire adequate rotational stability. In this setting, if a modular junction is positioned close to the stem and cement/bone interface, it will be exposed to very high stress concentrations which can lead to component fracture38 as well as taper corrosion, also referred to as trunnionosis. This latter phenomenon, which has been well studied in the total hip arthroplasty literature with the use of modular components,39 is especially relevant given the high torsional loads imparted at the modular junction. Ultimately, high torsional loads lead to micromotion and electrochemical ion release via degradation of the passivation layer, initiating the process of mechanically assisted crevice corrosion.40 For these reasons, when a modular stem must be used in the presence of mild to moderate bone loss, using a proximal humeral allograft to protect the junction or to provide additional fixation may be implemented with a lower threshold than when using a monoblock stem.
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: ALLOGRAFT-PROSTHETIC COMPOSITES
A standard deltopectoral approach is used, taking care to preserve all viable muscular attachments to the proximal humerus. After removal of the prosthetic humeral head, the decision to proceed with removal of the stem at this juncture is based on several factors. If the remaining proximal humeral bone is so compromised that it might not be able to withstand the forces exerted upon it during retraction for glenoid exposure, the component is left in place. Additionally, if there is consideration that the glenoid-sided bone loss may be so severe that a glenoid baseplate cannot be implanted, and the stem remains well fixed, it is retained so that it can be converted to a hemiarthroplasty.
If neither of the above issues is present, the humeral stem is removed. If a well-fixed press-fit stem is in place, it is typically removed using a combination of burrs and osteotomes to disrupt the bone-implant interface, and the stem is then carefully removed using an impactor and mallet. If a cemented stem is present, the stem is removed in a similar manner, and the cement mantle is left in place if stable, in anticipation of a cement-within-cement technique. If the mantle is disrupted, standard cement removal instruments are used to remove all cement from the canal meticulously.
Continue to: Management of the glenoid...
Management of the glenoid can have significant implications with regard to the humerus. Most notably, the size of the glenosphere has direct implications on the fixation of the humeral component. Use of larger diameter glenospheres result in increased contact area between the glenosphere and humerosocket, adding constraint to the articulation and further increasing the stresses at the implant-bone interface. As such, the use of larger glenospheres to prevent instability must be balanced with the resulting implications on humeral component fixation, especially in cases of severe bone loss.
After implanting the appropriate glenosphere, attention is then turned back to the humerus. Trial implants are sequentially used to obtain adequate humeral length and stability. Once this is accomplished, the amount of humeral bone loss is quantified by measuring the distance from the superior aspect of the medial humeral tray to the medial humeral shaft. If this number is >5 cm (Figure 3), the decision is made to proceed with an APC. The allograft humeral head is cut, cancellous bone is removed, and a step-cut is performed, with the medial portion of the allograft measuring the same length as that of bone loss and the lateral plate extending an additional several centimeters distally (Figure 4). Additional soft tissue is removed from the allograft, leaving the subscapularis stump intact for later repair with the patient’s native tissue. The allograft is secured to the patient’s proximal humerus using multiple cerclage wires, and the humeral stem is cemented into place. The final construct is shown in Figure 5.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: CASES OF ADVANCED BONE LOSS
In cases of advanced humeral bone loss, as is often seen when revising loose humeral stems, larger allografts that span a significant length of the diaphysis are often required. This type of bone loss has implications with regard to how the deltoid insertion is managed. Interestingly, even in situations when the vast majority of the remaining diaphysis consists of ectatic egg-shell bone, the deltoid tuberosity remains of fairly substantial quality due to the continued pull of the muscular insertion on this area. This fragment is isolated, carefully mobilized, and subsequently repaired back on top of the allograft using cables.
POSTOPERATIVE CARE
Patients are kept in a shoulder immobilizer for 6 weeks after surgery to facilitate allograft incorporation and subscapularis tendon healing. During this time, pendulum exercises are initiated. Active assisted range of motion (ROM) exercises begin after 6 weeks, consisting of supine forward elevation. A sling is given to be used in public. Light strengthening exercises begin at 3 months postoperatively.
DISCUSSION
In cases of mild to moderate proximal humeral bone loss, RSA using a long-stem humeral component without allograft augmentation is a viable option. Budge and colleagues38 demonstrated excellent results in a population of 15 patients with an average of 38 mm of proximal humeral bone loss without use of allografts. Interestingly, they noted 1 case of component fracture in a modular prosthesis and therefore concluded that monoblock humeral stems should be used in the absence of allograft augmentation.
Continue to: In more advanced cases of bone loss...
In more advanced cases of bone loss, our data shows that use of APCs can result in equally satisfactory results. In a series of 25 patients with an average bone loss of 54 mm, patients were able to achieve statistically significant improvements in pain, ROM, and function with high rates of allograft incorporation.9 Overall, a low rate of complications was noted, including 1 infection. This finding is consistent with an additional study looking specifically at factors associated with infection in revision SA, which found that the use of allografts was not associated with increased risk of infection.41
As stated previously, the size of allograft needed for the APC construct is related to the distinct pathology encountered. In our experience, we have noted that well-fixed stems can be treated with short metaphyseal APCs in 85% of cases. On the other hand, loose stems require long allografts measuring >10 cm in 90% of cases. As such, these cases typically require mobilization of the deltoid insertion as described above, and therefore it is important that the surgeon is prepared for this aspect of the procedure preoperatively.
Finally, the cement-within-cement technique, originally popularized for use in revision total hip arthroplasty, has demonstrated reliable results when utilized in revision SA.42 To date, there are no recommendations regarding the minimal length of existing cement mantle that is needed to perform this technique. In situations in which the length of the cement mantle is questionable, our preference is to combine the cement-within-cement technique with an APC when possible.
ABSTRACT
Revision shoulder arthroplasty is becoming more prevalent as the rate of primary shoulder arthroplasty in the US continues to increase. The management of proximal humeral bone loss in the revision setting presents a difficult problem without a clear solution. Different preoperative diagnoses often lead to distinctly different patterns of bone loss. Successful management of these cases requires a clear understanding of the normal anatomy of the proximal humerus, as well as structural limitations imposed by significant bone loss and the effect this loss has on component fixation. Our preferred technique differs depending on the pattern of bone loss encountered. The use of allograft-prosthetic composites, the cement-within-cement technique, and combinations of these strategies comprise the mainstay of our treatment algorithm. This article focuses on indications, surgical techniques, and some of the published outcomes using these strategies in the management of proximal humeral bone loss.
Continue to: The demand for shoulder arthroplasty...
The demand for shoulder arthroplasty (SA) has increased significantly over the past decade, with a 200% increase witnessed from 2011 to 2015.1 SA performed in patients younger than 55 years is expected to increase 333% between 2011 to 2030.2 With increasing rates of SA being performed in younger patient populations, rates of revision SA also can be expected to climb. Revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has arisen as a viable option in these patients, and multiple studies demonstrate excellent outcomes that can be obtained with RSA.3-11
Despite significant improvements obtained in revision SA since the mainstream acceptance of RSA, bone loss remains a problematic issue. Loss of humeral bone stock, in particular, can be a challenging problem to solve with multiple clinical implications. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that if bone loss is left unaddressed, increased bending and torsional forces on the prosthesis result, which ultimately contribute to increased micromotion and eventual component failure.12 In addition, existing challenges are associated with the lack of attachment sites for both multiple muscles and tendons. Also, there is a loss of the normal lateralized pull of the deltoid, which results in a decreased amount of force generated by this muscle.13,14 Ultimately, the increased loss of bone can lead to a devastating situation where there is not enough bone to provide adequate fixation while maintaining the appropriate humeral length necessary to achieve stability of the articulation, which will inevitably lead to instability.4,15 Therefore, techniques are needed to address proximal humeral bone loss while maintaining as much native humeral bone as possible.
PROXIMAL HUMERUS: ANATOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The anatomy of the proximal humerus has been studied in great detail and reported in a number of different studies.16-23 The average humeral head thickness (24 mm in men and 19 mm in women) and offset relative to the humeral shaft (2.1 mm posterior and 6.6 mm medial) act to tension the rotator cuff musculature appropriately and contribute to a wrapping effect that allows the deltoid to function more effectively.13,14 Knowledge regarding the rotator cuff footprint has advanced over the past 10 years, specifically with regard to the supraspinatus and infraspinatus.24 The current belief is that the supraspinatus has a triangular insertion onto the most anterior aspect of the greater tuberosity, with a maximum medial-to-lateral length of 6.9 mm and a maximum anterior-to-posterior width of 12.6 mm. The infraspinatus insertion has a trapezoidal insertion, with a maximum medial-to-lateral length of 10.2 mm and anterior-to-posterior width of 32.7 mm. The subscapularis, by far the largest of all the rotator cuff muscles, has a complex geometry with regard to its insertion on the lesser tuberosity, with 4 different insertion points and an overall lateral footprint measuring 37.6 mm and a medial footprint measuring 40.7 mm.25 Finally, the teres minor, with the smallest volume of all the rotator cuff muscles, inserts immediately inferior to the infraspinatus along the inferior facet of the greater tuberosity.26
Aside from the rotator cuff, there are various other muscles and tendons that insert about the proximal humerus and are essential for normal function. The deltoid, which inserts at a point approximately 6 cm from the greater tuberosity along the length of the humerus, with an insertion length between 5 cm to 7 cm,13,27 is the primary mover of the shoulder and essential for proper function after RSA.28,29 The pectoralis major tendon, which begins inserting at a point approximately 5.6 cm from the humeral head and spans a distance of 7.7 cm along the length of the humerus,30-32 is important not only for function but as an anatomical landmark in reconstruction. Lastly, the latissimus dorsi and teres major, which share a role in extension, adduction, and internal rotation of the glenohumeral joint, insert along the floor and medial lip of the intertubercular groove of the humerus, respectively.33,34 In addition to their role in tendon transfer procedures because of treating irreparable posterosuperior cuff and subscapularis tears,35,36 it has been suggested that these tendons may play some role in glenohumeral joint stability.37
In addition to the loss of muscular attachments, the absence of proximal humeral bone stock, in and of itself, can have deleterious effects on fixation of the humeral component. RSA is a semiconstrained device, which results in increased transmission of forces to the interface between the humeral implant and its surrounding structures, including cement (when present) and the bone itself. When there is the absence of significant amounts of bone, the remaining bone must now account for an even higher proportion of these forces. A previous biomechanical study showed that cemented humeral stems demonstrated significantly increased micromotion in the presence of proximal humeral bone loss, particularly when a modular humeral component was used.12
Continue to: TYPES OF BONE LOSS
TYPES OF BONE LOSS
There are a variety of different etiologies of proximal humeral bone loss that result in distinctly different clinical presentations. These can be fairly mild, as is the case of isolated resorption of the greater tuberosity in a non-united proximal humerus fracture (Figure 1). Alternatively, they can be severe, as seen in a grossly loose cemented long-stemmed component that is freely mobile, creating a windshield-wiper effect throughout the length of the humerus (Figure 2). This can be somewhat deceiving, however, as the amount of bone loss, as well as the pathophysiologic process that led to the bone loss, are important factors to determine ideal reconstructive methods. In the case of a failed open reduction internal fixation, where the tuberosity has failed to unite or has been resected, there is much less of a biologic response in comparison with implant loosening associated with osteolysis. This latter condition will be associated with a much more destructive inflammatory response resulting in poor tissue quality and often dramatic thinning of the cortex. If one simply measured the distance from the most proximal remaining bone stock to the area where the greater tuberosity should be, a loose stem with subsidence and ballooning of the cortices may appear to have a similar amount of bone loss as a failed hemiarthroplasty for fracture with a well-fixed stem. However, intraoperatively, one will find that the bone that appeared to be present radiographically in the case of the loose stem is of such poor quality that it cannot reasonably provide any beneficial fixation. In light of this, different treatment modalities are recommended for different types of bone loss, and the revision surgeon must be able to anticipate this and possess a full armamentarium of options to treat these challenging cases successfully.
INDICATIONS
Our technique to manage proximal humeral bone loss is dependent on both the quantity of bone loss, which can be measured radiographically, as well as the anticipated inflammatory response described above. As both the destructive process and the amount of bone loss increase, the importance of more advanced reconstructive procedures that will sustain implant security and soft-tissue management becomes apparent. In the least destructive cases with <5 cm of bone loss, successful revision can typically be accomplished with stem removal and placement of a new monoblock humeral stem. In cases where more advanced destructive pathology is present, and bone loss is >5 cm, an allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) is typically used. In both scenarios, if the stem being revised is cemented and the cement mantle remains intact, and of reasonable length, consideration is given to the cement-within-cement technique. Finally, in the most destructive cases where bone loss exceeds 10 cm and a large biological response is anticipated (eg, periprosthetic fractures with humeral loosening), the use of a longer diaphyseal-incorporating APC is often necessary. This prosthetic composite can be combined with a cement-within-cement technique as well.
It is important to comment on the implications of using modular stems in this setting. With advanced bone loss, a situation is often encountered where the newly implanted stem geometry and working length may be insufficient to acquire adequate rotational stability. In this setting, if a modular junction is positioned close to the stem and cement/bone interface, it will be exposed to very high stress concentrations which can lead to component fracture38 as well as taper corrosion, also referred to as trunnionosis. This latter phenomenon, which has been well studied in the total hip arthroplasty literature with the use of modular components,39 is especially relevant given the high torsional loads imparted at the modular junction. Ultimately, high torsional loads lead to micromotion and electrochemical ion release via degradation of the passivation layer, initiating the process of mechanically assisted crevice corrosion.40 For these reasons, when a modular stem must be used in the presence of mild to moderate bone loss, using a proximal humeral allograft to protect the junction or to provide additional fixation may be implemented with a lower threshold than when using a monoblock stem.
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: ALLOGRAFT-PROSTHETIC COMPOSITES
A standard deltopectoral approach is used, taking care to preserve all viable muscular attachments to the proximal humerus. After removal of the prosthetic humeral head, the decision to proceed with removal of the stem at this juncture is based on several factors. If the remaining proximal humeral bone is so compromised that it might not be able to withstand the forces exerted upon it during retraction for glenoid exposure, the component is left in place. Additionally, if there is consideration that the glenoid-sided bone loss may be so severe that a glenoid baseplate cannot be implanted, and the stem remains well fixed, it is retained so that it can be converted to a hemiarthroplasty.
If neither of the above issues is present, the humeral stem is removed. If a well-fixed press-fit stem is in place, it is typically removed using a combination of burrs and osteotomes to disrupt the bone-implant interface, and the stem is then carefully removed using an impactor and mallet. If a cemented stem is present, the stem is removed in a similar manner, and the cement mantle is left in place if stable, in anticipation of a cement-within-cement technique. If the mantle is disrupted, standard cement removal instruments are used to remove all cement from the canal meticulously.
Continue to: Management of the glenoid...
Management of the glenoid can have significant implications with regard to the humerus. Most notably, the size of the glenosphere has direct implications on the fixation of the humeral component. Use of larger diameter glenospheres result in increased contact area between the glenosphere and humerosocket, adding constraint to the articulation and further increasing the stresses at the implant-bone interface. As such, the use of larger glenospheres to prevent instability must be balanced with the resulting implications on humeral component fixation, especially in cases of severe bone loss.
After implanting the appropriate glenosphere, attention is then turned back to the humerus. Trial implants are sequentially used to obtain adequate humeral length and stability. Once this is accomplished, the amount of humeral bone loss is quantified by measuring the distance from the superior aspect of the medial humeral tray to the medial humeral shaft. If this number is >5 cm (Figure 3), the decision is made to proceed with an APC. The allograft humeral head is cut, cancellous bone is removed, and a step-cut is performed, with the medial portion of the allograft measuring the same length as that of bone loss and the lateral plate extending an additional several centimeters distally (Figure 4). Additional soft tissue is removed from the allograft, leaving the subscapularis stump intact for later repair with the patient’s native tissue. The allograft is secured to the patient’s proximal humerus using multiple cerclage wires, and the humeral stem is cemented into place. The final construct is shown in Figure 5.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: CASES OF ADVANCED BONE LOSS
In cases of advanced humeral bone loss, as is often seen when revising loose humeral stems, larger allografts that span a significant length of the diaphysis are often required. This type of bone loss has implications with regard to how the deltoid insertion is managed. Interestingly, even in situations when the vast majority of the remaining diaphysis consists of ectatic egg-shell bone, the deltoid tuberosity remains of fairly substantial quality due to the continued pull of the muscular insertion on this area. This fragment is isolated, carefully mobilized, and subsequently repaired back on top of the allograft using cables.
POSTOPERATIVE CARE
Patients are kept in a shoulder immobilizer for 6 weeks after surgery to facilitate allograft incorporation and subscapularis tendon healing. During this time, pendulum exercises are initiated. Active assisted range of motion (ROM) exercises begin after 6 weeks, consisting of supine forward elevation. A sling is given to be used in public. Light strengthening exercises begin at 3 months postoperatively.
DISCUSSION
In cases of mild to moderate proximal humeral bone loss, RSA using a long-stem humeral component without allograft augmentation is a viable option. Budge and colleagues38 demonstrated excellent results in a population of 15 patients with an average of 38 mm of proximal humeral bone loss without use of allografts. Interestingly, they noted 1 case of component fracture in a modular prosthesis and therefore concluded that monoblock humeral stems should be used in the absence of allograft augmentation.
Continue to: In more advanced cases of bone loss...
In more advanced cases of bone loss, our data shows that use of APCs can result in equally satisfactory results. In a series of 25 patients with an average bone loss of 54 mm, patients were able to achieve statistically significant improvements in pain, ROM, and function with high rates of allograft incorporation.9 Overall, a low rate of complications was noted, including 1 infection. This finding is consistent with an additional study looking specifically at factors associated with infection in revision SA, which found that the use of allografts was not associated with increased risk of infection.41
As stated previously, the size of allograft needed for the APC construct is related to the distinct pathology encountered. In our experience, we have noted that well-fixed stems can be treated with short metaphyseal APCs in 85% of cases. On the other hand, loose stems require long allografts measuring >10 cm in 90% of cases. As such, these cases typically require mobilization of the deltoid insertion as described above, and therefore it is important that the surgeon is prepared for this aspect of the procedure preoperatively.
Finally, the cement-within-cement technique, originally popularized for use in revision total hip arthroplasty, has demonstrated reliable results when utilized in revision SA.42 To date, there are no recommendations regarding the minimal length of existing cement mantle that is needed to perform this technique. In situations in which the length of the cement mantle is questionable, our preference is to combine the cement-within-cement technique with an APC when possible.
1. Day JS, Lau E, Ong KL, Williams GR, Ramsey ML, Kurtz SM. Prevalence and projections of total shoulder and elbow arthroplasty in the United States to 2015. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1115-1120. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.02.009.
2. Padegimas EM, Maltenfort M, Lazarus MD, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Namdari S. Future patient demand for shoulder arthroplasty by younger patients: national projections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):1860-1867. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4231-z.
3. Walker M, Willis MP, Brooks JP, Pupello D, Mulieri PJ, Frankle MA. The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(4):514-522. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.006.
4. Levy JC, Virani N, Pupello D, et al. Use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(2):189-195. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B2.
5. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
6. Deutsch A, Abboud JA, Kelly J, et al. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid component loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):706-716. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.01.007.
7. Kelly JD, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
8. Black EM, Roberts SM, Siegel E, Yannopoulos P, Higgins LD, Warner JJP. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as salvage for failed prior arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(7):1036-1042. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.019.
9. Composite P, Chacon BA, Virani N, et al. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;1:119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Klein SM, Dunning P, Mulieri P, Pupello D, Downes K, Frankle MA. Effects of acquired glenoid bone defects on surgical technique and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1144-1154. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00778.
11. Patel DN, Young B, Onyekwelu I, Zuckerman JD, Kwon YW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1478-1483. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.004.
12. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle MA. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.026.
13. Morgan SJ, Furry K, Parekh A, Agudelo JF, Smith WR. The deltoid muscle: an anatomic description of the deltoid insertion to the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(1):19-21. doi:10.1097/01.bot.0000187063.43267.18.
14. Gagey O, Hue E. Mechanics of the deltoid muscle. A new approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;375:250-257. doi:10.1097/00003086-200006000-00030.
15. De Wilde L, Plasschaert F. Prosthetic treatment and functional recovery of the shoulder after tumor resection 10 years ago: a case report. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(6):645-649. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.11.001.
16. Wataru S, Kazuomi S, Yoshikazu N, Hiroaki I, Takaharu Y, Hideki Y. Three-dimensional morphological analysis of humeral heads: a study in cadavers. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(3):392-396. doi:10.1080/00016470510030878.
17. Tillett E, Smith M, Fulcher M, Shanklin J. Anatomic determination of humeral head retroversion: the relationship of the central axis of the humeral head to the bicipital groove. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(5):255-256. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80085-2.
18. Doyle AJ, Burks RT. Comparison of humeral head retroversion with the humeral axis/biceps groove relationship: a study in live subjects and cadavers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(5):453-457. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90193-8.
19. Johnson JW, Thostenson JD, Suva LJ, Hasan SA. Relationship of bicipital groove rotation with humeral head retroversion: a three-dimensional computed tomographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(8):719-724. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00085.
20. Hromádka R, Kuběna AA, Pokorný D, Popelka S, Jahoda D, Sosna A. Lesser tuberosity is more reliable than bicipital groove when determining orientation of humeral head in primary shoulder arthroplasty. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010;32(1):31-37. doi:10.1007/s00276-009-0543-6.
21. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):331-338. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.124429.
22. Pearl ML. Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(suppl 1):99-104. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.025.
23. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82-A(11):1594-1602.
24. Mochizuki T, Sugaya H, Uomizu M, et al. Humeral insertion of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(5):962-969. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00427.
25. Arai R, Sugaya H, Mochizuki T, Nimura A, Moriishi J, Akita K. Subscapularis tendon tear: an anatomic and clinical investigation. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(9):997-1004. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2008.04.076.
26. Nimura A, Kato A, Yamaguchi K, et al. The superior capsule of the shoulder joint complements the insertion of the rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):867-872. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.034.
27. Rispoli DM, Athwal GS, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. The anatomy of the deltoid insertion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):386-390. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.012.
28. Schwartz DG, Kang SH, Lynch TS, et al. The anterior deltoid’s importance in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(3):357-364. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.02.002.
29. Walker M, Brooks J, Willis M, Frankle M. How reverse shoulder arthroplasty works. Clinical Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2440-2451. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1892-0.
30. Torrens C, Corrales M, Melendo E, Solano A, Rodríguez-Baeza A, Cáceres E. The pectoralis major tendon as a reference for restoring humeral length and retroversion with hemiarthroplasty for fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):947-950. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.041.
31. Ponce BA, Thompson KJ, Rosenzweig SD, et al. Re-evaluation of pectoralis major height as an anatomic reference for humeral height in fracture hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1567-1572. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.039.
32. LaFrance R, Madsen W, Yaseen Z, Giordano B, Maloney M, Voloshin I. Relevant anatomic landmarks and measurements for biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(6):1395-1399. doi:10.1177/0363546513482297.
33. Beck PA, Hoffer MM. Latissimus dorsi and teres major tendons: separate or conjoint tendons? J Pediatr Orthop. 1989;9(3):308-309.
34. Bhatt CR, Prajapati B, Patil DS, Patel VD, Singh BGP, Mehta CD. Variation in the insertion of the latissimus dorsi & its clinical importance. J Orthop. 2013;10(1):25-28. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2013.01.002.
35. Gerber C, Maquieira G, Espinosa N. Latissimus dorsi transfer for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88(1):113-120. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00282.
36. Elhassan B, Christensen TJ, Wagner ER. Feasibility of latissimus and teres major transfer to reconstruct irreparable subscapularis tendon tear: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(4):492-499. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.046.
37. Pouliart N, Gagey O. Significance of the latissimus dorsi for shoulder instability. II. Its influence on dislocation behavior in a sequential cutting protocol of the glenohumeral capsule. Clin Anat. 2005;18(7):500-509. doi:10.1002/ca.20181.
38. Budge MD, Moravek JE, Zimel MN, Nolan EM, Wiater JM. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of failed shoulder arthroplasty with proximal humeral bone loss: is allograft augmentation necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):739-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.008.
39. Weiser MC, Lavernia CJ. Trunnionosis in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(17):27-29. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00345.
40. Cohen J. Current concepts review. Corrosion of metal orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(10):1554.
41. Meijer ST, Paulino Pereira NR, Nota SPFT, Ferrone ML, Schwab JH, Lozano Calderón SA. Factors associated with infection after reconstructive shoulder surgery for proximal humerus tumors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(6):931-938. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.014.
42. Wagner ER, Houdek MT, Hernandez NM, Cofield RH, Sánchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW. Cement-within-cement technique in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(8):1448-1453. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.013.
1. Day JS, Lau E, Ong KL, Williams GR, Ramsey ML, Kurtz SM. Prevalence and projections of total shoulder and elbow arthroplasty in the United States to 2015. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1115-1120. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.02.009.
2. Padegimas EM, Maltenfort M, Lazarus MD, Ramsey ML, Williams GR, Namdari S. Future patient demand for shoulder arthroplasty by younger patients: national projections. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):1860-1867. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4231-z.
3. Walker M, Willis MP, Brooks JP, Pupello D, Mulieri PJ, Frankle MA. The use of the reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(4):514-522. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.006.
4. Levy JC, Virani N, Pupello D, et al. Use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(2):189-195. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B2.
5. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
6. Deutsch A, Abboud JA, Kelly J, et al. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid component loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):706-716. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.01.007.
7. Kelly JD, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
8. Black EM, Roberts SM, Siegel E, Yannopoulos P, Higgins LD, Warner JJP. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as salvage for failed prior arthroplasty in patients 65 years of age or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(7):1036-1042. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.019.
9. Composite P, Chacon BA, Virani N, et al. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;1:119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Klein SM, Dunning P, Mulieri P, Pupello D, Downes K, Frankle MA. Effects of acquired glenoid bone defects on surgical technique and clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1144-1154. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.00778.
11. Patel DN, Young B, Onyekwelu I, Zuckerman JD, Kwon YW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1478-1483. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.004.
12. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle MA. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.026.
13. Morgan SJ, Furry K, Parekh A, Agudelo JF, Smith WR. The deltoid muscle: an anatomic description of the deltoid insertion to the proximal humerus. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(1):19-21. doi:10.1097/01.bot.0000187063.43267.18.
14. Gagey O, Hue E. Mechanics of the deltoid muscle. A new approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;375:250-257. doi:10.1097/00003086-200006000-00030.
15. De Wilde L, Plasschaert F. Prosthetic treatment and functional recovery of the shoulder after tumor resection 10 years ago: a case report. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(6):645-649. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.11.001.
16. Wataru S, Kazuomi S, Yoshikazu N, Hiroaki I, Takaharu Y, Hideki Y. Three-dimensional morphological analysis of humeral heads: a study in cadavers. Acta Orthop. 2005;76(3):392-396. doi:10.1080/00016470510030878.
17. Tillett E, Smith M, Fulcher M, Shanklin J. Anatomic determination of humeral head retroversion: the relationship of the central axis of the humeral head to the bicipital groove. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1993;2(5):255-256. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(09)80085-2.
18. Doyle AJ, Burks RT. Comparison of humeral head retroversion with the humeral axis/biceps groove relationship: a study in live subjects and cadavers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(5):453-457. doi:10.1016/S1058-2746(98)90193-8.
19. Johnson JW, Thostenson JD, Suva LJ, Hasan SA. Relationship of bicipital groove rotation with humeral head retroversion: a three-dimensional computed tomographic analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(8):719-724. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00085.
20. Hromádka R, Kuběna AA, Pokorný D, Popelka S, Jahoda D, Sosna A. Lesser tuberosity is more reliable than bicipital groove when determining orientation of humeral head in primary shoulder arthroplasty. Surg Radiol Anat. 2010;32(1):31-37. doi:10.1007/s00276-009-0543-6.
21. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):331-338. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.124429.
22. Pearl ML. Proximal humeral anatomy in shoulder arthroplasty: Implications for prosthetic design and surgical technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(suppl 1):99-104. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.025.
23. Robertson DD, Yuan J, Bigliani LU, Flatow EL, Yamaguchi K. Three-dimensional analysis of the proximal part of the humerus: relevance to arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82-A(11):1594-1602.
24. Mochizuki T, Sugaya H, Uomizu M, et al. Humeral insertion of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(5):962-969. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00427.
25. Arai R, Sugaya H, Mochizuki T, Nimura A, Moriishi J, Akita K. Subscapularis tendon tear: an anatomic and clinical investigation. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(9):997-1004. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2008.04.076.
26. Nimura A, Kato A, Yamaguchi K, et al. The superior capsule of the shoulder joint complements the insertion of the rotator cuff. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):867-872. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.04.034.
27. Rispoli DM, Athwal GS, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. The anatomy of the deltoid insertion. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):386-390. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.012.
28. Schwartz DG, Kang SH, Lynch TS, et al. The anterior deltoid’s importance in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(3):357-364. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.02.002.
29. Walker M, Brooks J, Willis M, Frankle M. How reverse shoulder arthroplasty works. Clinical Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2440-2451. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1892-0.
30. Torrens C, Corrales M, Melendo E, Solano A, Rodríguez-Baeza A, Cáceres E. The pectoralis major tendon as a reference for restoring humeral length and retroversion with hemiarthroplasty for fracture. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):947-950. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.041.
31. Ponce BA, Thompson KJ, Rosenzweig SD, et al. Re-evaluation of pectoralis major height as an anatomic reference for humeral height in fracture hemiarthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1567-1572. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.039.
32. LaFrance R, Madsen W, Yaseen Z, Giordano B, Maloney M, Voloshin I. Relevant anatomic landmarks and measurements for biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(6):1395-1399. doi:10.1177/0363546513482297.
33. Beck PA, Hoffer MM. Latissimus dorsi and teres major tendons: separate or conjoint tendons? J Pediatr Orthop. 1989;9(3):308-309.
34. Bhatt CR, Prajapati B, Patil DS, Patel VD, Singh BGP, Mehta CD. Variation in the insertion of the latissimus dorsi & its clinical importance. J Orthop. 2013;10(1):25-28. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2013.01.002.
35. Gerber C, Maquieira G, Espinosa N. Latissimus dorsi transfer for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88(1):113-120. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00282.
36. Elhassan B, Christensen TJ, Wagner ER. Feasibility of latissimus and teres major transfer to reconstruct irreparable subscapularis tendon tear: an anatomic study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(4):492-499. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.046.
37. Pouliart N, Gagey O. Significance of the latissimus dorsi for shoulder instability. II. Its influence on dislocation behavior in a sequential cutting protocol of the glenohumeral capsule. Clin Anat. 2005;18(7):500-509. doi:10.1002/ca.20181.
38. Budge MD, Moravek JE, Zimel MN, Nolan EM, Wiater JM. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of failed shoulder arthroplasty with proximal humeral bone loss: is allograft augmentation necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):739-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.008.
39. Weiser MC, Lavernia CJ. Trunnionosis in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(17):27-29. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00345.
40. Cohen J. Current concepts review. Corrosion of metal orthopaedic implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(10):1554.
41. Meijer ST, Paulino Pereira NR, Nota SPFT, Ferrone ML, Schwab JH, Lozano Calderón SA. Factors associated with infection after reconstructive shoulder surgery for proximal humerus tumors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(6):931-938. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.10.014.
42. Wagner ER, Houdek MT, Hernandez NM, Cofield RH, Sánchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW. Cement-within-cement technique in revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(8):1448-1453. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2017.01.013.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Different preoperative diagnoses lead to distinct patterns of bone loss in revision shoulder arthroplasty.
- A variety of techniques should be utilized to address the specific pathologies encountered.
- Advanced proximal humeral bone loss results in limited substrate available for humeral component fixation.
- Monoblock humeral stems can be used without allografts in cases with mild humeral bone loss.
- The revision of loose humeral stems dictates the use of large diaphyseal allografts in the majority of cases.
Treating Humeral Bone Loss in Shoulder Arthroplasty: Modular Humeral Components or Allografts
ABSTRACT
Reconstructing proximal humeral bone loss in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty can be a daunting task. Proposed techniques include long-stemmed humeral components, allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs), and modular endoprosthetic reconstruction. While unsupported long-stemmed components are at high risk for component loosening, APC reconstruction techniques have been reported with success. However, graft resorption and eventual failure are significant concerns. Modular endoprosthetic systems allow bone deficiencies to be reconstructed with metal, which may allow for a more durable reconstruction.
Continue to: Shoulder arthroplasty is an established procedure...
Shoulder arthroplasty is an established procedure with good results for restoring motion and decreasing pain for a variety of indications, including arthritis, fracture, posttraumatic sequelae, and tumor resection.1-4 As the population ages, the incidence of these shoulder disorders increases, with the incidence of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) increasing at faster rates than that of hemiarthroplasty.5,6 These expanding indications will, in turn, result in more revisions that would present challenges for surgeons.1,7,8
The glenoid component is much more commonly revised than the humeral component; however, the humeral component may also require revision or removal to allow exposure of the glenoid component.9 Revision of the humeral stem might be required in cases of infection, periprosthetic fracture, dislocation, or aseptic loosening.10 The survival rate of humeral stems is generally >90% at 10 years and >80% at 20-year follow-up.7 Despite these good survival rates, a revision setting the humeral component requires exchange in about half of all cases.11
Humeral bone loss or deficiency is one of the challenges encountered in both primary and revision TSA. The amount of proximal bone loss can be determined by measuring the distance from the top of the prosthesis laterally to the intact lateral cortex.12 Methods for treating bone loss may involve monoblock revision stems to bypass the deficiency, allografts to rebuild the bone stock, or modular components or endoprostheses to restore the length and stability of the extremity.
Proximal humeral bone loss may make component positioning difficult and may create problems with fixation of the humeral stem. Proper sizing and placement of components are important for improving postoperative function, decreasing component wear and instability, and restoring humeral height and offset. Determining the appropriate center of rotation is important for the function and avoidance of impingement on the acromion, as well as for the restoration of the lever arm of the deltoid without overtensioning. The selection of components with the correct size and the accurate intraoperative placement are important to restore humeral height and offset.13,14 Components must be positioned <4 mm from the height of the greater tuberosity and <8 mm of offset to avoid compromising motion.15 De Wilde and Walch16 described about 3 patients who underwent revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failure of the humeral implant because of inadequate proximal humeral bone stock. They concluded that treatment of the bone loss was critical to achieve a successful outcome.
LONG-STEMMED HUMERAL COMPONENTS WITHOUT GRAFTING
There is some evidence indicating that humeral bone loss can be managed without allograft or augmentation. Owens and colleagues17 evaluated the use of intermediate- or long-stemmed humeral components for primary shoulder arthroplasty in 17 patients with severe proximal humeral bone loss and in 18 patients with large humeral canals. The stems were fully cemented, cemented distally only with proximal allografting, and uncemented. Indications for fully cemented stems were loss of proximal bone that could be filled with a proximal cement mantle to ensure a secure fit. Distal cement fixation was applied when there was significant proximal bone loss and was often supplemented with cancellous or structural allograft and/or cancellous autograft. Intraoperative complications included cortical perforation or cement extrusion in 16% of patients. Excellent or satisfactory results were obtained in 21 (60%) of the 35 shoulders, 14 (78%) of the 18 shoulders with large humeral canals, and 7 (41%) of the 17 shoulders with bone loss. All the 17 components implanted in patients with proximal humeral bone loss were stable with no gross loosening at an average 6-year follow-up.
Continue to: Budge and colleagues...
Budge and colleagues12 prospectively enrolled 15 patients with substantial proximal humeral bone loss (38.4 mm) who had conversion to RTSA without allografting after a failed TSA. All patients showed improvements in terms of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, subjective shoulder value, Constant score, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, as well as an improved active range of motion (ROM) and good radiographic outcomes at 2-year follow-up. Although the complication rate was high (7 of 15), most of the complications were minor, with only 2 requiring operative intervention. The only component fracture occurred in a patient with a modular prosthesis that was unsupported by bone proximally. Budge and colleagues12 suggested that concerns about prosthetic fracture can be alleviated using a nonmodular monoblock design. No prosthesis-related complications occurred in their series, leading them to recommend monoblock humeral stems in patients with severe proximal humeral bone loss.
Stephens and colleagues18 reported revision to RTSA in 32 patients with hemiarthroplasties, half of whom had proximal humeral bone loss (average 36.3 mm). Of these 16 patients, 10 were treated with monoblock stems and 6 with modular components, with cement fixation of all implants. At an average 4-year follow-up, patients with proximal bone loss had improved motion and outcomes, and decreased pain compared to their preoperative condition; however, they had lower functional and pain ratings, as well as less ROM compared to those of patients with intact proximal bone stock. Complications occurred in 5 (31%) of those with bone loss and in 1 (0.6%) of those without bone loss. Three of the 16 patients with bone loss had humeral stem loosening, with 2 of the 3 having subsidence. Only 1 patient required return to the operating room for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture sustained in a fall. Of the 16 patients with bone loss, 14 patients demonstrated scapular notching, which was severe in 5 of them. Because patients with altered humeral length and/or standard length stems had worse outcomes, the authors recommended longer stems to improve fixation and advocated the use of a long-stemmed monoblock prosthesis over an allograft-prosthesis composite (APC).18
However, Werner and colleagues19 reported high rates of loosening and distal migration with the use of long-stemmed humeral implants in 50 patients with revision RTSA. They noted periprosthetic lucency on radiographs in 48% of patients, with more than half of them requiring revision. In 6 patients with subsidence of the humeral shaft, revision was done using custom, modular implants, with the anatomic curve being further stabilized using distal screw and cable fixation to provide rotational stability.
Using a biomechanical model, Cuff and colleagues20 compared 3 RTSA humeral designs, 2 modular designs, and 1 monoblock design in 12 intact models and in 12 models simulating 5 cm of proximal humeral bone loss. They observed that proximal humeral bone loss led to increased humeral component micromotion and rotational instability. The bone loss group had 5 failures compared to 2 in the control group. All failures occurred in those with modular components, whereas those with monoblock implants had no failures.
ALLOGRAFT-PROSTHESIS COMPOSITE
Composite treatment with a humeral stem and a metaphyseal allograft was described by Kassab and colleagues21 in 2005 and Levy and colleagues22 in 2007 (Figures 1A-1C) in patients with tumor resections21 or failed hemiarthroplasties.22 Allograft was used when there was insufficient metaphyseal bone to support the implant, and a graft was fashioned and fixed with cerclage wire before the component was cemented in place. In the 29 patients reported by Levy and colleagues,22 subjective and objective measurements trended toward better results in those with an APC than in those with RTSA alone, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Several authors have identified a lack of proximal humeral bone support as 1 of the 4 possible causes of failure, and suggested that the allograft provides structural support, serves as an attachment for subscapularis repair, and maximizes deltoid function by increasing lateral offset and setting the moment arm of the deltoid.21-23
Continue to: In a prospective study of RTSA...
In a prospective study of RTSA using structural allografts for failed hemiarthroplasty in 25 patients with an average bone loss of 5 cm, 19 patients (76%) reported good or excellent results, 5 reported satisfactory results, and 1 patient reported an unsatisfactory result.1 Patients had significantly improved forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation and improved outcome scores (ASES and SST). Graft incorporation was good, with 88% and 79% incorporation in the metaphysis and diaphysis, respectively. This technique used a fresh-frozen proximal humeral allograft to fashion a custom proximal block with a lateral step-cut, which was fixed around the stem with cables. A long stem and cement were used. If there was no cement mantle remaining or if the medial portion of the graft was longer than 120 mm, the cement mantle was completely excised. The allograft stump of the subscapularis was used to repair the subscapularis tendon either end-to-end or pants-over-vest. The authors noted that the subscapularis repair provided increased stability; the only dislocation not caused by trauma did not have an identifiable tendon to repair. In this manner, APC reconstruction provided structural and rotational support to the humeral stem as well as bone stock for future revision.1,20
One significant concern with APC reconstruction is the potential for graft resorption, which can lead to humeral stem loosening, loss of contour of the tuberosity, or weakening to the point of fracture.24,25 This may be worsened by stress shielding of the allograft by distal stem cement fixation.26 Other concerns include the cost of the allograft, increased risk of de novo infection, donor-to-host infection, increased operative time and complexity, and failure of allograft incorporation.
The use of a proximal femoral allograft has been described when there is a lack of a proximal humeral allograft.1,27 Kelly and colleagues27 described good results in 2 patients in whom proximal femoral allograft was used along with bone morphogenetic protein, cemented long-stemmed revision implants, and locking plate augmentation.
ENDOPROSTHETIC RECONSTRUCTION
Various forms of prosthetic augmentation have been described to compensate for proximal humeral bone loss, with the majority of reports involving the use of endoprosthetic replacement for tumor procedures.28-31 Use of endoprostheses has also been described for revision procedures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with massive bone loss, demonstrating modest improvements compared to severe preoperative functional limitations.32
Tumor patients, as well as revision arthroplasty patients, may present difficulties with prosthetic fixation due to massive bone loss. Chao and colleagues29 reported about the long-term outcomes after the use of implants with a porous ongrowth surface and extracortical bridging bone graft in multiple anatomic locations, including the proximal humerus, the proximal and distal femur, and the femoral diaphysis. In 3 patients with proximal humeral reconstruction, the measured ongrowth was only 30%. Given the small number of patients with a proximal humerus, no statistical significance was observed in the prosthesis location and the amount of bony ongrowth, but it was far less than that in the lower extremity.
Continue to: Endoprosthetic reconstruction...
Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus is commonly used for tumor resection that resulted in bone loss. Cannon and colleagues28 reported a 97.6% survival rate at a mean follow-up of 30 months in 83 patients with modular and custom reconstruction with a unipolar head. The ROM was limited, but the prosthesis provided adequate stability to allow elbow and hand function. Proximal migration of the prosthetic head was noticed with increasing frequency as the length of follow-up increased.
Use of an endoprosthesis with compressive osteointegration (Zimmer Biomet) has been described in lower extremities and more recently with follow-up on several cases, including 2 proximal humeral replacements for oncology patients to treat severe bone loss. One case was for a primary sarcoma resection, and the other was for the revision of aseptic loosening of a previous endoprosthesis. Follow-up periods for these 2 patients were 54 and 141 months, respectively. Both these patients had complications, but both retained the endoprosthesis. The authors concluded that this is a salvage operation with high risk.30 In another study, Guven and colleagues31 reported about reverse endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumor resection with bone loss. The ROM was improved, with a mean active forward elevation of 96° (range, 30°-160°), an abduction of 88° (range, 30-160°), and an external rotation of 13° (range, 0°-20°).
Modular endoprostheses have been evaluated as a method for improving bone fixation and restoring soft-tissue tension, while avoiding the complications associated with traditional endoprostheses or allografts (Figures 2A-2D). These systems allow precise adjustments of length using different trial lengths intraoperatively to obtain proper stability and deltoid tension. Of the 12 patients in a 2 center study, 11 had cementless components inserted using a press-fit technique (unpublished data, J. Feldman). At a minimum 2-year follow-up, the patients had an average improvement in forward elevation from 78° to 97°. Excluding 2 patients with loss of the deltoid tuberosity, the forward elevation averaged 109°. There were significant improvements in internal rotation (from 18° to 38°), as well as in the scores of Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), forward elevation strength, ASES, and VAS pain. However, the overall complication rate was 41%. Therefore, despite these promising early results, longer-term studies are needed.
CONCLUSION
Proximal humeral bone loss remains a significant challenge for the shoulder arthroplasty surgeon. In the setting of a primary or a revision arthroplasty, the bone stock must be thoroughly evaluated during preoperative planning, and a surgical plan for addressing the deficits should be developed. Because proximal humeral bone loss may contribute to prosthetic failure, every effort should be made to reconstitute the bone stock.16 If the bone loss is less extensive, impaction grafting may be considered. Options to address massive proximal humeral bone loss include APCs and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The use of an allograft allows subscapularis repair, which may help stabilize the shoulder and restore the natural lever arm, as well as the tension of the deltoid.1,21-23 In addition, it helps avoid rotational instability and micromotion and provides bone stock for future revisions. However, concern persists regarding allograft resorption over time. More recently, modular endoprosthetic reconstruction systems have been developed to address bone deficiency with metal augmentation. Early clinical results demonstrate a high complication rate in this complex cohort of patients, not unlike those in the series of APCs, but clinical outcomes were improved compared to those in historical series. Nevertheless, longer-term clinical studies are necessary to determine the role of these modular endoprosthetic implant systems.
1. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
2. Hattrup SJ, Waldrop R, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for posttraumatic sequelae. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(2):e41-e47. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000416.
3. Sewell MD, Kang SN, Al-Hadithy N, et al. Management of peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus with severe bone loss and loosening of the humeral component after total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(10):1382-1389. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.29248.
4. Trompeter AJ, Gupta RR. The management of complex periprosthetic humeral fractures: a case series of strut allograft augmentation, and a review of the literature. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2013;8(1):43-51. doi:10.1007/s11751-013-0155-x.
5. Khatib O, Onyekwelu I, Yu S, Zuckerman JD. Shoulder arthroplasty in New York State, 1991 to 2010: changing patterns of utilization. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(10):e286-e291. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.038.
6. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2249-2254. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.
7. Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survivorship of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(1):143-150. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.011.
8. Wright TW. Revision of humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;71(2 suppl):S77-S81.
9. Duquin TR, Sperling JW. Revision shoulder arthroplasty—how to manage the humerus. Oper Tech Orthop. 2011;21(1):44-51. doi:10.1053/j.oto.2010.09.008.
10. Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Schleck C, Cofield RH. Revision of the humeral component for aseptic loosening in arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(1):75-81. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.21094.
11. Cofield RH. Revision of hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty. In: Zuckerman JD, ed. Advanced Reconstruction: Shoulder. 1st edition. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2007;613-622.
12. Budge MD, Moravek JE, Zimel MN, Nolan EM, Wiater JM. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of failed shoulder arthroplasty with proximal humeral bone loss: is allograft augmentation necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):739-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.008.
13. Boileau P, Walch G. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(5):857-865.
14. Throckmorton TW. Reconstructive procedures of the shoulder and elbow. In: Azar FM, Beaty JH, Canale ST, eds. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. 13th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2017;570-622.
15. Williams GR Jr, Wong KL, Pepe MD, et al. The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):399-409. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.116871.
16. De Wilde L, Walch G. Humeral prosthetic failure of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty: a report of three cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):260-264. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.014.
17. Owens CJ, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Utility and complications of long-stem humeral components in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):e7-e12. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.10.034.
18. Stephens SP, Paisley KC, Giveans MR, Wirth MA. The effect of proximal humeral bone loss on revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(10):1519-1526. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.020.
19. Werner BS, Abdelkawi AF, Boehm D, et al. Long-term analysis of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty using cemented long stems. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(2):273-278. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.015.
20. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle MA. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.026.
21. Kassab M, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Ouaknine M, Tomeno B, Anract P. Twenty nine shoulder reconstructions after resection of the proximal humerus for neoplasm with mean 7-year follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2005;91(1):15-23.
22. 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. 2007;98(2):292-300. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01310.
23. Gagey O, Pourjamasb B, Court C. Revision arthroplasty of the shoulder for painful glenoid loosening: a series of 14 cases with acromial prostheses reviewed at four year follow up. Rev Chir Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87(3):221-228.
24. Abdeen A, Hoang BH, Althanasina EA, Morris CD, Boland PJ, Healey JH. Allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus: functional outcome and survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(10):2406-2415. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00815.
25. Getty PJ, Peabody TD. Complications and functional outcomes of reconstruction with an osteoarticular allograft after intra-articular resection of the proximal aspect of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(8):1138-1146.
26. Chen CF, Chen WM, Cheng YC, Chiang CC, Huang CK, Chen TH. Extracorporeally irradiated autograft-prosthetic composite arthroplasty using AML® extensively porous-coated stem for proximal femur reconstruction: a clinical analysis of 14 patients. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100(5):418-422. doi:10.1002/jso.21351.
27. Kelly JD 2nd, Purchase RJ, Kam G, Norris TR. Alloprosthetic composite reconstruction using the reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;10(1):5-10.
28. Cannon CP, Paraliticci GU, Lin PP, Lewis VO, Yasko AW. Functional outcome following endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(5):705-710. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.011.
29. Chao EY, Fuchs B, Rowland CM, Ilstrup DM, Pritchard DJ, Sim FH. Long-term results of segmental prosthesis fixation by extracortical bone-bridging and ingrowth. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(5):948-955.
30. Goulding KA, Schwartz A, Hattrup SJ, et al. Use of compressive osseointegration endoprostheses for massive bone loss from tumor and failed arthroplasty: a viable option in the upper extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(6):1702-1711. doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5258-0.
31. Guven MF, Aslan L, Botanlioglu H, Kaynak G, Kesmezacar H, Babacan M. Functional outcome of reverse shoulder tumor prosthesis in the treatment of proximal humeral tumors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(1):e1-e6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.012.
32. Wang ML, Ballard BL, Kulidjian AA, Abrams RA. Upper extremity reconstruction with a humeral tumor endoprosthesis: a novel salvage procedure after multiple revisions of total shoulder and elbow replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):e1-e8. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.018.
ABSTRACT
Reconstructing proximal humeral bone loss in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty can be a daunting task. Proposed techniques include long-stemmed humeral components, allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs), and modular endoprosthetic reconstruction. While unsupported long-stemmed components are at high risk for component loosening, APC reconstruction techniques have been reported with success. However, graft resorption and eventual failure are significant concerns. Modular endoprosthetic systems allow bone deficiencies to be reconstructed with metal, which may allow for a more durable reconstruction.
Continue to: Shoulder arthroplasty is an established procedure...
Shoulder arthroplasty is an established procedure with good results for restoring motion and decreasing pain for a variety of indications, including arthritis, fracture, posttraumatic sequelae, and tumor resection.1-4 As the population ages, the incidence of these shoulder disorders increases, with the incidence of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) increasing at faster rates than that of hemiarthroplasty.5,6 These expanding indications will, in turn, result in more revisions that would present challenges for surgeons.1,7,8
The glenoid component is much more commonly revised than the humeral component; however, the humeral component may also require revision or removal to allow exposure of the glenoid component.9 Revision of the humeral stem might be required in cases of infection, periprosthetic fracture, dislocation, or aseptic loosening.10 The survival rate of humeral stems is generally >90% at 10 years and >80% at 20-year follow-up.7 Despite these good survival rates, a revision setting the humeral component requires exchange in about half of all cases.11
Humeral bone loss or deficiency is one of the challenges encountered in both primary and revision TSA. The amount of proximal bone loss can be determined by measuring the distance from the top of the prosthesis laterally to the intact lateral cortex.12 Methods for treating bone loss may involve monoblock revision stems to bypass the deficiency, allografts to rebuild the bone stock, or modular components or endoprostheses to restore the length and stability of the extremity.
Proximal humeral bone loss may make component positioning difficult and may create problems with fixation of the humeral stem. Proper sizing and placement of components are important for improving postoperative function, decreasing component wear and instability, and restoring humeral height and offset. Determining the appropriate center of rotation is important for the function and avoidance of impingement on the acromion, as well as for the restoration of the lever arm of the deltoid without overtensioning. The selection of components with the correct size and the accurate intraoperative placement are important to restore humeral height and offset.13,14 Components must be positioned <4 mm from the height of the greater tuberosity and <8 mm of offset to avoid compromising motion.15 De Wilde and Walch16 described about 3 patients who underwent revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failure of the humeral implant because of inadequate proximal humeral bone stock. They concluded that treatment of the bone loss was critical to achieve a successful outcome.
LONG-STEMMED HUMERAL COMPONENTS WITHOUT GRAFTING
There is some evidence indicating that humeral bone loss can be managed without allograft or augmentation. Owens and colleagues17 evaluated the use of intermediate- or long-stemmed humeral components for primary shoulder arthroplasty in 17 patients with severe proximal humeral bone loss and in 18 patients with large humeral canals. The stems were fully cemented, cemented distally only with proximal allografting, and uncemented. Indications for fully cemented stems were loss of proximal bone that could be filled with a proximal cement mantle to ensure a secure fit. Distal cement fixation was applied when there was significant proximal bone loss and was often supplemented with cancellous or structural allograft and/or cancellous autograft. Intraoperative complications included cortical perforation or cement extrusion in 16% of patients. Excellent or satisfactory results were obtained in 21 (60%) of the 35 shoulders, 14 (78%) of the 18 shoulders with large humeral canals, and 7 (41%) of the 17 shoulders with bone loss. All the 17 components implanted in patients with proximal humeral bone loss were stable with no gross loosening at an average 6-year follow-up.
Continue to: Budge and colleagues...
Budge and colleagues12 prospectively enrolled 15 patients with substantial proximal humeral bone loss (38.4 mm) who had conversion to RTSA without allografting after a failed TSA. All patients showed improvements in terms of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, subjective shoulder value, Constant score, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, as well as an improved active range of motion (ROM) and good radiographic outcomes at 2-year follow-up. Although the complication rate was high (7 of 15), most of the complications were minor, with only 2 requiring operative intervention. The only component fracture occurred in a patient with a modular prosthesis that was unsupported by bone proximally. Budge and colleagues12 suggested that concerns about prosthetic fracture can be alleviated using a nonmodular monoblock design. No prosthesis-related complications occurred in their series, leading them to recommend monoblock humeral stems in patients with severe proximal humeral bone loss.
Stephens and colleagues18 reported revision to RTSA in 32 patients with hemiarthroplasties, half of whom had proximal humeral bone loss (average 36.3 mm). Of these 16 patients, 10 were treated with monoblock stems and 6 with modular components, with cement fixation of all implants. At an average 4-year follow-up, patients with proximal bone loss had improved motion and outcomes, and decreased pain compared to their preoperative condition; however, they had lower functional and pain ratings, as well as less ROM compared to those of patients with intact proximal bone stock. Complications occurred in 5 (31%) of those with bone loss and in 1 (0.6%) of those without bone loss. Three of the 16 patients with bone loss had humeral stem loosening, with 2 of the 3 having subsidence. Only 1 patient required return to the operating room for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture sustained in a fall. Of the 16 patients with bone loss, 14 patients demonstrated scapular notching, which was severe in 5 of them. Because patients with altered humeral length and/or standard length stems had worse outcomes, the authors recommended longer stems to improve fixation and advocated the use of a long-stemmed monoblock prosthesis over an allograft-prosthesis composite (APC).18
However, Werner and colleagues19 reported high rates of loosening and distal migration with the use of long-stemmed humeral implants in 50 patients with revision RTSA. They noted periprosthetic lucency on radiographs in 48% of patients, with more than half of them requiring revision. In 6 patients with subsidence of the humeral shaft, revision was done using custom, modular implants, with the anatomic curve being further stabilized using distal screw and cable fixation to provide rotational stability.
Using a biomechanical model, Cuff and colleagues20 compared 3 RTSA humeral designs, 2 modular designs, and 1 monoblock design in 12 intact models and in 12 models simulating 5 cm of proximal humeral bone loss. They observed that proximal humeral bone loss led to increased humeral component micromotion and rotational instability. The bone loss group had 5 failures compared to 2 in the control group. All failures occurred in those with modular components, whereas those with monoblock implants had no failures.
ALLOGRAFT-PROSTHESIS COMPOSITE
Composite treatment with a humeral stem and a metaphyseal allograft was described by Kassab and colleagues21 in 2005 and Levy and colleagues22 in 2007 (Figures 1A-1C) in patients with tumor resections21 or failed hemiarthroplasties.22 Allograft was used when there was insufficient metaphyseal bone to support the implant, and a graft was fashioned and fixed with cerclage wire before the component was cemented in place. In the 29 patients reported by Levy and colleagues,22 subjective and objective measurements trended toward better results in those with an APC than in those with RTSA alone, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Several authors have identified a lack of proximal humeral bone support as 1 of the 4 possible causes of failure, and suggested that the allograft provides structural support, serves as an attachment for subscapularis repair, and maximizes deltoid function by increasing lateral offset and setting the moment arm of the deltoid.21-23
Continue to: In a prospective study of RTSA...
In a prospective study of RTSA using structural allografts for failed hemiarthroplasty in 25 patients with an average bone loss of 5 cm, 19 patients (76%) reported good or excellent results, 5 reported satisfactory results, and 1 patient reported an unsatisfactory result.1 Patients had significantly improved forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation and improved outcome scores (ASES and SST). Graft incorporation was good, with 88% and 79% incorporation in the metaphysis and diaphysis, respectively. This technique used a fresh-frozen proximal humeral allograft to fashion a custom proximal block with a lateral step-cut, which was fixed around the stem with cables. A long stem and cement were used. If there was no cement mantle remaining or if the medial portion of the graft was longer than 120 mm, the cement mantle was completely excised. The allograft stump of the subscapularis was used to repair the subscapularis tendon either end-to-end or pants-over-vest. The authors noted that the subscapularis repair provided increased stability; the only dislocation not caused by trauma did not have an identifiable tendon to repair. In this manner, APC reconstruction provided structural and rotational support to the humeral stem as well as bone stock for future revision.1,20
One significant concern with APC reconstruction is the potential for graft resorption, which can lead to humeral stem loosening, loss of contour of the tuberosity, or weakening to the point of fracture.24,25 This may be worsened by stress shielding of the allograft by distal stem cement fixation.26 Other concerns include the cost of the allograft, increased risk of de novo infection, donor-to-host infection, increased operative time and complexity, and failure of allograft incorporation.
The use of a proximal femoral allograft has been described when there is a lack of a proximal humeral allograft.1,27 Kelly and colleagues27 described good results in 2 patients in whom proximal femoral allograft was used along with bone morphogenetic protein, cemented long-stemmed revision implants, and locking plate augmentation.
ENDOPROSTHETIC RECONSTRUCTION
Various forms of prosthetic augmentation have been described to compensate for proximal humeral bone loss, with the majority of reports involving the use of endoprosthetic replacement for tumor procedures.28-31 Use of endoprostheses has also been described for revision procedures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with massive bone loss, demonstrating modest improvements compared to severe preoperative functional limitations.32
Tumor patients, as well as revision arthroplasty patients, may present difficulties with prosthetic fixation due to massive bone loss. Chao and colleagues29 reported about the long-term outcomes after the use of implants with a porous ongrowth surface and extracortical bridging bone graft in multiple anatomic locations, including the proximal humerus, the proximal and distal femur, and the femoral diaphysis. In 3 patients with proximal humeral reconstruction, the measured ongrowth was only 30%. Given the small number of patients with a proximal humerus, no statistical significance was observed in the prosthesis location and the amount of bony ongrowth, but it was far less than that in the lower extremity.
Continue to: Endoprosthetic reconstruction...
Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus is commonly used for tumor resection that resulted in bone loss. Cannon and colleagues28 reported a 97.6% survival rate at a mean follow-up of 30 months in 83 patients with modular and custom reconstruction with a unipolar head. The ROM was limited, but the prosthesis provided adequate stability to allow elbow and hand function. Proximal migration of the prosthetic head was noticed with increasing frequency as the length of follow-up increased.
Use of an endoprosthesis with compressive osteointegration (Zimmer Biomet) has been described in lower extremities and more recently with follow-up on several cases, including 2 proximal humeral replacements for oncology patients to treat severe bone loss. One case was for a primary sarcoma resection, and the other was for the revision of aseptic loosening of a previous endoprosthesis. Follow-up periods for these 2 patients were 54 and 141 months, respectively. Both these patients had complications, but both retained the endoprosthesis. The authors concluded that this is a salvage operation with high risk.30 In another study, Guven and colleagues31 reported about reverse endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumor resection with bone loss. The ROM was improved, with a mean active forward elevation of 96° (range, 30°-160°), an abduction of 88° (range, 30-160°), and an external rotation of 13° (range, 0°-20°).
Modular endoprostheses have been evaluated as a method for improving bone fixation and restoring soft-tissue tension, while avoiding the complications associated with traditional endoprostheses or allografts (Figures 2A-2D). These systems allow precise adjustments of length using different trial lengths intraoperatively to obtain proper stability and deltoid tension. Of the 12 patients in a 2 center study, 11 had cementless components inserted using a press-fit technique (unpublished data, J. Feldman). At a minimum 2-year follow-up, the patients had an average improvement in forward elevation from 78° to 97°. Excluding 2 patients with loss of the deltoid tuberosity, the forward elevation averaged 109°. There were significant improvements in internal rotation (from 18° to 38°), as well as in the scores of Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), forward elevation strength, ASES, and VAS pain. However, the overall complication rate was 41%. Therefore, despite these promising early results, longer-term studies are needed.
CONCLUSION
Proximal humeral bone loss remains a significant challenge for the shoulder arthroplasty surgeon. In the setting of a primary or a revision arthroplasty, the bone stock must be thoroughly evaluated during preoperative planning, and a surgical plan for addressing the deficits should be developed. Because proximal humeral bone loss may contribute to prosthetic failure, every effort should be made to reconstitute the bone stock.16 If the bone loss is less extensive, impaction grafting may be considered. Options to address massive proximal humeral bone loss include APCs and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The use of an allograft allows subscapularis repair, which may help stabilize the shoulder and restore the natural lever arm, as well as the tension of the deltoid.1,21-23 In addition, it helps avoid rotational instability and micromotion and provides bone stock for future revisions. However, concern persists regarding allograft resorption over time. More recently, modular endoprosthetic reconstruction systems have been developed to address bone deficiency with metal augmentation. Early clinical results demonstrate a high complication rate in this complex cohort of patients, not unlike those in the series of APCs, but clinical outcomes were improved compared to those in historical series. Nevertheless, longer-term clinical studies are necessary to determine the role of these modular endoprosthetic implant systems.
ABSTRACT
Reconstructing proximal humeral bone loss in the setting of shoulder arthroplasty can be a daunting task. Proposed techniques include long-stemmed humeral components, allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs), and modular endoprosthetic reconstruction. While unsupported long-stemmed components are at high risk for component loosening, APC reconstruction techniques have been reported with success. However, graft resorption and eventual failure are significant concerns. Modular endoprosthetic systems allow bone deficiencies to be reconstructed with metal, which may allow for a more durable reconstruction.
Continue to: Shoulder arthroplasty is an established procedure...
Shoulder arthroplasty is an established procedure with good results for restoring motion and decreasing pain for a variety of indications, including arthritis, fracture, posttraumatic sequelae, and tumor resection.1-4 As the population ages, the incidence of these shoulder disorders increases, with the incidence of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) increasing at faster rates than that of hemiarthroplasty.5,6 These expanding indications will, in turn, result in more revisions that would present challenges for surgeons.1,7,8
The glenoid component is much more commonly revised than the humeral component; however, the humeral component may also require revision or removal to allow exposure of the glenoid component.9 Revision of the humeral stem might be required in cases of infection, periprosthetic fracture, dislocation, or aseptic loosening.10 The survival rate of humeral stems is generally >90% at 10 years and >80% at 20-year follow-up.7 Despite these good survival rates, a revision setting the humeral component requires exchange in about half of all cases.11
Humeral bone loss or deficiency is one of the challenges encountered in both primary and revision TSA. The amount of proximal bone loss can be determined by measuring the distance from the top of the prosthesis laterally to the intact lateral cortex.12 Methods for treating bone loss may involve monoblock revision stems to bypass the deficiency, allografts to rebuild the bone stock, or modular components or endoprostheses to restore the length and stability of the extremity.
Proximal humeral bone loss may make component positioning difficult and may create problems with fixation of the humeral stem. Proper sizing and placement of components are important for improving postoperative function, decreasing component wear and instability, and restoring humeral height and offset. Determining the appropriate center of rotation is important for the function and avoidance of impingement on the acromion, as well as for the restoration of the lever arm of the deltoid without overtensioning. The selection of components with the correct size and the accurate intraoperative placement are important to restore humeral height and offset.13,14 Components must be positioned <4 mm from the height of the greater tuberosity and <8 mm of offset to avoid compromising motion.15 De Wilde and Walch16 described about 3 patients who underwent revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failure of the humeral implant because of inadequate proximal humeral bone stock. They concluded that treatment of the bone loss was critical to achieve a successful outcome.
LONG-STEMMED HUMERAL COMPONENTS WITHOUT GRAFTING
There is some evidence indicating that humeral bone loss can be managed without allograft or augmentation. Owens and colleagues17 evaluated the use of intermediate- or long-stemmed humeral components for primary shoulder arthroplasty in 17 patients with severe proximal humeral bone loss and in 18 patients with large humeral canals. The stems were fully cemented, cemented distally only with proximal allografting, and uncemented. Indications for fully cemented stems were loss of proximal bone that could be filled with a proximal cement mantle to ensure a secure fit. Distal cement fixation was applied when there was significant proximal bone loss and was often supplemented with cancellous or structural allograft and/or cancellous autograft. Intraoperative complications included cortical perforation or cement extrusion in 16% of patients. Excellent or satisfactory results were obtained in 21 (60%) of the 35 shoulders, 14 (78%) of the 18 shoulders with large humeral canals, and 7 (41%) of the 17 shoulders with bone loss. All the 17 components implanted in patients with proximal humeral bone loss were stable with no gross loosening at an average 6-year follow-up.
Continue to: Budge and colleagues...
Budge and colleagues12 prospectively enrolled 15 patients with substantial proximal humeral bone loss (38.4 mm) who had conversion to RTSA without allografting after a failed TSA. All patients showed improvements in terms of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, subjective shoulder value, Constant score, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, as well as an improved active range of motion (ROM) and good radiographic outcomes at 2-year follow-up. Although the complication rate was high (7 of 15), most of the complications were minor, with only 2 requiring operative intervention. The only component fracture occurred in a patient with a modular prosthesis that was unsupported by bone proximally. Budge and colleagues12 suggested that concerns about prosthetic fracture can be alleviated using a nonmodular monoblock design. No prosthesis-related complications occurred in their series, leading them to recommend monoblock humeral stems in patients with severe proximal humeral bone loss.
Stephens and colleagues18 reported revision to RTSA in 32 patients with hemiarthroplasties, half of whom had proximal humeral bone loss (average 36.3 mm). Of these 16 patients, 10 were treated with monoblock stems and 6 with modular components, with cement fixation of all implants. At an average 4-year follow-up, patients with proximal bone loss had improved motion and outcomes, and decreased pain compared to their preoperative condition; however, they had lower functional and pain ratings, as well as less ROM compared to those of patients with intact proximal bone stock. Complications occurred in 5 (31%) of those with bone loss and in 1 (0.6%) of those without bone loss. Three of the 16 patients with bone loss had humeral stem loosening, with 2 of the 3 having subsidence. Only 1 patient required return to the operating room for the treatment of a periprosthetic fracture sustained in a fall. Of the 16 patients with bone loss, 14 patients demonstrated scapular notching, which was severe in 5 of them. Because patients with altered humeral length and/or standard length stems had worse outcomes, the authors recommended longer stems to improve fixation and advocated the use of a long-stemmed monoblock prosthesis over an allograft-prosthesis composite (APC).18
However, Werner and colleagues19 reported high rates of loosening and distal migration with the use of long-stemmed humeral implants in 50 patients with revision RTSA. They noted periprosthetic lucency on radiographs in 48% of patients, with more than half of them requiring revision. In 6 patients with subsidence of the humeral shaft, revision was done using custom, modular implants, with the anatomic curve being further stabilized using distal screw and cable fixation to provide rotational stability.
Using a biomechanical model, Cuff and colleagues20 compared 3 RTSA humeral designs, 2 modular designs, and 1 monoblock design in 12 intact models and in 12 models simulating 5 cm of proximal humeral bone loss. They observed that proximal humeral bone loss led to increased humeral component micromotion and rotational instability. The bone loss group had 5 failures compared to 2 in the control group. All failures occurred in those with modular components, whereas those with monoblock implants had no failures.
ALLOGRAFT-PROSTHESIS COMPOSITE
Composite treatment with a humeral stem and a metaphyseal allograft was described by Kassab and colleagues21 in 2005 and Levy and colleagues22 in 2007 (Figures 1A-1C) in patients with tumor resections21 or failed hemiarthroplasties.22 Allograft was used when there was insufficient metaphyseal bone to support the implant, and a graft was fashioned and fixed with cerclage wire before the component was cemented in place. In the 29 patients reported by Levy and colleagues,22 subjective and objective measurements trended toward better results in those with an APC than in those with RTSA alone, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. Several authors have identified a lack of proximal humeral bone support as 1 of the 4 possible causes of failure, and suggested that the allograft provides structural support, serves as an attachment for subscapularis repair, and maximizes deltoid function by increasing lateral offset and setting the moment arm of the deltoid.21-23
Continue to: In a prospective study of RTSA...
In a prospective study of RTSA using structural allografts for failed hemiarthroplasty in 25 patients with an average bone loss of 5 cm, 19 patients (76%) reported good or excellent results, 5 reported satisfactory results, and 1 patient reported an unsatisfactory result.1 Patients had significantly improved forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation and improved outcome scores (ASES and SST). Graft incorporation was good, with 88% and 79% incorporation in the metaphysis and diaphysis, respectively. This technique used a fresh-frozen proximal humeral allograft to fashion a custom proximal block with a lateral step-cut, which was fixed around the stem with cables. A long stem and cement were used. If there was no cement mantle remaining or if the medial portion of the graft was longer than 120 mm, the cement mantle was completely excised. The allograft stump of the subscapularis was used to repair the subscapularis tendon either end-to-end or pants-over-vest. The authors noted that the subscapularis repair provided increased stability; the only dislocation not caused by trauma did not have an identifiable tendon to repair. In this manner, APC reconstruction provided structural and rotational support to the humeral stem as well as bone stock for future revision.1,20
One significant concern with APC reconstruction is the potential for graft resorption, which can lead to humeral stem loosening, loss of contour of the tuberosity, or weakening to the point of fracture.24,25 This may be worsened by stress shielding of the allograft by distal stem cement fixation.26 Other concerns include the cost of the allograft, increased risk of de novo infection, donor-to-host infection, increased operative time and complexity, and failure of allograft incorporation.
The use of a proximal femoral allograft has been described when there is a lack of a proximal humeral allograft.1,27 Kelly and colleagues27 described good results in 2 patients in whom proximal femoral allograft was used along with bone morphogenetic protein, cemented long-stemmed revision implants, and locking plate augmentation.
ENDOPROSTHETIC RECONSTRUCTION
Various forms of prosthetic augmentation have been described to compensate for proximal humeral bone loss, with the majority of reports involving the use of endoprosthetic replacement for tumor procedures.28-31 Use of endoprostheses has also been described for revision procedures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with massive bone loss, demonstrating modest improvements compared to severe preoperative functional limitations.32
Tumor patients, as well as revision arthroplasty patients, may present difficulties with prosthetic fixation due to massive bone loss. Chao and colleagues29 reported about the long-term outcomes after the use of implants with a porous ongrowth surface and extracortical bridging bone graft in multiple anatomic locations, including the proximal humerus, the proximal and distal femur, and the femoral diaphysis. In 3 patients with proximal humeral reconstruction, the measured ongrowth was only 30%. Given the small number of patients with a proximal humerus, no statistical significance was observed in the prosthesis location and the amount of bony ongrowth, but it was far less than that in the lower extremity.
Continue to: Endoprosthetic reconstruction...
Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus is commonly used for tumor resection that resulted in bone loss. Cannon and colleagues28 reported a 97.6% survival rate at a mean follow-up of 30 months in 83 patients with modular and custom reconstruction with a unipolar head. The ROM was limited, but the prosthesis provided adequate stability to allow elbow and hand function. Proximal migration of the prosthetic head was noticed with increasing frequency as the length of follow-up increased.
Use of an endoprosthesis with compressive osteointegration (Zimmer Biomet) has been described in lower extremities and more recently with follow-up on several cases, including 2 proximal humeral replacements for oncology patients to treat severe bone loss. One case was for a primary sarcoma resection, and the other was for the revision of aseptic loosening of a previous endoprosthesis. Follow-up periods for these 2 patients were 54 and 141 months, respectively. Both these patients had complications, but both retained the endoprosthesis. The authors concluded that this is a salvage operation with high risk.30 In another study, Guven and colleagues31 reported about reverse endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumor resection with bone loss. The ROM was improved, with a mean active forward elevation of 96° (range, 30°-160°), an abduction of 88° (range, 30-160°), and an external rotation of 13° (range, 0°-20°).
Modular endoprostheses have been evaluated as a method for improving bone fixation and restoring soft-tissue tension, while avoiding the complications associated with traditional endoprostheses or allografts (Figures 2A-2D). These systems allow precise adjustments of length using different trial lengths intraoperatively to obtain proper stability and deltoid tension. Of the 12 patients in a 2 center study, 11 had cementless components inserted using a press-fit technique (unpublished data, J. Feldman). At a minimum 2-year follow-up, the patients had an average improvement in forward elevation from 78° to 97°. Excluding 2 patients with loss of the deltoid tuberosity, the forward elevation averaged 109°. There were significant improvements in internal rotation (from 18° to 38°), as well as in the scores of Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), forward elevation strength, ASES, and VAS pain. However, the overall complication rate was 41%. Therefore, despite these promising early results, longer-term studies are needed.
CONCLUSION
Proximal humeral bone loss remains a significant challenge for the shoulder arthroplasty surgeon. In the setting of a primary or a revision arthroplasty, the bone stock must be thoroughly evaluated during preoperative planning, and a surgical plan for addressing the deficits should be developed. Because proximal humeral bone loss may contribute to prosthetic failure, every effort should be made to reconstitute the bone stock.16 If the bone loss is less extensive, impaction grafting may be considered. Options to address massive proximal humeral bone loss include APCs and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The use of an allograft allows subscapularis repair, which may help stabilize the shoulder and restore the natural lever arm, as well as the tension of the deltoid.1,21-23 In addition, it helps avoid rotational instability and micromotion and provides bone stock for future revisions. However, concern persists regarding allograft resorption over time. More recently, modular endoprosthetic reconstruction systems have been developed to address bone deficiency with metal augmentation. Early clinical results demonstrate a high complication rate in this complex cohort of patients, not unlike those in the series of APCs, but clinical outcomes were improved compared to those in historical series. Nevertheless, longer-term clinical studies are necessary to determine the role of these modular endoprosthetic implant systems.
1. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
2. Hattrup SJ, Waldrop R, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for posttraumatic sequelae. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(2):e41-e47. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000416.
3. Sewell MD, Kang SN, Al-Hadithy N, et al. Management of peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus with severe bone loss and loosening of the humeral component after total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(10):1382-1389. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.29248.
4. Trompeter AJ, Gupta RR. The management of complex periprosthetic humeral fractures: a case series of strut allograft augmentation, and a review of the literature. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2013;8(1):43-51. doi:10.1007/s11751-013-0155-x.
5. Khatib O, Onyekwelu I, Yu S, Zuckerman JD. Shoulder arthroplasty in New York State, 1991 to 2010: changing patterns of utilization. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(10):e286-e291. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.038.
6. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2249-2254. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.
7. Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survivorship of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(1):143-150. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.011.
8. Wright TW. Revision of humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;71(2 suppl):S77-S81.
9. Duquin TR, Sperling JW. Revision shoulder arthroplasty—how to manage the humerus. Oper Tech Orthop. 2011;21(1):44-51. doi:10.1053/j.oto.2010.09.008.
10. Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Schleck C, Cofield RH. Revision of the humeral component for aseptic loosening in arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(1):75-81. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.21094.
11. Cofield RH. Revision of hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty. In: Zuckerman JD, ed. Advanced Reconstruction: Shoulder. 1st edition. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2007;613-622.
12. Budge MD, Moravek JE, Zimel MN, Nolan EM, Wiater JM. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of failed shoulder arthroplasty with proximal humeral bone loss: is allograft augmentation necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):739-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.008.
13. Boileau P, Walch G. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(5):857-865.
14. Throckmorton TW. Reconstructive procedures of the shoulder and elbow. In: Azar FM, Beaty JH, Canale ST, eds. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. 13th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2017;570-622.
15. Williams GR Jr, Wong KL, Pepe MD, et al. The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):399-409. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.116871.
16. De Wilde L, Walch G. Humeral prosthetic failure of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty: a report of three cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):260-264. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.014.
17. Owens CJ, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Utility and complications of long-stem humeral components in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):e7-e12. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.10.034.
18. Stephens SP, Paisley KC, Giveans MR, Wirth MA. The effect of proximal humeral bone loss on revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(10):1519-1526. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.020.
19. Werner BS, Abdelkawi AF, Boehm D, et al. Long-term analysis of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty using cemented long stems. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(2):273-278. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.015.
20. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle MA. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.026.
21. Kassab M, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Ouaknine M, Tomeno B, Anract P. Twenty nine shoulder reconstructions after resection of the proximal humerus for neoplasm with mean 7-year follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2005;91(1):15-23.
22. 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. 2007;98(2):292-300. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01310.
23. Gagey O, Pourjamasb B, Court C. Revision arthroplasty of the shoulder for painful glenoid loosening: a series of 14 cases with acromial prostheses reviewed at four year follow up. Rev Chir Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87(3):221-228.
24. Abdeen A, Hoang BH, Althanasina EA, Morris CD, Boland PJ, Healey JH. Allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus: functional outcome and survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(10):2406-2415. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00815.
25. Getty PJ, Peabody TD. Complications and functional outcomes of reconstruction with an osteoarticular allograft after intra-articular resection of the proximal aspect of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(8):1138-1146.
26. Chen CF, Chen WM, Cheng YC, Chiang CC, Huang CK, Chen TH. Extracorporeally irradiated autograft-prosthetic composite arthroplasty using AML® extensively porous-coated stem for proximal femur reconstruction: a clinical analysis of 14 patients. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100(5):418-422. doi:10.1002/jso.21351.
27. Kelly JD 2nd, Purchase RJ, Kam G, Norris TR. Alloprosthetic composite reconstruction using the reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;10(1):5-10.
28. Cannon CP, Paraliticci GU, Lin PP, Lewis VO, Yasko AW. Functional outcome following endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(5):705-710. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.011.
29. Chao EY, Fuchs B, Rowland CM, Ilstrup DM, Pritchard DJ, Sim FH. Long-term results of segmental prosthesis fixation by extracortical bone-bridging and ingrowth. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(5):948-955.
30. Goulding KA, Schwartz A, Hattrup SJ, et al. Use of compressive osseointegration endoprostheses for massive bone loss from tumor and failed arthroplasty: a viable option in the upper extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(6):1702-1711. doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5258-0.
31. Guven MF, Aslan L, Botanlioglu H, Kaynak G, Kesmezacar H, Babacan M. Functional outcome of reverse shoulder tumor prosthesis in the treatment of proximal humeral tumors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(1):e1-e6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.012.
32. Wang ML, Ballard BL, Kulidjian AA, Abrams RA. Upper extremity reconstruction with a humeral tumor endoprosthesis: a novel salvage procedure after multiple revisions of total shoulder and elbow replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):e1-e8. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.018.
1. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
2. Hattrup SJ, Waldrop R, Sanchez-Sotelo J. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for posttraumatic sequelae. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(2):e41-e47. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000416.
3. Sewell MD, Kang SN, Al-Hadithy N, et al. Management of peri-prosthetic fracture of the humerus with severe bone loss and loosening of the humeral component after total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(10):1382-1389. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.29248.
4. Trompeter AJ, Gupta RR. The management of complex periprosthetic humeral fractures: a case series of strut allograft augmentation, and a review of the literature. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2013;8(1):43-51. doi:10.1007/s11751-013-0155-x.
5. Khatib O, Onyekwelu I, Yu S, Zuckerman JD. Shoulder arthroplasty in New York State, 1991 to 2010: changing patterns of utilization. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(10):e286-e291. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.05.038.
6. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2249-2254. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.
7. Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survivorship of the humeral component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(1):143-150. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.04.011.
8. Wright TW. Revision of humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;71(2 suppl):S77-S81.
9. Duquin TR, Sperling JW. Revision shoulder arthroplasty—how to manage the humerus. Oper Tech Orthop. 2011;21(1):44-51. doi:10.1053/j.oto.2010.09.008.
10. Cil A, Veillette CJ, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Sperling JW, Schleck C, Cofield RH. Revision of the humeral component for aseptic loosening in arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(1):75-81. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.21094.
11. Cofield RH. Revision of hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty. In: Zuckerman JD, ed. Advanced Reconstruction: Shoulder. 1st edition. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2007;613-622.
12. Budge MD, Moravek JE, Zimel MN, Nolan EM, Wiater JM. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for the management of failed shoulder arthroplasty with proximal humeral bone loss: is allograft augmentation necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):739-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.008.
13. Boileau P, Walch G. The three-dimensional geometry of the proximal humerus. Implications for surgical technique and prosthetic design. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997;79(5):857-865.
14. Throckmorton TW. Reconstructive procedures of the shoulder and elbow. In: Azar FM, Beaty JH, Canale ST, eds. Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics. 13th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2017;570-622.
15. Williams GR Jr, Wong KL, Pepe MD, et al. The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):399-409. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.116871.
16. De Wilde L, Walch G. Humeral prosthetic failure of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty: a report of three cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):260-264. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.014.
17. Owens CJ, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Utility and complications of long-stem humeral components in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):e7-e12. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.10.034.
18. Stephens SP, Paisley KC, Giveans MR, Wirth MA. The effect of proximal humeral bone loss on revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(10):1519-1526. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.02.020.
19. Werner BS, Abdelkawi AF, Boehm D, et al. Long-term analysis of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty using cemented long stems. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(2):273-278. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.015.
20. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle MA. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.026.
21. Kassab M, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Ouaknine M, Tomeno B, Anract P. Twenty nine shoulder reconstructions after resection of the proximal humerus for neoplasm with mean 7-year follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2005;91(1):15-23.
22. 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. 2007;98(2):292-300. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01310.
23. Gagey O, Pourjamasb B, Court C. Revision arthroplasty of the shoulder for painful glenoid loosening: a series of 14 cases with acromial prostheses reviewed at four year follow up. Rev Chir Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87(3):221-228.
24. Abdeen A, Hoang BH, Althanasina EA, Morris CD, Boland PJ, Healey JH. Allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus: functional outcome and survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(10):2406-2415. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00815.
25. Getty PJ, Peabody TD. Complications and functional outcomes of reconstruction with an osteoarticular allograft after intra-articular resection of the proximal aspect of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(8):1138-1146.
26. Chen CF, Chen WM, Cheng YC, Chiang CC, Huang CK, Chen TH. Extracorporeally irradiated autograft-prosthetic composite arthroplasty using AML® extensively porous-coated stem for proximal femur reconstruction: a clinical analysis of 14 patients. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100(5):418-422. doi:10.1002/jso.21351.
27. Kelly JD 2nd, Purchase RJ, Kam G, Norris TR. Alloprosthetic composite reconstruction using the reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;10(1):5-10.
28. Cannon CP, Paraliticci GU, Lin PP, Lewis VO, Yasko AW. Functional outcome following endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(5):705-710. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.011.
29. Chao EY, Fuchs B, Rowland CM, Ilstrup DM, Pritchard DJ, Sim FH. Long-term results of segmental prosthesis fixation by extracortical bone-bridging and ingrowth. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(5):948-955.
30. Goulding KA, Schwartz A, Hattrup SJ, et al. Use of compressive osseointegration endoprostheses for massive bone loss from tumor and failed arthroplasty: a viable option in the upper extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(6):1702-1711. doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5258-0.
31. Guven MF, Aslan L, Botanlioglu H, Kaynak G, Kesmezacar H, Babacan M. Functional outcome of reverse shoulder tumor prosthesis in the treatment of proximal humeral tumors. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(1):e1-e6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.012.
32. Wang ML, Ballard BL, Kulidjian AA, Abrams RA. Upper extremity reconstruction with a humeral tumor endoprosthesis: a novel salvage procedure after multiple revisions of total shoulder and elbow replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):e1-e8. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.018.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Proximal humeral bone loss presents a significant challenge for the shoulder arthroplasty surgeon.
- Unsupported long-stemmed humeral components in this setting are prone to early loosening.
- APCs can rebuild proximal humeral bone stock, but have concerns with graft resorption and long-term failure.
- Modular endoprosthetic reconstruction of proximal humeral bone loss potentially allows those deficiencies to be addressed in a more durable fashion.
- Longer-term and larger studies are needed to determine the optimal reconstruction technique for proximal humeral bone loss.
Patient-Specific Implants in Severe Glenoid Bone Loss
ABSTRACT
Complex glenoid bone deformities present the treating surgeon with a complex reconstructive challenge. Although glenoid bone loss can be encountered in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered in most revision total shoulder arthroplasties. Severe glenoid bone loss is treated with various techniques including hemiarthroplasty, eccentric reaming, and glenoid reconstruction with bone autografts and allografts. Despite encouraging short- to mid-term results reported with these reconstruction techniques, the clinical and radiographic outcomes remain inconsistent and the high number of complications is a concern. To overcome this problem, more recently augmented components and patient specific implants were introduced. Using the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technology patient-specific implants have been created to reconstruct the glenoid vault in cases of severe glenoid bone loss.
In this article we describe a patient specific glenoid implant, its indication, technical aspects and surgical technique, based on the author's experience as well as a review of the current literature on custom glenoid implants.
Continue to: Total shoulder arthroplasty...
Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is an effective operation for providing pain relief and improving function in patients with end-stage degenerative shoulder disease that is nonresponsive to nonoperative treatments.1-4 With the increasing number of arthroplasties performed, and the expanding indication for shoulder arthroplasty, the number of revision shoulder arthroplasties is also increasing.5-14 Complex glenoid bone deformities present the treating surgeon with a complex reconstructive challenge. Although glenoid bone loss can be seen in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, and post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered mostly in revision TSAs.
Historically, patients with severe glenoid bone loss were treated with a hemiarthroplasty.15-17 However, due to inferior outcomes associated with the use of shoulder hemiarthroplasties compared with TSA in these cases,18-20 various techniques were developed with the aim of realigning the glenoid axis and securing the implants into the deficient glenoid vault.21-25 Options have included eccentric reaming, glenoid reconstruction with bone autografts and allografts, and more recently augmented components and patient-specific implants. Studies with eccentric reaming and reconstruction with bone graft during complex shoulder arthroplasty have reported encouraging short- to mid-term results, but the clinical and radiographic outcomes remain inconsistent, and the high number of complications is a concern.25-28
Complications with these techniques include component loosening, graft resorption, nonunion, failure of graft incorporation, infection, and instability.25-28
Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of patient-specific implants have been used successfully by hip arthroplasty surgeons to deal with complex acetabular reconstructions in the setting of severe bone loss. More recently, the same technology has been used to reconstruct the glenoid vault in cases of severe glenoid bone loss.
In this article, we describe a patient-specific glenoid implant, its indication, and both technical aspects and the surgical technique, based on the authors’ experience as well as a review of the current literature on custom glenoid implants.
Continue to: PATIENT-SPECIFIC GLENOID COMPONENT
PATIENT-SPECIFIC GLENOID COMPONENT
The Vault Reconstruction System ([VRS], Zimmer Biomet) is a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system developed with the use of CAD/CAM to address severe glenoid bone loss encountered during shoulder arthroplasty. For several years, the VRS was available only as a custom implant according to the US Food and Drug Administration rules, and therefore its use was limited to a few cases per year. Recently, a 510(k) envelope clearance was granted to use the VRS in reverse TSA to address significant glenoid bone defects.
The VRS is made of porous plasma spray titanium to provide high strength and flexibility, and allows for biologic fixation. This system can accommodate a restricted bone loss envelope of about 50 mm × 50 mm × 35 mm according to the previous experience of the manufacturer in the custom scenario, covering 96% of defects previously addressed. One 6.5-mm nonlocking central screw and a minimum of four 4.75-mm nonlocking or locking peripheral screws are required for optimal fixation of the implant in the native scapula. A custom boss can be added in to enhance fixation in the native scapula when the bone is sufficient. To facilitate the surgical procedure, a trial implant, a bone model of the scapula, and a custom boss reaming guide are 3-dimensional (3-D) and printed in sterilizable material. These are all provided as single-use disposable instruments and can be available for surgeons during both the initial plan review and surgery.
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Patients undergo a preoperative fine-cut 2-dimensional computed tomography scan of the scapula and adjacent humerus following a predefined protocol with a slice thickness of 2 mm to 3 mm. An accurate 3-D bone model of the scapula is obtained using a 3-D image processing software system (Figure 1). The 3-D scapular model is used to create a patient-specific glenoid implant proposal that is approved by the surgeon (Figure 2). Implant position, orientation, size, screw trajectory, and recommended bone removal, if necessary, are determined to create a more normal glenohumeral center of rotation and to secure a glenoid implant in severely deficient glenoid bone (Figure 3). Once the implant design is approved by the surgeon, the final patient-specific implant is manufactured.
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
The exposure of the glenoid is a critical step for the successful implantation of the patient-specific glenoid implant. Soft tissue and scar tissue around the glenoid must be removed to allow for optimal fit of the custom-made reaming guide. Also, removal of the entire capsulolabral complex on the anteroinferior rim of the glenoid is essential to both enhance glenoid exposure and to allow a perfect fit of the guide to the pathologic bone stock. Attention should be paid during débridement and/or implant removal in case of revision, to make sure that no excessive bone is removed because the patient-specific guide is referenced to this anatomy. Excessive bone removal can change the orientation of the patient-specific guide and ultimately the fixation of the implant. Once the custom-made patient-specific guide is positioned, a 3.2-mm Steinmann pin is placed through the inserter for temporary fixation. The pin should engage or perforate the medial cortical wall to ensure that the subsequent reamer has a stable cannula over which to ream. After the glenoid is reamed, the final implant can be placed in the ideal position according to the preoperative planning. A central 6.5-mm nonlocking central screw and 4.75-mm nonlocking or locking peripheral screws are required to complete the fixation of the implant in the native scapula. Once the patient-specific glenoid component is positioned and strongly fixed to the bone, the glenosphere can be positioned according to the preoperative planning, and the reverse shoulder arthroplasty can be completed in the usual fashion.
CASE EXAMPLES
A 68-year-old woman underwent a TSA for end-stage osteoarthritis in 2000. The implant failed due to a cuff failure. The patient underwent several surgeries, including an open cuff repair, with no success. She had no active elevation preoperatively. Because of the significant glenoid bone loss, a patient-specific glenoid reconstruction was planned. Within 24 months after this surgery, the patient was able to get her hand to her head and elevate to 90º (Figures 4A-4F).
Continue to: In October 2013...
In October 2013, a 68-year-old man underwent a TSA for end-stage osteoarthritis. After 18 months, the implant failed due to active Propionibacterium acnes infection, which required excisional arthroplasty with insertion of an antibiotic spacer. Significant glenoid bone loss (Figure 5) and global soft-tissue deficiency caused substantial disability and led to an indication for a reverse TSA with a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction (Figures 6A-6D) after infection eradication. Within 20 months after this surgery, the patient had resumed a satisfactory range of motion (130º forward elevation, 20º external rotation) and outcome.
DISCUSSION
Although glenoid bone loss is often seen in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, and post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered in most revision TSAs. The best treatment method for massive glenoid bone defects during complex shoulder arthroplasty remains uncertain. Options have included eccentric reaming, glenoid reconstruction with bone allograft and autograft, and more recently augmented components and patient-specific implants.21-25 The advent and availability of CAD/CAM technology have enabled shoulder surgeons to create patient-specific metal solutions to these challenging cases. Currently, only a few reports exist in the literature on patient-specific glenoid components in the setting of severe bone loss.29-32
Chammaa and colleagues29 reported the outcomes of 37 patients with a hip-inspired glenoid component (Total Shoulder Replacement, Stanmore Implants Worldwide). The 5-year results with this implant were promising, with a 16% revision rate and only 1 case of glenoid loosening.
Stoffelen and colleagues30 recently described the successful use of a patient-specific anatomic metal-backed glenoid component for the management of severe glenoid bone loss with excellent results at 2.5 years of follow-up. A different approach was pursued by Gunther and Lynch,31 who reported on 7 patients with a custom inset glenoid implant for deficient glenoid vaults. These circular anatomic, custom-made glenoid components were created with the intention of placing the implants partially inside the glenoid vault and relying partially on sclerotic cortical bone. Despite excellent results at 3 years of follow-up, their use is limited to specific defect geometries and cannot be used in cases of extreme bone loss.
CONCLUSION
We have described the use of a patient-specific glenoid component in 2 patients with severe glenoid bone loss. Despite the satisfactory clinical and short-term radiographic results, we acknowledge that longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm the efficacy of this type of reconstruction. We believe that patient-specific glenoid components represent a valuable addition to the armamentarium of shoulder surgeons who address complex glenoid bone deformities.
1. Chalmers PN, Gupta AK, Rahman Z, Bruce B, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Predictors of early complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):856-860. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.002.
2. Deshmukh AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):471-479. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.009.
3. Montoya F, Magosch P, Scheiderer B, Lichtenberg S, Melean P, Habermeyer P. Midterm results of a total shoulder prosthesis fixed with a cementless glenoid component. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(5):628-635. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
6. Chalmers PN, Rahman Z, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Early dislocation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(5):737-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.015.
7. Farng E, Zingmond D, Krenek L, Soohoo NF. Factors predicting complication rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):557-563. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.005.
8. Farshad M, Grogli M, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Revision of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty. Indications and outcome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13(1):160. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-160.
9. Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O. Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty: 1,825 shoulder arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(1):83-91.
10. Fox TJ, Cil A, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):859-863. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.020.
11. Rasmussen JV. Outcome and risk of revision following shoulder replacement in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2014;85(355 suppl):1-23. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.922007.
12. Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Brorson S, Sorensen AK, Olsen BS. Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. 1,209 cases from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry, 2006-2010. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(2):117-122. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.893497.
13. Sajadi KR, Kwon YW, Zuckerman JD. Revision shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of indications and outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):308-313. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.016.
14. Singh JA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Revision surgery following total shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of 2588 shoulders over three decades (1976 to 2008). J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(11):1513-1517. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B11.26938.
15. Levine WN, Djurasovic M, Glasson JM, Pollock RG, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. Hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results correlated to degree of glenoid wear. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(5):449-454.
16. Levine WN, Fischer CR, Nguyen D, Flatow EL, Ahmad CS, Bigliani LU. Long-term follow-up of shoulder hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(22):e164. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00603.
17. Lynch JR, Franta AK, Montgomery WH, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Matsen FA. Self-assessed outcome at two to four years after shoulder hemiarthroplasty with concentric glenoid reaming. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(6):1284-1292. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00942.
18. Iannotti JP, Norris TR. Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(2):251-258.
19. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(4):464-473.
20. Strauss EJ, Roche C, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD. The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(5):819-833. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.008.
21. Cil A, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Nonstandard glenoid components for bone deficiencies in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(7):e149-e157. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.023.
22. Denard PJ, Walch G. Current concepts in the surgical management of primary glenohumeral arthritis with a biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1589-1598. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.017.
23. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.023.
24. Neer CS, Morrison DS. Glenoid bone-grafting in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(8):1154-1162.
25. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(5):361-367. doi:10.1067/mse.2000.106921.
26. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012:21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
27. Hill JM, Norris TR. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(6):877-883.
28. Hsu JE, Ricchetti ET, Huffman GR, Iannotti JP, Glaser DL. Addressing glenoid bone deficiency and asymptomatic posterior erosion in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1298-1308.
29. Chammaa R, Uri O, Lambert S. Primary shoulder arthroplasty using a custom-made hip-inspired implant for the treatment of advanced glenohumeral arthritis in the presence of severe glenoid bone loss. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):101-107. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.027.
30. Stoffelen DV, Eraly K, Debeer P. The use of 3D printing technology in reconstruction of a severe glenoid defect: a case report with 2.5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(8):e218-e222. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.04.006.
31. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.023.
32. Dines DM, Gulotta L, Craig EV, Dines JS. Novel solution for massive glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty: a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108.
ABSTRACT
Complex glenoid bone deformities present the treating surgeon with a complex reconstructive challenge. Although glenoid bone loss can be encountered in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered in most revision total shoulder arthroplasties. Severe glenoid bone loss is treated with various techniques including hemiarthroplasty, eccentric reaming, and glenoid reconstruction with bone autografts and allografts. Despite encouraging short- to mid-term results reported with these reconstruction techniques, the clinical and radiographic outcomes remain inconsistent and the high number of complications is a concern. To overcome this problem, more recently augmented components and patient specific implants were introduced. Using the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technology patient-specific implants have been created to reconstruct the glenoid vault in cases of severe glenoid bone loss.
In this article we describe a patient specific glenoid implant, its indication, technical aspects and surgical technique, based on the author's experience as well as a review of the current literature on custom glenoid implants.
Continue to: Total shoulder arthroplasty...
Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is an effective operation for providing pain relief and improving function in patients with end-stage degenerative shoulder disease that is nonresponsive to nonoperative treatments.1-4 With the increasing number of arthroplasties performed, and the expanding indication for shoulder arthroplasty, the number of revision shoulder arthroplasties is also increasing.5-14 Complex glenoid bone deformities present the treating surgeon with a complex reconstructive challenge. Although glenoid bone loss can be seen in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, and post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered mostly in revision TSAs.
Historically, patients with severe glenoid bone loss were treated with a hemiarthroplasty.15-17 However, due to inferior outcomes associated with the use of shoulder hemiarthroplasties compared with TSA in these cases,18-20 various techniques were developed with the aim of realigning the glenoid axis and securing the implants into the deficient glenoid vault.21-25 Options have included eccentric reaming, glenoid reconstruction with bone autografts and allografts, and more recently augmented components and patient-specific implants. Studies with eccentric reaming and reconstruction with bone graft during complex shoulder arthroplasty have reported encouraging short- to mid-term results, but the clinical and radiographic outcomes remain inconsistent, and the high number of complications is a concern.25-28
Complications with these techniques include component loosening, graft resorption, nonunion, failure of graft incorporation, infection, and instability.25-28
Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of patient-specific implants have been used successfully by hip arthroplasty surgeons to deal with complex acetabular reconstructions in the setting of severe bone loss. More recently, the same technology has been used to reconstruct the glenoid vault in cases of severe glenoid bone loss.
In this article, we describe a patient-specific glenoid implant, its indication, and both technical aspects and the surgical technique, based on the authors’ experience as well as a review of the current literature on custom glenoid implants.
Continue to: PATIENT-SPECIFIC GLENOID COMPONENT
PATIENT-SPECIFIC GLENOID COMPONENT
The Vault Reconstruction System ([VRS], Zimmer Biomet) is a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system developed with the use of CAD/CAM to address severe glenoid bone loss encountered during shoulder arthroplasty. For several years, the VRS was available only as a custom implant according to the US Food and Drug Administration rules, and therefore its use was limited to a few cases per year. Recently, a 510(k) envelope clearance was granted to use the VRS in reverse TSA to address significant glenoid bone defects.
The VRS is made of porous plasma spray titanium to provide high strength and flexibility, and allows for biologic fixation. This system can accommodate a restricted bone loss envelope of about 50 mm × 50 mm × 35 mm according to the previous experience of the manufacturer in the custom scenario, covering 96% of defects previously addressed. One 6.5-mm nonlocking central screw and a minimum of four 4.75-mm nonlocking or locking peripheral screws are required for optimal fixation of the implant in the native scapula. A custom boss can be added in to enhance fixation in the native scapula when the bone is sufficient. To facilitate the surgical procedure, a trial implant, a bone model of the scapula, and a custom boss reaming guide are 3-dimensional (3-D) and printed in sterilizable material. These are all provided as single-use disposable instruments and can be available for surgeons during both the initial plan review and surgery.
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Patients undergo a preoperative fine-cut 2-dimensional computed tomography scan of the scapula and adjacent humerus following a predefined protocol with a slice thickness of 2 mm to 3 mm. An accurate 3-D bone model of the scapula is obtained using a 3-D image processing software system (Figure 1). The 3-D scapular model is used to create a patient-specific glenoid implant proposal that is approved by the surgeon (Figure 2). Implant position, orientation, size, screw trajectory, and recommended bone removal, if necessary, are determined to create a more normal glenohumeral center of rotation and to secure a glenoid implant in severely deficient glenoid bone (Figure 3). Once the implant design is approved by the surgeon, the final patient-specific implant is manufactured.
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
The exposure of the glenoid is a critical step for the successful implantation of the patient-specific glenoid implant. Soft tissue and scar tissue around the glenoid must be removed to allow for optimal fit of the custom-made reaming guide. Also, removal of the entire capsulolabral complex on the anteroinferior rim of the glenoid is essential to both enhance glenoid exposure and to allow a perfect fit of the guide to the pathologic bone stock. Attention should be paid during débridement and/or implant removal in case of revision, to make sure that no excessive bone is removed because the patient-specific guide is referenced to this anatomy. Excessive bone removal can change the orientation of the patient-specific guide and ultimately the fixation of the implant. Once the custom-made patient-specific guide is positioned, a 3.2-mm Steinmann pin is placed through the inserter for temporary fixation. The pin should engage or perforate the medial cortical wall to ensure that the subsequent reamer has a stable cannula over which to ream. After the glenoid is reamed, the final implant can be placed in the ideal position according to the preoperative planning. A central 6.5-mm nonlocking central screw and 4.75-mm nonlocking or locking peripheral screws are required to complete the fixation of the implant in the native scapula. Once the patient-specific glenoid component is positioned and strongly fixed to the bone, the glenosphere can be positioned according to the preoperative planning, and the reverse shoulder arthroplasty can be completed in the usual fashion.
CASE EXAMPLES
A 68-year-old woman underwent a TSA for end-stage osteoarthritis in 2000. The implant failed due to a cuff failure. The patient underwent several surgeries, including an open cuff repair, with no success. She had no active elevation preoperatively. Because of the significant glenoid bone loss, a patient-specific glenoid reconstruction was planned. Within 24 months after this surgery, the patient was able to get her hand to her head and elevate to 90º (Figures 4A-4F).
Continue to: In October 2013...
In October 2013, a 68-year-old man underwent a TSA for end-stage osteoarthritis. After 18 months, the implant failed due to active Propionibacterium acnes infection, which required excisional arthroplasty with insertion of an antibiotic spacer. Significant glenoid bone loss (Figure 5) and global soft-tissue deficiency caused substantial disability and led to an indication for a reverse TSA with a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction (Figures 6A-6D) after infection eradication. Within 20 months after this surgery, the patient had resumed a satisfactory range of motion (130º forward elevation, 20º external rotation) and outcome.
DISCUSSION
Although glenoid bone loss is often seen in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, and post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered in most revision TSAs. The best treatment method for massive glenoid bone defects during complex shoulder arthroplasty remains uncertain. Options have included eccentric reaming, glenoid reconstruction with bone allograft and autograft, and more recently augmented components and patient-specific implants.21-25 The advent and availability of CAD/CAM technology have enabled shoulder surgeons to create patient-specific metal solutions to these challenging cases. Currently, only a few reports exist in the literature on patient-specific glenoid components in the setting of severe bone loss.29-32
Chammaa and colleagues29 reported the outcomes of 37 patients with a hip-inspired glenoid component (Total Shoulder Replacement, Stanmore Implants Worldwide). The 5-year results with this implant were promising, with a 16% revision rate and only 1 case of glenoid loosening.
Stoffelen and colleagues30 recently described the successful use of a patient-specific anatomic metal-backed glenoid component for the management of severe glenoid bone loss with excellent results at 2.5 years of follow-up. A different approach was pursued by Gunther and Lynch,31 who reported on 7 patients with a custom inset glenoid implant for deficient glenoid vaults. These circular anatomic, custom-made glenoid components were created with the intention of placing the implants partially inside the glenoid vault and relying partially on sclerotic cortical bone. Despite excellent results at 3 years of follow-up, their use is limited to specific defect geometries and cannot be used in cases of extreme bone loss.
CONCLUSION
We have described the use of a patient-specific glenoid component in 2 patients with severe glenoid bone loss. Despite the satisfactory clinical and short-term radiographic results, we acknowledge that longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm the efficacy of this type of reconstruction. We believe that patient-specific glenoid components represent a valuable addition to the armamentarium of shoulder surgeons who address complex glenoid bone deformities.
ABSTRACT
Complex glenoid bone deformities present the treating surgeon with a complex reconstructive challenge. Although glenoid bone loss can be encountered in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered in most revision total shoulder arthroplasties. Severe glenoid bone loss is treated with various techniques including hemiarthroplasty, eccentric reaming, and glenoid reconstruction with bone autografts and allografts. Despite encouraging short- to mid-term results reported with these reconstruction techniques, the clinical and radiographic outcomes remain inconsistent and the high number of complications is a concern. To overcome this problem, more recently augmented components and patient specific implants were introduced. Using the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technology patient-specific implants have been created to reconstruct the glenoid vault in cases of severe glenoid bone loss.
In this article we describe a patient specific glenoid implant, its indication, technical aspects and surgical technique, based on the author's experience as well as a review of the current literature on custom glenoid implants.
Continue to: Total shoulder arthroplasty...
Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is an effective operation for providing pain relief and improving function in patients with end-stage degenerative shoulder disease that is nonresponsive to nonoperative treatments.1-4 With the increasing number of arthroplasties performed, and the expanding indication for shoulder arthroplasty, the number of revision shoulder arthroplasties is also increasing.5-14 Complex glenoid bone deformities present the treating surgeon with a complex reconstructive challenge. Although glenoid bone loss can be seen in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, and post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered mostly in revision TSAs.
Historically, patients with severe glenoid bone loss were treated with a hemiarthroplasty.15-17 However, due to inferior outcomes associated with the use of shoulder hemiarthroplasties compared with TSA in these cases,18-20 various techniques were developed with the aim of realigning the glenoid axis and securing the implants into the deficient glenoid vault.21-25 Options have included eccentric reaming, glenoid reconstruction with bone autografts and allografts, and more recently augmented components and patient-specific implants. Studies with eccentric reaming and reconstruction with bone graft during complex shoulder arthroplasty have reported encouraging short- to mid-term results, but the clinical and radiographic outcomes remain inconsistent, and the high number of complications is a concern.25-28
Complications with these techniques include component loosening, graft resorption, nonunion, failure of graft incorporation, infection, and instability.25-28
Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of patient-specific implants have been used successfully by hip arthroplasty surgeons to deal with complex acetabular reconstructions in the setting of severe bone loss. More recently, the same technology has been used to reconstruct the glenoid vault in cases of severe glenoid bone loss.
In this article, we describe a patient-specific glenoid implant, its indication, and both technical aspects and the surgical technique, based on the authors’ experience as well as a review of the current literature on custom glenoid implants.
Continue to: PATIENT-SPECIFIC GLENOID COMPONENT
PATIENT-SPECIFIC GLENOID COMPONENT
The Vault Reconstruction System ([VRS], Zimmer Biomet) is a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system developed with the use of CAD/CAM to address severe glenoid bone loss encountered during shoulder arthroplasty. For several years, the VRS was available only as a custom implant according to the US Food and Drug Administration rules, and therefore its use was limited to a few cases per year. Recently, a 510(k) envelope clearance was granted to use the VRS in reverse TSA to address significant glenoid bone defects.
The VRS is made of porous plasma spray titanium to provide high strength and flexibility, and allows for biologic fixation. This system can accommodate a restricted bone loss envelope of about 50 mm × 50 mm × 35 mm according to the previous experience of the manufacturer in the custom scenario, covering 96% of defects previously addressed. One 6.5-mm nonlocking central screw and a minimum of four 4.75-mm nonlocking or locking peripheral screws are required for optimal fixation of the implant in the native scapula. A custom boss can be added in to enhance fixation in the native scapula when the bone is sufficient. To facilitate the surgical procedure, a trial implant, a bone model of the scapula, and a custom boss reaming guide are 3-dimensional (3-D) and printed in sterilizable material. These are all provided as single-use disposable instruments and can be available for surgeons during both the initial plan review and surgery.
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Patients undergo a preoperative fine-cut 2-dimensional computed tomography scan of the scapula and adjacent humerus following a predefined protocol with a slice thickness of 2 mm to 3 mm. An accurate 3-D bone model of the scapula is obtained using a 3-D image processing software system (Figure 1). The 3-D scapular model is used to create a patient-specific glenoid implant proposal that is approved by the surgeon (Figure 2). Implant position, orientation, size, screw trajectory, and recommended bone removal, if necessary, are determined to create a more normal glenohumeral center of rotation and to secure a glenoid implant in severely deficient glenoid bone (Figure 3). Once the implant design is approved by the surgeon, the final patient-specific implant is manufactured.
SURGICAL TECHNIQUE
The exposure of the glenoid is a critical step for the successful implantation of the patient-specific glenoid implant. Soft tissue and scar tissue around the glenoid must be removed to allow for optimal fit of the custom-made reaming guide. Also, removal of the entire capsulolabral complex on the anteroinferior rim of the glenoid is essential to both enhance glenoid exposure and to allow a perfect fit of the guide to the pathologic bone stock. Attention should be paid during débridement and/or implant removal in case of revision, to make sure that no excessive bone is removed because the patient-specific guide is referenced to this anatomy. Excessive bone removal can change the orientation of the patient-specific guide and ultimately the fixation of the implant. Once the custom-made patient-specific guide is positioned, a 3.2-mm Steinmann pin is placed through the inserter for temporary fixation. The pin should engage or perforate the medial cortical wall to ensure that the subsequent reamer has a stable cannula over which to ream. After the glenoid is reamed, the final implant can be placed in the ideal position according to the preoperative planning. A central 6.5-mm nonlocking central screw and 4.75-mm nonlocking or locking peripheral screws are required to complete the fixation of the implant in the native scapula. Once the patient-specific glenoid component is positioned and strongly fixed to the bone, the glenosphere can be positioned according to the preoperative planning, and the reverse shoulder arthroplasty can be completed in the usual fashion.
CASE EXAMPLES
A 68-year-old woman underwent a TSA for end-stage osteoarthritis in 2000. The implant failed due to a cuff failure. The patient underwent several surgeries, including an open cuff repair, with no success. She had no active elevation preoperatively. Because of the significant glenoid bone loss, a patient-specific glenoid reconstruction was planned. Within 24 months after this surgery, the patient was able to get her hand to her head and elevate to 90º (Figures 4A-4F).
Continue to: In October 2013...
In October 2013, a 68-year-old man underwent a TSA for end-stage osteoarthritis. After 18 months, the implant failed due to active Propionibacterium acnes infection, which required excisional arthroplasty with insertion of an antibiotic spacer. Significant glenoid bone loss (Figure 5) and global soft-tissue deficiency caused substantial disability and led to an indication for a reverse TSA with a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction (Figures 6A-6D) after infection eradication. Within 20 months after this surgery, the patient had resumed a satisfactory range of motion (130º forward elevation, 20º external rotation) and outcome.
DISCUSSION
Although glenoid bone loss is often seen in the primary setting (degenerative, congenital, and post-traumatic), severe glenoid bone loss is encountered in most revision TSAs. The best treatment method for massive glenoid bone defects during complex shoulder arthroplasty remains uncertain. Options have included eccentric reaming, glenoid reconstruction with bone allograft and autograft, and more recently augmented components and patient-specific implants.21-25 The advent and availability of CAD/CAM technology have enabled shoulder surgeons to create patient-specific metal solutions to these challenging cases. Currently, only a few reports exist in the literature on patient-specific glenoid components in the setting of severe bone loss.29-32
Chammaa and colleagues29 reported the outcomes of 37 patients with a hip-inspired glenoid component (Total Shoulder Replacement, Stanmore Implants Worldwide). The 5-year results with this implant were promising, with a 16% revision rate and only 1 case of glenoid loosening.
Stoffelen and colleagues30 recently described the successful use of a patient-specific anatomic metal-backed glenoid component for the management of severe glenoid bone loss with excellent results at 2.5 years of follow-up. A different approach was pursued by Gunther and Lynch,31 who reported on 7 patients with a custom inset glenoid implant for deficient glenoid vaults. These circular anatomic, custom-made glenoid components were created with the intention of placing the implants partially inside the glenoid vault and relying partially on sclerotic cortical bone. Despite excellent results at 3 years of follow-up, their use is limited to specific defect geometries and cannot be used in cases of extreme bone loss.
CONCLUSION
We have described the use of a patient-specific glenoid component in 2 patients with severe glenoid bone loss. Despite the satisfactory clinical and short-term radiographic results, we acknowledge that longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm the efficacy of this type of reconstruction. We believe that patient-specific glenoid components represent a valuable addition to the armamentarium of shoulder surgeons who address complex glenoid bone deformities.
1. Chalmers PN, Gupta AK, Rahman Z, Bruce B, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Predictors of early complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):856-860. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.002.
2. Deshmukh AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):471-479. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.009.
3. Montoya F, Magosch P, Scheiderer B, Lichtenberg S, Melean P, Habermeyer P. Midterm results of a total shoulder prosthesis fixed with a cementless glenoid component. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(5):628-635. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
6. Chalmers PN, Rahman Z, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Early dislocation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(5):737-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.015.
7. Farng E, Zingmond D, Krenek L, Soohoo NF. Factors predicting complication rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):557-563. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.005.
8. Farshad M, Grogli M, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Revision of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty. Indications and outcome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13(1):160. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-160.
9. Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O. Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty: 1,825 shoulder arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(1):83-91.
10. Fox TJ, Cil A, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):859-863. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.020.
11. Rasmussen JV. Outcome and risk of revision following shoulder replacement in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2014;85(355 suppl):1-23. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.922007.
12. Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Brorson S, Sorensen AK, Olsen BS. Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. 1,209 cases from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry, 2006-2010. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(2):117-122. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.893497.
13. Sajadi KR, Kwon YW, Zuckerman JD. Revision shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of indications and outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):308-313. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.016.
14. Singh JA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Revision surgery following total shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of 2588 shoulders over three decades (1976 to 2008). J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(11):1513-1517. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B11.26938.
15. Levine WN, Djurasovic M, Glasson JM, Pollock RG, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. Hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results correlated to degree of glenoid wear. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(5):449-454.
16. Levine WN, Fischer CR, Nguyen D, Flatow EL, Ahmad CS, Bigliani LU. Long-term follow-up of shoulder hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(22):e164. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00603.
17. Lynch JR, Franta AK, Montgomery WH, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Matsen FA. Self-assessed outcome at two to four years after shoulder hemiarthroplasty with concentric glenoid reaming. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(6):1284-1292. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00942.
18. Iannotti JP, Norris TR. Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(2):251-258.
19. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(4):464-473.
20. Strauss EJ, Roche C, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD. The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(5):819-833. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.008.
21. Cil A, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Nonstandard glenoid components for bone deficiencies in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(7):e149-e157. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.023.
22. Denard PJ, Walch G. Current concepts in the surgical management of primary glenohumeral arthritis with a biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1589-1598. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.017.
23. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.023.
24. Neer CS, Morrison DS. Glenoid bone-grafting in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(8):1154-1162.
25. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(5):361-367. doi:10.1067/mse.2000.106921.
26. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012:21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
27. Hill JM, Norris TR. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(6):877-883.
28. Hsu JE, Ricchetti ET, Huffman GR, Iannotti JP, Glaser DL. Addressing glenoid bone deficiency and asymptomatic posterior erosion in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1298-1308.
29. Chammaa R, Uri O, Lambert S. Primary shoulder arthroplasty using a custom-made hip-inspired implant for the treatment of advanced glenohumeral arthritis in the presence of severe glenoid bone loss. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):101-107. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.027.
30. Stoffelen DV, Eraly K, Debeer P. The use of 3D printing technology in reconstruction of a severe glenoid defect: a case report with 2.5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(8):e218-e222. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.04.006.
31. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.023.
32. Dines DM, Gulotta L, Craig EV, Dines JS. Novel solution for massive glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty: a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108.
1. Chalmers PN, Gupta AK, Rahman Z, Bruce B, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Predictors of early complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):856-860. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.002.
2. Deshmukh AV, Koris M, Zurakowski D, Thornhill TS. Total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term survivorship, functional outcome, and quality of life. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):471-479. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.009.
3. Montoya F, Magosch P, Scheiderer B, Lichtenberg S, Melean P, Habermeyer P. Midterm results of a total shoulder prosthesis fixed with a cementless glenoid component. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(5):628-635. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.07.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
6. Chalmers PN, Rahman Z, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Early dislocation after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(5):737-744. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.015.
7. Farng E, Zingmond D, Krenek L, Soohoo NF. Factors predicting complication rates after primary shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):557-563. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.005.
8. Farshad M, Grogli M, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Revision of reversed total shoulder arthroplasty. Indications and outcome. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13(1):160. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-13-160.
9. Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O. Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty: 1,825 shoulder arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(1):83-91.
10. Fox TJ, Cil A, Sperling JW, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Survival of the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):859-863. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.020.
11. Rasmussen JV. Outcome and risk of revision following shoulder replacement in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2014;85(355 suppl):1-23. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.922007.
12. Rasmussen JV, Polk A, Brorson S, Sorensen AK, Olsen BS. Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. 1,209 cases from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry, 2006-2010. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(2):117-122. doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.893497.
13. Sajadi KR, Kwon YW, Zuckerman JD. Revision shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of indications and outcomes. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(2):308-313. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.016.
14. Singh JA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Revision surgery following total shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of 2588 shoulders over three decades (1976 to 2008). J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(11):1513-1517. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B11.26938.
15. Levine WN, Djurasovic M, Glasson JM, Pollock RG, Flatow EL, Bigliani LU. Hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results correlated to degree of glenoid wear. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(5):449-454.
16. Levine WN, Fischer CR, Nguyen D, Flatow EL, Ahmad CS, Bigliani LU. Long-term follow-up of shoulder hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(22):e164. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00603.
17. Lynch JR, Franta AK, Montgomery WH, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Matsen FA. Self-assessed outcome at two to four years after shoulder hemiarthroplasty with concentric glenoid reaming. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(6):1284-1292. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00942.
18. Iannotti JP, Norris TR. Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(2):251-258.
19. Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(4):464-473.
20. Strauss EJ, Roche C, Flurin PH, Wright T, Zuckerman JD. The glenoid in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(5):819-833. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.05.008.
21. Cil A, Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Nonstandard glenoid components for bone deficiencies in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(7):e149-e157. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.023.
22. Denard PJ, Walch G. Current concepts in the surgical management of primary glenohumeral arthritis with a biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1589-1598. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.06.017.
23. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.023.
24. Neer CS, Morrison DS. Glenoid bone-grafting in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(8):1154-1162.
25. Steinmann SP, Cofield RH. Bone grafting for glenoid deficiency in total shoulder replacement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(5):361-367. doi:10.1067/mse.2000.106921.
26. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012:21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
27. Hill JM, Norris TR. Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(6):877-883.
28. Hsu JE, Ricchetti ET, Huffman GR, Iannotti JP, Glaser DL. Addressing glenoid bone deficiency and asymptomatic posterior erosion in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1298-1308.
29. Chammaa R, Uri O, Lambert S. Primary shoulder arthroplasty using a custom-made hip-inspired implant for the treatment of advanced glenohumeral arthritis in the presence of severe glenoid bone loss. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(1):101-107. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2016.05.027.
30. Stoffelen DV, Eraly K, Debeer P. The use of 3D printing technology in reconstruction of a severe glenoid defect: a case report with 2.5 years of follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(8):e218-e222. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2015.04.006.
31. Gunther SB, Lynch TL. Total shoulder replacement surgery with custom glenoid implants for severe bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(5):675-684. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.03.023.
32. Dines DM, Gulotta L, Craig EV, Dines JS. Novel solution for massive glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty: a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- With the increasing number of arthroplasties performed, and the expanding indication for shoulder arthroplasty, the number of revision shoulder arthroplasties is also increasing.
- Complex glenoid bone defects are sometimes encountered in revision shoulder arthroplasties.
- Glenoid reconstructions with bone graft have reported encouraging short- to mid-term results, but the high number of complications is a concern.
- Using the CAD/CAM technology patient-specific glenoid components have been created to reconstruct the glenoid vault in cases of severe glenoid bone loss.
- Short-term clinical and radiographic results of patient-specific glenoid components are encouraging, however longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm the efficacy of this type of reconstruction.
Convertible Glenoid Components Facilitate Revisions to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Easier: Retrospective Review of 13 Cases
ABSTRACT
Removal of a cemented glenoid component often leads to massive glenoid bone loss, which makes it difficult to implant a new glenoid baseplate. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with a completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 13 (average age, 64 years) were revised to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study. Average follow-up after revision was 22 months. Outcome measures included pain, range of motion, Constant-Murley scores, Simple Shoulder Tests, and subjective shoulder values. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021), and active external rotation increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°). Mean pain scores significantly improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points. The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90). Subjectively, 12 patients rated their shoulder as better or much better than preoperatively. This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function.
Continue to: Polyethylene glenoid components...
Polyethylene glenoid components are the gold standard in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). However, even though TSA survivorship exceeds 95% at 10-year follow-up,1 glenoid component loosening remains the main complication and the weak link in these implants. This complication accounts for 25% of all complications related to TSA in the literature.2 In most cases, glenoid component loosening is not isolated but combined with a rotator cuff tear, glenohumeral instability, or component malposition.
We hypothesized that a completely convertible platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side could facilitate the revision of a failed TSA to a RSA. This would enable the surgeon to leave the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate in place, avoiding the difficulty of stem removal and the reimplantation of a glenoid component, especially in osteoporotic glenoid bone and elderly patients. The revision procedure would then only consist of replacing the humeral head by a metallic tray and polyethylene bearing on the humeral side and by impacting a glenosphere on the glenoid baseplate (Figures 2A, 2B).
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with this completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PATIENT SELECTION
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary TSAs were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 18 underwent revision (17.3%). Among these 18 patients, 13 were revised to RSA using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study, while 5 patients were revised to another TSA (2 dissociations of the polyethylene glenoid implant, 2 excessively low implantations of the glenoid baseplate, and 1 glenoid loosening). The mean age of the 13 patients (9 women, 4 men) included in this retrospective study at the time of revision was 64 years (range, 50-75 years). The reasons for revision surgery were rotator cuff tear (5, among which 2 were posterosuperior tears, and 3 were tears of the subscapularis), dislocations (5 posterior and 1 anterior, among which 4 had a B2 or C glenoid), suprascapular nerve paralysis (1), and dissociation of the polyethylene (1). The initial TSA was indicated for primary osteoarthritis with a normal cuff (9), primary osteoarthritis with a reparable cuff tear (2), posttraumatic osteoarthritis (1), and chronic dislocation (1). The right dominant shoulder was involved in 10 cases. The mean time interval between the primary TSA and the revision was 15 months (range, 1-61 months).
OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Revision of a failed TSA is always a difficult challenge, and evaluation of bone loss on both the humeral and the glenoid sides, as well as the status of the cuff, is mandatory, even with a completely convertible arthroplasty system. The surgeon must be prepared to remove the humeral stem in case reduction of the joint is impossible. We systematically performed standard radiographs (anteroposterior, axillary, and outlet views) and computed tomography (CT) scans in order to assess both the version and positioning, as well as potential signs of loosening of the implants and the status of the cuff (continuity, degree of muscle trophicity, and fatty infiltration). A preoperative leucocyte count, sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein rates were requested in every revision case, even if a mechanical etiology was strongly suspected.
Continue to: REVISION PROCEDURE
REVISION PROCEDURE
All the implants that had been used in the primary TSAs were Arrow Universal Shoulder Prostheses (FH Orthopedics). All revisions were performed through the previous deltopectoral approach in the beach chair position under general anesthesia with an interscalene block. Adhesions of the deep part of the deltoid were carefully released. The conjoint tendon was released, and the location of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves was identified before any retractor was placed. In the 10 cases where the subscapularis was intact, it was peeled off the medial border of the bicipital groove to obtain sufficient length for a tension-free reinsertion.
The anatomical head of the humeral implant was disconnected from the stem and removed. All stems were found to be well fixed; there were no cases of loosening or evidence of infection. A circumferential capsular release was systematically carried out. The polyethylene glenoid onlay was then unlocked from the baseplate.
The quality of the fixation of the glenoid baseplate was systematically evaluated; no screw was found to be loose, and the fixation of all baseplates was stable. Therefore, there was no need to revise the glenoid baseplate, even when its position was considered excessively retroverted (Glenoid B2) or high. A glenosphere was impacted on the baseplate, and a polyethylene humeral bearing was then implanted on the humeral stem. The thinnest polyethylene bearing available (number 0) was chosen in all cases, and a size 36 glenosphere was chosen in 12 out of 13 cases. Intraoperative stability of the implant was satisfactory, and no impingement was found posteriorly, anteriorly, or inferiorly.
In one case, the humeral stem was a first-generation humeral implant which was not compatible with the new-generation humeral bearing, and the humeral stem had to be replaced.
In 2 cases, reduction of the RSA was either impossible or felt to be too tight, even after extensive soft-tissue release and resection of the remaining supraspinatus. The main reason for this was an excessively proud humeral stem because of an onlay polyethylene humeral bearing instead of an inlay design. However, removal of the uncemented humeral stem was always possible with no osteotomy or cortical window of the humeral shaft as the humeral stem has been designed with a bone ingrowth surface only on the metaphyseal part with a smooth surface on diaphyseal part. After removal of the stem, a small amount of humeral metaphysis was cut, and a new humeral stem was press-fit in a lower position. This allowed restoration of an appropriate tension of the soft tissue and, therefore, an easier reduction. The subscapularis was medialized and reinserted transosseously when possible with a double-row repair. In 3 cases, the subscapularis was torn and retracted at the level of the glenoid, or impossible to identify to allow its reinsertion.
Continue to: According to our infectious disease department...
According to our infectious disease department, we made a minimum of 5 cultures for each revision case looking for a possible low-grade infection. All cultures in our group are held for 14 days to assess for Propionibacterium acnes.
POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
A shoulder splint in neutral rotation was used for the first 4 weeks. Passive range of motion (ROM) was started immediately with pendulum exercises and passive anterior elevation. Active assisted and active ROM were allowed after 4 weeks, and physiotherapy was continued for 6 months. Elderly patients were referred to a center of rehabilitation. We found only 1 or 2 positive cultures (Propionibacterium acnes) for 4 patients, and we decided to consider them as a contamination. None of the patients were treated with antibiotics.
CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Clinical evaluation included pre- and postoperative pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), ROM, the Constant-Murley13 score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST),14 and the subjective shoulder value.15 Subjective satisfaction was assessed by asking the patients at follow-up how they felt compared with before surgery and was graded using a 4-point scale: 1, much better; 2, better; 3, the same; and 4, worse. Radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative standard anteroposterior, outlet, and axillary views. Radiographs were reviewed to determine the presence of glenohumeral subluxation, periprosthetic lucency, component shift in position, and scapular notching.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics are reported as mean (range) for continuous measures and number (percentage) for discrete variables. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for preoperative vs postoperative changes. The alpha level for all tests was set at 0.05 for statistical significance.
RESULTS
CLINICAL OUTCOME
At a mean of 22 months (range, 7-38 months) follow-up after revision, active ROM was significantly improved. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021). Active external rotation with the elbow on the side increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°) (P = 0.034), and increased with the arm held at 90° abduction from 13° (range, 0°-20°) to 49° (range, 0°-80°) (P = 0.025). Mean pain scores improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points (P < 0.001). VAS improved significantly from 9 to 1 (P < 0.0001). The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90) (P = 0.006). The final SST was 7 per 12. Subjectively, 4 patients rated their shoulder as much better, 8 as better, and 1 as the same as preoperatively. No intra- or postoperative complications, including infections, were observed. The mean duration of the procedure was 60 minutes (range, 30-75 minutes).
Continue to: RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
No periprosthetic lucency or shift in component was observed at the last follow-up. There was no scapular notching. No resorption of the tuberosities, and no fractures of the acromion or the scapular spine were observed.
DISCUSSION
In this retrospective study, failure of TSA with a metal-backed glenoid implant was successfully revised to RSA. In 10 patients, the use of a universal platform system allowed an easier conversion without removal of the humeral stem or the glenoid component (Figures 3A-3D). Twelve of the 13 patients were satisfied or very satisfied at the last follow-up. None of the patients were in pain, and the mean Constant score was 63. In all the cases, the glenoid baseplate was not changed. In 3 cases the humeral stem was changed without any fracture of the tuberosities of need for an osteotomy. This greatly simplified the revision procedure, as glenoid revisions can be very challenging. Indeed, it is often difficult to assess precisely preoperatively the remaining glenoid bone stock after removal of the glenoid component and the cement. Many therapeutic options to deal with glenoid loosening have been reported in the literature: glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a hemiarthroplasty (HA),10,16-18 glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a new TSA with a cemented glenoid implant,16,17,19,20 and glenoid reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a RSA.12,21 These authors reported that glenoid reconstruction frequently necessitates an iliac bone graft associated with a special design of the baseplate with a long post fixed into the native glenoid bone. However, sometimes implantation of an uncemented glenoid component can be unstable with a high risk of early mobilization of the implant, and 2 steps may be necessary. Conversion to a HA,10,16-18 or a TSA16,17,19,20 with a new cemented implant have both been associated with poor clinical outcome, with a high rate of recurrent glenoid loosening for the TSAs.
In our retrospective study, we reported no intra- or postoperative complications. Flury and colleagues22 reported a complication rate of 38% in 21 patients after conversion from a TSA to a RSA with a mean follow-up of 46 months. They removed all the components of the prosthesis with a crack or fracture of the humerus and/or the glenoid. Ortmaier and colleagues23 reported a rate of complication of 22.7% during the conversion of TSA to RSA. They did an osteotomy of the humeral diaphysis to extract the stem in 40% of cases and had to remove the glenoid cement in 86% of cases with severe damage of the glenoid bone in 10% of cases. Fewer complications were found in our study, as we did not need any procedure such as humeral osteotomy, cerclage, bone grafting, and/or reconstruction of the glenoid. The short operative time and the absence of extensive soft-tissue dissection, thanks to a standard deltopectoral approach, could explain the absence of infection in our series.
Other authors shared our strategy of a universal convertible system and reported their results in the literature. Castagna and colleagues24 in 2013 reported the clinical and radiological results of conversions of HA or TSA to RSA using a modular, convertible system (SMR Shoulder System, Lima Corporate). In their series, only 8 cases of TSAs were converted to RSA. They preserved, in each case, the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. The mean VAS score decreased from 8 to 2. Weber-Spickschen and colleague25 reported recently in 2015 the same experience with the same system (SMR Shoulder System). They reviewed 15 conversions of TSAs to RSAs without any removal of the implants at a mean 43-month follow-up. They reported excellent pain relief (VAS decreased from 8 to 1) and improvement in shoulder function with a low rate of complications.
Kany and colleagues26 in 2015 had already reported the advantages of a shoulder platform system for revisions. In their series, the authors included cases of failure of HAs and TSAs with loose cemented glenoids and metal-backed glenoids. The clinical and radiological results were similar, with a final Constant score of 60 (range, 42-85) and a similar rate of humeral stems which had to be changed (24%). These stems were replaced either because they were too proud or because there was not enough space to add an onlay polyethylene socket.
Continue to: Despite the encouraging results...
Despite the encouraging results reported in this study, there are some limitations. Firstly, no control group was used. Attempting to address this issue, we compared our results with the literature. Secondly, the number of patients in our study was small. Finally, the follow-up duration (mean 22 months) did not provide long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function. A platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side reduces the operative time of the conversion with a low risk of complications.
1. Brenner BC, Ferlic DC, Clayton ML, Dennis DA. Survivorship of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(9):1289-1296.
2. Budge MD, Nolan EM, Heisey MH, Baker K, Wiater JM. Results of total shoulder arthroplasty with a monoblock porous tantalum glenoid component: a prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):535-541. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.001.
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(1):19-22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.05.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(4):603-616.
6. Gohlke F, Rolf O. Revision of failed fracture hemiarthroplasties to reverse total shoulder prosthesis through the transhumeral approach: method incorporating a pectoralis-major-pedicled bone window. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19(2):185-208. doi:10.1007/s00064-007-1202-x.
7. Goldberg SH, Cohen MS, Young M, Bradnock B. Thermal tissue damage caused by ultrasonic cement removal from the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):583-591. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01966.
8. Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Humeral windows in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):258-263. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.004.
9. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
11. Kelly JD 2nd, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
12. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
13. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164.
14. Matsen FA 3rd, Ziegler DW, DeBartolo SE. Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(5):345-351.
15. Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):717-721. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123.
16. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
17. Cofield RH, Edgerton BC. Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect. 1990;39:449-462.
18. Neyton L, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Edwards TB. Glenoid corticocancellous bone grafting after glenoid component removal in the treatment of glenoid loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.010.
19. Bonnevialle N, Melis B, Neyton L, et al. Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):745-751. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.009.
20. Rodosky MW, Bigliani LU. Indications for glenoid resurfacing in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(3):231-248.
21. Bateman E, Donald SM. Reconstruction of massive uncontained glenoid defects using a combined autograft-allograft construct with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: preliminary results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):925-934. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.009.
22. Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure--midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):53-60. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z.
23. Ortmaier R, Resch H, Hitzl W, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with latissimus dorsi transfer using the bone-chip technique. Int Orthop. 2013;38(3):1-7. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2139-3.
24. Castagna A, Delcogliano M, de Caro F, et al. Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: clinical and radiological results using a modular system. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1297-1305. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1907-4.
25. Weber-Spickschen TS, Alfke D, Agneskirchner JD. The use of a modular system to convert an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Clinical and radiological results. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1662-1667. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.35176.
26. Kany J, Amouyel T, Flamand O, Katz D, Valenti P. A convertible shoulder system: is it useful in total shoulder arthroplasty revisions? Int Orthop. 2015;39(2):299-304. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2563-z.
ABSTRACT
Removal of a cemented glenoid component often leads to massive glenoid bone loss, which makes it difficult to implant a new glenoid baseplate. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with a completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 13 (average age, 64 years) were revised to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study. Average follow-up after revision was 22 months. Outcome measures included pain, range of motion, Constant-Murley scores, Simple Shoulder Tests, and subjective shoulder values. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021), and active external rotation increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°). Mean pain scores significantly improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points. The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90). Subjectively, 12 patients rated their shoulder as better or much better than preoperatively. This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function.
Continue to: Polyethylene glenoid components...
Polyethylene glenoid components are the gold standard in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). However, even though TSA survivorship exceeds 95% at 10-year follow-up,1 glenoid component loosening remains the main complication and the weak link in these implants. This complication accounts for 25% of all complications related to TSA in the literature.2 In most cases, glenoid component loosening is not isolated but combined with a rotator cuff tear, glenohumeral instability, or component malposition.
We hypothesized that a completely convertible platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side could facilitate the revision of a failed TSA to a RSA. This would enable the surgeon to leave the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate in place, avoiding the difficulty of stem removal and the reimplantation of a glenoid component, especially in osteoporotic glenoid bone and elderly patients. The revision procedure would then only consist of replacing the humeral head by a metallic tray and polyethylene bearing on the humeral side and by impacting a glenosphere on the glenoid baseplate (Figures 2A, 2B).
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with this completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PATIENT SELECTION
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary TSAs were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 18 underwent revision (17.3%). Among these 18 patients, 13 were revised to RSA using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study, while 5 patients were revised to another TSA (2 dissociations of the polyethylene glenoid implant, 2 excessively low implantations of the glenoid baseplate, and 1 glenoid loosening). The mean age of the 13 patients (9 women, 4 men) included in this retrospective study at the time of revision was 64 years (range, 50-75 years). The reasons for revision surgery were rotator cuff tear (5, among which 2 were posterosuperior tears, and 3 were tears of the subscapularis), dislocations (5 posterior and 1 anterior, among which 4 had a B2 or C glenoid), suprascapular nerve paralysis (1), and dissociation of the polyethylene (1). The initial TSA was indicated for primary osteoarthritis with a normal cuff (9), primary osteoarthritis with a reparable cuff tear (2), posttraumatic osteoarthritis (1), and chronic dislocation (1). The right dominant shoulder was involved in 10 cases. The mean time interval between the primary TSA and the revision was 15 months (range, 1-61 months).
OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Revision of a failed TSA is always a difficult challenge, and evaluation of bone loss on both the humeral and the glenoid sides, as well as the status of the cuff, is mandatory, even with a completely convertible arthroplasty system. The surgeon must be prepared to remove the humeral stem in case reduction of the joint is impossible. We systematically performed standard radiographs (anteroposterior, axillary, and outlet views) and computed tomography (CT) scans in order to assess both the version and positioning, as well as potential signs of loosening of the implants and the status of the cuff (continuity, degree of muscle trophicity, and fatty infiltration). A preoperative leucocyte count, sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein rates were requested in every revision case, even if a mechanical etiology was strongly suspected.
Continue to: REVISION PROCEDURE
REVISION PROCEDURE
All the implants that had been used in the primary TSAs were Arrow Universal Shoulder Prostheses (FH Orthopedics). All revisions were performed through the previous deltopectoral approach in the beach chair position under general anesthesia with an interscalene block. Adhesions of the deep part of the deltoid were carefully released. The conjoint tendon was released, and the location of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves was identified before any retractor was placed. In the 10 cases where the subscapularis was intact, it was peeled off the medial border of the bicipital groove to obtain sufficient length for a tension-free reinsertion.
The anatomical head of the humeral implant was disconnected from the stem and removed. All stems were found to be well fixed; there were no cases of loosening or evidence of infection. A circumferential capsular release was systematically carried out. The polyethylene glenoid onlay was then unlocked from the baseplate.
The quality of the fixation of the glenoid baseplate was systematically evaluated; no screw was found to be loose, and the fixation of all baseplates was stable. Therefore, there was no need to revise the glenoid baseplate, even when its position was considered excessively retroverted (Glenoid B2) or high. A glenosphere was impacted on the baseplate, and a polyethylene humeral bearing was then implanted on the humeral stem. The thinnest polyethylene bearing available (number 0) was chosen in all cases, and a size 36 glenosphere was chosen in 12 out of 13 cases. Intraoperative stability of the implant was satisfactory, and no impingement was found posteriorly, anteriorly, or inferiorly.
In one case, the humeral stem was a first-generation humeral implant which was not compatible with the new-generation humeral bearing, and the humeral stem had to be replaced.
In 2 cases, reduction of the RSA was either impossible or felt to be too tight, even after extensive soft-tissue release and resection of the remaining supraspinatus. The main reason for this was an excessively proud humeral stem because of an onlay polyethylene humeral bearing instead of an inlay design. However, removal of the uncemented humeral stem was always possible with no osteotomy or cortical window of the humeral shaft as the humeral stem has been designed with a bone ingrowth surface only on the metaphyseal part with a smooth surface on diaphyseal part. After removal of the stem, a small amount of humeral metaphysis was cut, and a new humeral stem was press-fit in a lower position. This allowed restoration of an appropriate tension of the soft tissue and, therefore, an easier reduction. The subscapularis was medialized and reinserted transosseously when possible with a double-row repair. In 3 cases, the subscapularis was torn and retracted at the level of the glenoid, or impossible to identify to allow its reinsertion.
Continue to: According to our infectious disease department...
According to our infectious disease department, we made a minimum of 5 cultures for each revision case looking for a possible low-grade infection. All cultures in our group are held for 14 days to assess for Propionibacterium acnes.
POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
A shoulder splint in neutral rotation was used for the first 4 weeks. Passive range of motion (ROM) was started immediately with pendulum exercises and passive anterior elevation. Active assisted and active ROM were allowed after 4 weeks, and physiotherapy was continued for 6 months. Elderly patients were referred to a center of rehabilitation. We found only 1 or 2 positive cultures (Propionibacterium acnes) for 4 patients, and we decided to consider them as a contamination. None of the patients were treated with antibiotics.
CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Clinical evaluation included pre- and postoperative pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), ROM, the Constant-Murley13 score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST),14 and the subjective shoulder value.15 Subjective satisfaction was assessed by asking the patients at follow-up how they felt compared with before surgery and was graded using a 4-point scale: 1, much better; 2, better; 3, the same; and 4, worse. Radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative standard anteroposterior, outlet, and axillary views. Radiographs were reviewed to determine the presence of glenohumeral subluxation, periprosthetic lucency, component shift in position, and scapular notching.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics are reported as mean (range) for continuous measures and number (percentage) for discrete variables. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for preoperative vs postoperative changes. The alpha level for all tests was set at 0.05 for statistical significance.
RESULTS
CLINICAL OUTCOME
At a mean of 22 months (range, 7-38 months) follow-up after revision, active ROM was significantly improved. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021). Active external rotation with the elbow on the side increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°) (P = 0.034), and increased with the arm held at 90° abduction from 13° (range, 0°-20°) to 49° (range, 0°-80°) (P = 0.025). Mean pain scores improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points (P < 0.001). VAS improved significantly from 9 to 1 (P < 0.0001). The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90) (P = 0.006). The final SST was 7 per 12. Subjectively, 4 patients rated their shoulder as much better, 8 as better, and 1 as the same as preoperatively. No intra- or postoperative complications, including infections, were observed. The mean duration of the procedure was 60 minutes (range, 30-75 minutes).
Continue to: RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
No periprosthetic lucency or shift in component was observed at the last follow-up. There was no scapular notching. No resorption of the tuberosities, and no fractures of the acromion or the scapular spine were observed.
DISCUSSION
In this retrospective study, failure of TSA with a metal-backed glenoid implant was successfully revised to RSA. In 10 patients, the use of a universal platform system allowed an easier conversion without removal of the humeral stem or the glenoid component (Figures 3A-3D). Twelve of the 13 patients were satisfied or very satisfied at the last follow-up. None of the patients were in pain, and the mean Constant score was 63. In all the cases, the glenoid baseplate was not changed. In 3 cases the humeral stem was changed without any fracture of the tuberosities of need for an osteotomy. This greatly simplified the revision procedure, as glenoid revisions can be very challenging. Indeed, it is often difficult to assess precisely preoperatively the remaining glenoid bone stock after removal of the glenoid component and the cement. Many therapeutic options to deal with glenoid loosening have been reported in the literature: glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a hemiarthroplasty (HA),10,16-18 glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a new TSA with a cemented glenoid implant,16,17,19,20 and glenoid reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a RSA.12,21 These authors reported that glenoid reconstruction frequently necessitates an iliac bone graft associated with a special design of the baseplate with a long post fixed into the native glenoid bone. However, sometimes implantation of an uncemented glenoid component can be unstable with a high risk of early mobilization of the implant, and 2 steps may be necessary. Conversion to a HA,10,16-18 or a TSA16,17,19,20 with a new cemented implant have both been associated with poor clinical outcome, with a high rate of recurrent glenoid loosening for the TSAs.
In our retrospective study, we reported no intra- or postoperative complications. Flury and colleagues22 reported a complication rate of 38% in 21 patients after conversion from a TSA to a RSA with a mean follow-up of 46 months. They removed all the components of the prosthesis with a crack or fracture of the humerus and/or the glenoid. Ortmaier and colleagues23 reported a rate of complication of 22.7% during the conversion of TSA to RSA. They did an osteotomy of the humeral diaphysis to extract the stem in 40% of cases and had to remove the glenoid cement in 86% of cases with severe damage of the glenoid bone in 10% of cases. Fewer complications were found in our study, as we did not need any procedure such as humeral osteotomy, cerclage, bone grafting, and/or reconstruction of the glenoid. The short operative time and the absence of extensive soft-tissue dissection, thanks to a standard deltopectoral approach, could explain the absence of infection in our series.
Other authors shared our strategy of a universal convertible system and reported their results in the literature. Castagna and colleagues24 in 2013 reported the clinical and radiological results of conversions of HA or TSA to RSA using a modular, convertible system (SMR Shoulder System, Lima Corporate). In their series, only 8 cases of TSAs were converted to RSA. They preserved, in each case, the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. The mean VAS score decreased from 8 to 2. Weber-Spickschen and colleague25 reported recently in 2015 the same experience with the same system (SMR Shoulder System). They reviewed 15 conversions of TSAs to RSAs without any removal of the implants at a mean 43-month follow-up. They reported excellent pain relief (VAS decreased from 8 to 1) and improvement in shoulder function with a low rate of complications.
Kany and colleagues26 in 2015 had already reported the advantages of a shoulder platform system for revisions. In their series, the authors included cases of failure of HAs and TSAs with loose cemented glenoids and metal-backed glenoids. The clinical and radiological results were similar, with a final Constant score of 60 (range, 42-85) and a similar rate of humeral stems which had to be changed (24%). These stems were replaced either because they were too proud or because there was not enough space to add an onlay polyethylene socket.
Continue to: Despite the encouraging results...
Despite the encouraging results reported in this study, there are some limitations. Firstly, no control group was used. Attempting to address this issue, we compared our results with the literature. Secondly, the number of patients in our study was small. Finally, the follow-up duration (mean 22 months) did not provide long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function. A platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side reduces the operative time of the conversion with a low risk of complications.
ABSTRACT
Removal of a cemented glenoid component often leads to massive glenoid bone loss, which makes it difficult to implant a new glenoid baseplate. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with a completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 13 (average age, 64 years) were revised to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study. Average follow-up after revision was 22 months. Outcome measures included pain, range of motion, Constant-Murley scores, Simple Shoulder Tests, and subjective shoulder values. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021), and active external rotation increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°). Mean pain scores significantly improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points. The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90). Subjectively, 12 patients rated their shoulder as better or much better than preoperatively. This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function.
Continue to: Polyethylene glenoid components...
Polyethylene glenoid components are the gold standard in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). However, even though TSA survivorship exceeds 95% at 10-year follow-up,1 glenoid component loosening remains the main complication and the weak link in these implants. This complication accounts for 25% of all complications related to TSA in the literature.2 In most cases, glenoid component loosening is not isolated but combined with a rotator cuff tear, glenohumeral instability, or component malposition.
We hypothesized that a completely convertible platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side could facilitate the revision of a failed TSA to a RSA. This would enable the surgeon to leave the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate in place, avoiding the difficulty of stem removal and the reimplantation of a glenoid component, especially in osteoporotic glenoid bone and elderly patients. The revision procedure would then only consist of replacing the humeral head by a metallic tray and polyethylene bearing on the humeral side and by impacting a glenosphere on the glenoid baseplate (Figures 2A, 2B).
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of revisions with this completely convertible system and to report clinical and radiographic results of a retrospective review of 13 cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PATIENT SELECTION
Between 2003 and 2011, 104 primary TSAs were performed with an uncemented glenoid component in our group. Of these patients, 18 underwent revision (17.3%). Among these 18 patients, 13 were revised to RSA using a modular convertible platform system and were included in this study, while 5 patients were revised to another TSA (2 dissociations of the polyethylene glenoid implant, 2 excessively low implantations of the glenoid baseplate, and 1 glenoid loosening). The mean age of the 13 patients (9 women, 4 men) included in this retrospective study at the time of revision was 64 years (range, 50-75 years). The reasons for revision surgery were rotator cuff tear (5, among which 2 were posterosuperior tears, and 3 were tears of the subscapularis), dislocations (5 posterior and 1 anterior, among which 4 had a B2 or C glenoid), suprascapular nerve paralysis (1), and dissociation of the polyethylene (1). The initial TSA was indicated for primary osteoarthritis with a normal cuff (9), primary osteoarthritis with a reparable cuff tear (2), posttraumatic osteoarthritis (1), and chronic dislocation (1). The right dominant shoulder was involved in 10 cases. The mean time interval between the primary TSA and the revision was 15 months (range, 1-61 months).
OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE
PREOPERATIVE PLANNING
Revision of a failed TSA is always a difficult challenge, and evaluation of bone loss on both the humeral and the glenoid sides, as well as the status of the cuff, is mandatory, even with a completely convertible arthroplasty system. The surgeon must be prepared to remove the humeral stem in case reduction of the joint is impossible. We systematically performed standard radiographs (anteroposterior, axillary, and outlet views) and computed tomography (CT) scans in order to assess both the version and positioning, as well as potential signs of loosening of the implants and the status of the cuff (continuity, degree of muscle trophicity, and fatty infiltration). A preoperative leucocyte count, sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein rates were requested in every revision case, even if a mechanical etiology was strongly suspected.
Continue to: REVISION PROCEDURE
REVISION PROCEDURE
All the implants that had been used in the primary TSAs were Arrow Universal Shoulder Prostheses (FH Orthopedics). All revisions were performed through the previous deltopectoral approach in the beach chair position under general anesthesia with an interscalene block. Adhesions of the deep part of the deltoid were carefully released. The conjoint tendon was released, and the location of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves was identified before any retractor was placed. In the 10 cases where the subscapularis was intact, it was peeled off the medial border of the bicipital groove to obtain sufficient length for a tension-free reinsertion.
The anatomical head of the humeral implant was disconnected from the stem and removed. All stems were found to be well fixed; there were no cases of loosening or evidence of infection. A circumferential capsular release was systematically carried out. The polyethylene glenoid onlay was then unlocked from the baseplate.
The quality of the fixation of the glenoid baseplate was systematically evaluated; no screw was found to be loose, and the fixation of all baseplates was stable. Therefore, there was no need to revise the glenoid baseplate, even when its position was considered excessively retroverted (Glenoid B2) or high. A glenosphere was impacted on the baseplate, and a polyethylene humeral bearing was then implanted on the humeral stem. The thinnest polyethylene bearing available (number 0) was chosen in all cases, and a size 36 glenosphere was chosen in 12 out of 13 cases. Intraoperative stability of the implant was satisfactory, and no impingement was found posteriorly, anteriorly, or inferiorly.
In one case, the humeral stem was a first-generation humeral implant which was not compatible with the new-generation humeral bearing, and the humeral stem had to be replaced.
In 2 cases, reduction of the RSA was either impossible or felt to be too tight, even after extensive soft-tissue release and resection of the remaining supraspinatus. The main reason for this was an excessively proud humeral stem because of an onlay polyethylene humeral bearing instead of an inlay design. However, removal of the uncemented humeral stem was always possible with no osteotomy or cortical window of the humeral shaft as the humeral stem has been designed with a bone ingrowth surface only on the metaphyseal part with a smooth surface on diaphyseal part. After removal of the stem, a small amount of humeral metaphysis was cut, and a new humeral stem was press-fit in a lower position. This allowed restoration of an appropriate tension of the soft tissue and, therefore, an easier reduction. The subscapularis was medialized and reinserted transosseously when possible with a double-row repair. In 3 cases, the subscapularis was torn and retracted at the level of the glenoid, or impossible to identify to allow its reinsertion.
Continue to: According to our infectious disease department...
According to our infectious disease department, we made a minimum of 5 cultures for each revision case looking for a possible low-grade infection. All cultures in our group are held for 14 days to assess for Propionibacterium acnes.
POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
A shoulder splint in neutral rotation was used for the first 4 weeks. Passive range of motion (ROM) was started immediately with pendulum exercises and passive anterior elevation. Active assisted and active ROM were allowed after 4 weeks, and physiotherapy was continued for 6 months. Elderly patients were referred to a center of rehabilitation. We found only 1 or 2 positive cultures (Propionibacterium acnes) for 4 patients, and we decided to consider them as a contamination. None of the patients were treated with antibiotics.
CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Clinical evaluation included pre- and postoperative pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), ROM, the Constant-Murley13 score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST),14 and the subjective shoulder value.15 Subjective satisfaction was assessed by asking the patients at follow-up how they felt compared with before surgery and was graded using a 4-point scale: 1, much better; 2, better; 3, the same; and 4, worse. Radiographic evaluation was performed on pre- and postoperative standard anteroposterior, outlet, and axillary views. Radiographs were reviewed to determine the presence of glenohumeral subluxation, periprosthetic lucency, component shift in position, and scapular notching.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics are reported as mean (range) for continuous measures and number (percentage) for discrete variables. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for preoperative vs postoperative changes. The alpha level for all tests was set at 0.05 for statistical significance.
RESULTS
CLINICAL OUTCOME
At a mean of 22 months (range, 7-38 months) follow-up after revision, active ROM was significantly improved. Active flexion increased significantly from a mean of 93° (range, 30°-120°) to 138° (range, 95°-170°) (P = 0.021). Active external rotation with the elbow on the side increased significantly from 8° (range, −20°-15°) to 25° (range, −10°-60°) (P = 0.034), and increased with the arm held at 90° abduction from 13° (range, 0°-20°) to 49° (range, 0°-80°) (P = 0.025). Mean pain scores improved from 4.2 to 13.3 points (P < 0.001). VAS improved significantly from 9 to 1 (P < 0.0001). The mean Constant Scores improved from 21 (range, 18-32) to 63 (range, 43-90) (P = 0.006). The final SST was 7 per 12. Subjectively, 4 patients rated their shoulder as much better, 8 as better, and 1 as the same as preoperatively. No intra- or postoperative complications, including infections, were observed. The mean duration of the procedure was 60 minutes (range, 30-75 minutes).
Continue to: RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
RADIOLOGICAL OUTCOME
No periprosthetic lucency or shift in component was observed at the last follow-up. There was no scapular notching. No resorption of the tuberosities, and no fractures of the acromion or the scapular spine were observed.
DISCUSSION
In this retrospective study, failure of TSA with a metal-backed glenoid implant was successfully revised to RSA. In 10 patients, the use of a universal platform system allowed an easier conversion without removal of the humeral stem or the glenoid component (Figures 3A-3D). Twelve of the 13 patients were satisfied or very satisfied at the last follow-up. None of the patients were in pain, and the mean Constant score was 63. In all the cases, the glenoid baseplate was not changed. In 3 cases the humeral stem was changed without any fracture of the tuberosities of need for an osteotomy. This greatly simplified the revision procedure, as glenoid revisions can be very challenging. Indeed, it is often difficult to assess precisely preoperatively the remaining glenoid bone stock after removal of the glenoid component and the cement. Many therapeutic options to deal with glenoid loosening have been reported in the literature: glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a hemiarthroplasty (HA),10,16-18 glenoid bone reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a new TSA with a cemented glenoid implant,16,17,19,20 and glenoid reconstruction after glenoid component removal and revision to a RSA.12,21 These authors reported that glenoid reconstruction frequently necessitates an iliac bone graft associated with a special design of the baseplate with a long post fixed into the native glenoid bone. However, sometimes implantation of an uncemented glenoid component can be unstable with a high risk of early mobilization of the implant, and 2 steps may be necessary. Conversion to a HA,10,16-18 or a TSA16,17,19,20 with a new cemented implant have both been associated with poor clinical outcome, with a high rate of recurrent glenoid loosening for the TSAs.
In our retrospective study, we reported no intra- or postoperative complications. Flury and colleagues22 reported a complication rate of 38% in 21 patients after conversion from a TSA to a RSA with a mean follow-up of 46 months. They removed all the components of the prosthesis with a crack or fracture of the humerus and/or the glenoid. Ortmaier and colleagues23 reported a rate of complication of 22.7% during the conversion of TSA to RSA. They did an osteotomy of the humeral diaphysis to extract the stem in 40% of cases and had to remove the glenoid cement in 86% of cases with severe damage of the glenoid bone in 10% of cases. Fewer complications were found in our study, as we did not need any procedure such as humeral osteotomy, cerclage, bone grafting, and/or reconstruction of the glenoid. The short operative time and the absence of extensive soft-tissue dissection, thanks to a standard deltopectoral approach, could explain the absence of infection in our series.
Other authors shared our strategy of a universal convertible system and reported their results in the literature. Castagna and colleagues24 in 2013 reported the clinical and radiological results of conversions of HA or TSA to RSA using a modular, convertible system (SMR Shoulder System, Lima Corporate). In their series, only 8 cases of TSAs were converted to RSA. They preserved, in each case, the humeral stem and the glenoid baseplate. There were no intra- or postoperative complications. The mean VAS score decreased from 8 to 2. Weber-Spickschen and colleague25 reported recently in 2015 the same experience with the same system (SMR Shoulder System). They reviewed 15 conversions of TSAs to RSAs without any removal of the implants at a mean 43-month follow-up. They reported excellent pain relief (VAS decreased from 8 to 1) and improvement in shoulder function with a low rate of complications.
Kany and colleagues26 in 2015 had already reported the advantages of a shoulder platform system for revisions. In their series, the authors included cases of failure of HAs and TSAs with loose cemented glenoids and metal-backed glenoids. The clinical and radiological results were similar, with a final Constant score of 60 (range, 42-85) and a similar rate of humeral stems which had to be changed (24%). These stems were replaced either because they were too proud or because there was not enough space to add an onlay polyethylene socket.
Continue to: Despite the encouraging results...
Despite the encouraging results reported in this study, there are some limitations. Firstly, no control group was used. Attempting to address this issue, we compared our results with the literature. Secondly, the number of patients in our study was small. Finally, the follow-up duration (mean 22 months) did not provide long-term outcomes.
CONCLUSION
This retrospective study shows that a complete convertible system facilitates conversion of TSAs to RSAs with excellent pain relief and a significant improvement in shoulder function. A platform system on both the humeral and the glenoid side reduces the operative time of the conversion with a low risk of complications.
1. Brenner BC, Ferlic DC, Clayton ML, Dennis DA. Survivorship of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(9):1289-1296.
2. Budge MD, Nolan EM, Heisey MH, Baker K, Wiater JM. Results of total shoulder arthroplasty with a monoblock porous tantalum glenoid component: a prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):535-541. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.001.
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(1):19-22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.05.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(4):603-616.
6. Gohlke F, Rolf O. Revision of failed fracture hemiarthroplasties to reverse total shoulder prosthesis through the transhumeral approach: method incorporating a pectoralis-major-pedicled bone window. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19(2):185-208. doi:10.1007/s00064-007-1202-x.
7. Goldberg SH, Cohen MS, Young M, Bradnock B. Thermal tissue damage caused by ultrasonic cement removal from the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):583-591. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01966.
8. Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Humeral windows in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):258-263. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.004.
9. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
11. Kelly JD 2nd, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
12. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
13. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164.
14. Matsen FA 3rd, Ziegler DW, DeBartolo SE. Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(5):345-351.
15. Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):717-721. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123.
16. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
17. Cofield RH, Edgerton BC. Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect. 1990;39:449-462.
18. Neyton L, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Edwards TB. Glenoid corticocancellous bone grafting after glenoid component removal in the treatment of glenoid loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.010.
19. Bonnevialle N, Melis B, Neyton L, et al. Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):745-751. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.009.
20. Rodosky MW, Bigliani LU. Indications for glenoid resurfacing in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(3):231-248.
21. Bateman E, Donald SM. Reconstruction of massive uncontained glenoid defects using a combined autograft-allograft construct with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: preliminary results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):925-934. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.009.
22. Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure--midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):53-60. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z.
23. Ortmaier R, Resch H, Hitzl W, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with latissimus dorsi transfer using the bone-chip technique. Int Orthop. 2013;38(3):1-7. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2139-3.
24. Castagna A, Delcogliano M, de Caro F, et al. Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: clinical and radiological results using a modular system. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1297-1305. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1907-4.
25. Weber-Spickschen TS, Alfke D, Agneskirchner JD. The use of a modular system to convert an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Clinical and radiological results. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1662-1667. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.35176.
26. Kany J, Amouyel T, Flamand O, Katz D, Valenti P. A convertible shoulder system: is it useful in total shoulder arthroplasty revisions? Int Orthop. 2015;39(2):299-304. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2563-z.
1. Brenner BC, Ferlic DC, Clayton ML, Dennis DA. Survivorship of unconstrained total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(9):1289-1296.
2. Budge MD, Nolan EM, Heisey MH, Baker K, Wiater JM. Results of total shoulder arthroplasty with a monoblock porous tantalum glenoid component: a prospective minimum 2-year follow-up study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):535-541. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.06.001.
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(1):19-22. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.05.005.
4. Torchia ME, Cofield RH, Settergren CR. Total shoulder arthroplasty with the Neer prosthesis: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(6):495-505.
5. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr. Complications of total shoulder-replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(4):603-616.
6. Gohlke F, Rolf O. Revision of failed fracture hemiarthroplasties to reverse total shoulder prosthesis through the transhumeral approach: method incorporating a pectoralis-major-pedicled bone window. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2007;19(2):185-208. doi:10.1007/s00064-007-1202-x.
7. Goldberg SH, Cohen MS, Young M, Bradnock B. Thermal tissue damage caused by ultrasonic cement removal from the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(3):583-591. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.01966.
8. Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Humeral windows in revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(3):258-263. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.004.
9. Chacon A, Virani N, Shannon R, Levy JC, Pupello D, Frankle M. Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):119-127. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00094.
10. Iannotti JP, Frangiamore SJ. Fate of large structural allograft for treatment of severe uncontained glenoid bone deficiency. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(6):765-771. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.069.
11. Kelly JD 2nd, Zhao JX, Hobgood ER, Norris TR. Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty using the reverse prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(11):1516-1525. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.021.
12. Melis B, Bonnevialle N, Neyton L, et al. Glenoid loosening and failure in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty: is revision with a reverse shoulder arthroplasty a reliable option? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(3):342-349. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.05.021.
13. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160-164.
14. Matsen FA 3rd, Ziegler DW, DeBartolo SE. Patient self-assessment of health status and function in glenohumeral degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(5):345-351.
15. Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the Constant score. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(6):717-721. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.02.123.
16. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.113961.
17. Cofield RH, Edgerton BC. Total shoulder arthroplasty: complications and revision surgery. Instr Course Lect. 1990;39:449-462.
18. Neyton L, Walch G, Nove-Josserand L, Edwards TB. Glenoid corticocancellous bone grafting after glenoid component removal in the treatment of glenoid loosening. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(2):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.07.010.
19. Bonnevialle N, Melis B, Neyton L, et al. Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(6):745-751. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.08.009.
20. Rodosky MW, Bigliani LU. Indications for glenoid resurfacing in shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(3):231-248.
21. Bateman E, Donald SM. Reconstruction of massive uncontained glenoid defects using a combined autograft-allograft construct with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: preliminary results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(7):925-934. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.009.
22. Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure--midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):53-60. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z.
23. Ortmaier R, Resch H, Hitzl W, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with latissimus dorsi transfer using the bone-chip technique. Int Orthop. 2013;38(3):1-7. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2139-3.
24. Castagna A, Delcogliano M, de Caro F, et al. Conversion of shoulder arthroplasty to reverse implants: clinical and radiological results using a modular system. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1297-1305. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1907-4.
25. Weber-Spickschen TS, Alfke D, Agneskirchner JD. The use of a modular system to convert an anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty: Clinical and radiological results. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1662-1667. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.35176.
26. Kany J, Amouyel T, Flamand O, Katz D, Valenti P. A convertible shoulder system: is it useful in total shoulder arthroplasty revisions? Int Orthop. 2015;39(2):299-304. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2563-z.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Full polyethylene is the gold standard, but the revision of glenoid loosening leads a difficult reconstruction of a glenoid bone.
- A complete convertible system facilitates the revision and decreases the rate of complications.
- The functional and subjective results of the revision are good.
- During the revision, the metalback was well fixed without any sign of loosening.
- In 3 cases the humeral stem was changed; in 2 cases there was no space to reduce (onlay system) and in 1 case it was an older design, nonadapted.
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Bone-Sparing, Precision Multiplanar Humeral Prosthesis
ABSTRACT
Proper reconstruction of proximal humeral anatomy is of primary importance to maximize patient outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty. This article describes a new arthroplasty technique, where a fixed multiplanar bone resection is made and a novel implant, which is designed to precisely match the bone resection, is inserted.
Continue to: The success of total shoulder arthroplasty...
The success of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is largely dependent on how accurate the proximal humeral anatomy is reconstructed and the glenohumeral relationships are restored.1-4 Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship of worse clinical outcomes and implant failure with nonanatomic implant placement.5-8 The majority of arthroplasty systems rely on surgeon-dependent decision-making to determine the location of the border of the articular surface and, ultimately, the amount and location of bone to be resected. Even in experienced hands, the ability to reproducibly restore the joint line is inconsistent.3
In contrast, the majority of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems have been designed with instrumentation that guides the surgeon precisely regarding where and how much femoral bone must be resected, and the corresponding implant is designed with the same thickness to preserve the location of the joint line. Cutting block instrumentation rather than freehand cuts enables reproducibility of TKA while being performed for an estimated 700,000 times annually in the US.9
To achieve similar high levels of reproducibility in shoulder arthroplasty, a new technique was developed based on the principle of providing instrumentation to assist the surgeon in accurately restoring the proximal humeral joint line. This technical article describes the technique of using a multiplanar instrumented cutting system and matching implants to perform TSA. The technique shown was previously studied and was found to allow surgeons to recreate the original anatomy of the humerus with very high precision.10
The humeral prosthesis described in this article has an articular surface that is slightly elliptical to more closely match the actual shape of the humerus bone.11 Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that implants designed with a nonspherical shape have more similar motion and kinematics to those of the native humeral head.
This provides rotation stability, and the implant rests on the strong subchondral bone of the proximal humerus proximal to the anatomic neck rather than relying on metaphyseal bone or canal fixation, as recommended by Aldoiusti.13 It also allows optimal implant placement with complete freedom with respect to inclination, version, and medial/posterior offset from the humeral canal.
Continue to: The implant respects the relationship...
The implant respects the relationship of the rotator cuff insertion and has a recessed superior margin to keep both the implant and the saw blade 3 mm to 5 mm away from the supraspinatus fibers to protect the rotator cuff from iatrogenic injury.
TECHNIQUE
The technique described in this article uses the Catalyst CSR Total Shoulder System (Catalyst OrthoScience), which was cleared to treat arthritis of the shoulder by the US Food and Drug Administration in May 2016.
A standard deltopectoral incision is made, and the surgeon dissects the interval between the pectoralis major medially and the deltoid laterally. The subscapularis can be incised by tenotomy; alternatively, the surgeon can perform a subscapularis peel or a lesser tuberosity osteotomy using this technique.
Once the glenohumeral joint is exposed, the surgeon delivers the humeral head anteriorly. A preferred method is to place a Darrach retractor between the humeral head and the glenoid, and a cobra or a second Darrach retractor behind the superolateral humeral head superficial to the supraspinatus tendon. By simultaneously pressing on both retractors and externally rotating the patient’s arm, the humeral head is delivered anteriorly. Osteophytes on the anterior and inferior edge of the humeral head are generously removed at this time using a rongeur.
Using a pin guide, the long 3.2-mm guidewire pin is drilled under power into the center of the articular surface. The pin guide is then removed, leaving the pin in the center of the humerus (Figure 3).
Continue to: Next, the surgeon...
Next, the surgeon slides the cannulated reamer over the long guidewire pin and under power removes a small portion of the humeral head subchondral bone until the surgeon feels and observes that the reamer is no longer removing bone (Figure 4). The patent-pending reamer design prevents the surgeon from removing more than a few millimeters of bone, after which point the reamer spins on the surface of the bone without resecting further.
The surgeon is aware that the reamer has achieved its desired depth when it is no longer creating new bone shavings, and the surgeon can hear and feel that the reamer is spinning and no longer cutting. Then the surgeon removes the reamer.
The surgeon places the first humeral cut guide over the long guidewire pin, oriented superiorly-inferiorly and secures the guide using 4 short pins, and the long pin is removed. The surgeon uses an oscillating saw to cut the anterior and posterior plane cuts through the saw captures in the cut guide (Figure 5). The humeral cut guide and short pins are removed (Figure 6).
The surgeon then applies the second humeral cut guide to the proximal humerus and secures it using 2 short pins. The surgeon then uses the 6-mm drill to drill the 4 holes for the pegs of the implant. The top portion of the guide is removed, and the surgeon makes the superior and inferior cuts along the top and bottom surfaces of the guide using an oscillating saw (Figure 7).
The surgeon then uses a rongeur to slightly round the edges of the 4 corners at the periphery of the humerus. The second humeral cut guide and short pins are removed (Figure 8).
Continue to: Next, the surgeon trials...
Next, the surgeon trials humeral implants to determine the correct implant size (Figure 9). Once the proper humeral size is chosen, the trial is removed and the humeral cover is placed over the prepared humeral head. The surgeon then proceeds to glenoid preparation (Figure 10), which is easily accessible and facilitated by angled planar cuts on the humeral head. Glenoid technique will be discussed in a subsequent article.
After glenoid preparation and insertion, the humerus is delivered anteriorly. The proximal humerus is washed and dried, and cement is applied to the peg holes in the humerus bone and the underside of the humeral implant. The implant is then inserted using the humeral impactor to apply pressure and assure that the implant is fully seated. Once the humeral cement is hardened, the glenohumeral joint is irrigated and closure begins. Postoperative radiograph is shown in Figure 11.
DISCUSSION
Numerous authors have demonstrated that accurate implant placement is crucial for restoring normal glenoid kinematics and motion,1-4 while some authors have reported worsening clinical outcomes and higher rates of pain and implant loosening when the implants were not placed anatomically.5-8 This is such an important concept that it essentially was the primary inspiration for creating this TSA system. In addition, the system utilizes a nonspherical, elliptical humeral head that more closely matches the anatomy of the proximal humerus,14,15 and this type of shape has shown improved biomechanics in laboratory testing.12
Good results have been demonstrated in restoring the normal anatomy using stemmed devices on the radiographic analysis of cadavers.16 The creation of stemmed implants with variable inclination and offset has improved computer models17 compared with previous studies,18 with the exception of scenarios with extreme offset.
In theory, resurfacing implants and implants without a canal stem should have a better implant placement than that with stemmed implants; however, the ability to restore the center of rotation was even worse for resurfacing prostheses, with 65% of all implants being measured as outliers postoperatively in one study.19 Most of the resurfacing implants and their instrumentation techniques offer little to help the surgeon control for implant height. The depth of the reaming is variable, not calibrated, and not correlated with the implant size, frequently leading to overstuffing after surgery. Second, the use of spherical prostheses forces the surgeon to choose between matching the superior-inferior humeral size, leading to overhang of the implant, or matching the anteroposterior, leading to frequent undersizing in the coronal plane. The nonspherical, elliptical head shape can potentially simplify implant selection.
In summary, new techniques have been developed in an attempt to achieve increased consistency and precision in TSA. By more accurately reproducing the proximal humeral anatomy, it is proposed that clinical outcomes in terms of the range of motion and patient satisfaction may also be improved through newer techniques. Cadaver studies have validated the anatomic precision of this technique.10 Clinical data comprising of patient-reported outcome measures and radiographic outcome studies are currently underway for this arthroplasty system.
1. Williams GR Jr, Wong KL, Pepe MD, et al. The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):399-409.
2. Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Jacob HA, Gerber C. Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction. An in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(3):575-580.
3. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Supple S):111S-121S.
4. Terrier A, Ramondetti S, Merlini F, Pioletti DD, Farron A. Biomechanical consequences of humeral component malpositioning after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1184-1190.
5. Denard PJ, Raiss P, Sowa B, Walch G. Mid- to long-term follow-up of total shoulder arthroplasty using a keeled glenoid in young adults with primary glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):894-900.
6. Figgie HE 3rd, Inglis AE, Goldberg VM, Ranawat CS, Figgie MP, Wile JM. An analysis of factors affecting the long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty in inflammatory arthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1988;3(2):123-130.
7. Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Neradilek B, Matsen FA 3rd. The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):555-562.
8. Flurin PH, Roche CP, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD. Correlation between clinical outcomes and anatomic reconstruction with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2015;73 Suppl 1:S92-S98.
9. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.
10. Goldberg SS, Akyuz E, Murthi AM, Blaine T. Accuracy of humeral articular surface restoration in a novel anatomic shoulder arthroplasty technique and design: a cadaveric study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty. 2018;2:2471549217750791.
11. Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S. The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(4):491-500.
12. Jun BJ, Lee TQ, McGarry MH, Quigley RJ, Shin SJ, Iannotti JP. The effects of prosthetic humeral head shape on glenohumeral joint kinematics during humeral axial rotation in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(7):1084-1093.
13. Alidousti H, Giles JW, Emery RJH, Jeffers J. Spatial mapping of humeral head bone density. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(9):1653-1661.
14. Harrold F, Wigderowitz C. Humeral head arthroplasty and its ability to restore original humeral head geometry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(1):115-121.
15. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):331-338.
16. Wirth MA, Ondrla J, Southworth C, Kaar K, Anderson BC, Rockwood CA 3rd. Replicating proximal humeral articular geometry with a third-generation implant: a radiographic study in cadaveric shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S111-S116.
17. Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postacchini R. Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: How much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):366-370.
18. Pearl ML, Volk AG. Coronal plane geometry of the proximal humerus relevant to prosthetic arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(4):320-326.
19. Alolabi B, Youderian AR, Napolitano L, et al. Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):1740-1746.
ABSTRACT
Proper reconstruction of proximal humeral anatomy is of primary importance to maximize patient outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty. This article describes a new arthroplasty technique, where a fixed multiplanar bone resection is made and a novel implant, which is designed to precisely match the bone resection, is inserted.
Continue to: The success of total shoulder arthroplasty...
The success of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is largely dependent on how accurate the proximal humeral anatomy is reconstructed and the glenohumeral relationships are restored.1-4 Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship of worse clinical outcomes and implant failure with nonanatomic implant placement.5-8 The majority of arthroplasty systems rely on surgeon-dependent decision-making to determine the location of the border of the articular surface and, ultimately, the amount and location of bone to be resected. Even in experienced hands, the ability to reproducibly restore the joint line is inconsistent.3
In contrast, the majority of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems have been designed with instrumentation that guides the surgeon precisely regarding where and how much femoral bone must be resected, and the corresponding implant is designed with the same thickness to preserve the location of the joint line. Cutting block instrumentation rather than freehand cuts enables reproducibility of TKA while being performed for an estimated 700,000 times annually in the US.9
To achieve similar high levels of reproducibility in shoulder arthroplasty, a new technique was developed based on the principle of providing instrumentation to assist the surgeon in accurately restoring the proximal humeral joint line. This technical article describes the technique of using a multiplanar instrumented cutting system and matching implants to perform TSA. The technique shown was previously studied and was found to allow surgeons to recreate the original anatomy of the humerus with very high precision.10
The humeral prosthesis described in this article has an articular surface that is slightly elliptical to more closely match the actual shape of the humerus bone.11 Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that implants designed with a nonspherical shape have more similar motion and kinematics to those of the native humeral head.
This provides rotation stability, and the implant rests on the strong subchondral bone of the proximal humerus proximal to the anatomic neck rather than relying on metaphyseal bone or canal fixation, as recommended by Aldoiusti.13 It also allows optimal implant placement with complete freedom with respect to inclination, version, and medial/posterior offset from the humeral canal.
Continue to: The implant respects the relationship...
The implant respects the relationship of the rotator cuff insertion and has a recessed superior margin to keep both the implant and the saw blade 3 mm to 5 mm away from the supraspinatus fibers to protect the rotator cuff from iatrogenic injury.
TECHNIQUE
The technique described in this article uses the Catalyst CSR Total Shoulder System (Catalyst OrthoScience), which was cleared to treat arthritis of the shoulder by the US Food and Drug Administration in May 2016.
A standard deltopectoral incision is made, and the surgeon dissects the interval between the pectoralis major medially and the deltoid laterally. The subscapularis can be incised by tenotomy; alternatively, the surgeon can perform a subscapularis peel or a lesser tuberosity osteotomy using this technique.
Once the glenohumeral joint is exposed, the surgeon delivers the humeral head anteriorly. A preferred method is to place a Darrach retractor between the humeral head and the glenoid, and a cobra or a second Darrach retractor behind the superolateral humeral head superficial to the supraspinatus tendon. By simultaneously pressing on both retractors and externally rotating the patient’s arm, the humeral head is delivered anteriorly. Osteophytes on the anterior and inferior edge of the humeral head are generously removed at this time using a rongeur.
Using a pin guide, the long 3.2-mm guidewire pin is drilled under power into the center of the articular surface. The pin guide is then removed, leaving the pin in the center of the humerus (Figure 3).
Continue to: Next, the surgeon...
Next, the surgeon slides the cannulated reamer over the long guidewire pin and under power removes a small portion of the humeral head subchondral bone until the surgeon feels and observes that the reamer is no longer removing bone (Figure 4). The patent-pending reamer design prevents the surgeon from removing more than a few millimeters of bone, after which point the reamer spins on the surface of the bone without resecting further.
The surgeon is aware that the reamer has achieved its desired depth when it is no longer creating new bone shavings, and the surgeon can hear and feel that the reamer is spinning and no longer cutting. Then the surgeon removes the reamer.
The surgeon places the first humeral cut guide over the long guidewire pin, oriented superiorly-inferiorly and secures the guide using 4 short pins, and the long pin is removed. The surgeon uses an oscillating saw to cut the anterior and posterior plane cuts through the saw captures in the cut guide (Figure 5). The humeral cut guide and short pins are removed (Figure 6).
The surgeon then applies the second humeral cut guide to the proximal humerus and secures it using 2 short pins. The surgeon then uses the 6-mm drill to drill the 4 holes for the pegs of the implant. The top portion of the guide is removed, and the surgeon makes the superior and inferior cuts along the top and bottom surfaces of the guide using an oscillating saw (Figure 7).
The surgeon then uses a rongeur to slightly round the edges of the 4 corners at the periphery of the humerus. The second humeral cut guide and short pins are removed (Figure 8).
Continue to: Next, the surgeon trials...
Next, the surgeon trials humeral implants to determine the correct implant size (Figure 9). Once the proper humeral size is chosen, the trial is removed and the humeral cover is placed over the prepared humeral head. The surgeon then proceeds to glenoid preparation (Figure 10), which is easily accessible and facilitated by angled planar cuts on the humeral head. Glenoid technique will be discussed in a subsequent article.
After glenoid preparation and insertion, the humerus is delivered anteriorly. The proximal humerus is washed and dried, and cement is applied to the peg holes in the humerus bone and the underside of the humeral implant. The implant is then inserted using the humeral impactor to apply pressure and assure that the implant is fully seated. Once the humeral cement is hardened, the glenohumeral joint is irrigated and closure begins. Postoperative radiograph is shown in Figure 11.
DISCUSSION
Numerous authors have demonstrated that accurate implant placement is crucial for restoring normal glenoid kinematics and motion,1-4 while some authors have reported worsening clinical outcomes and higher rates of pain and implant loosening when the implants were not placed anatomically.5-8 This is such an important concept that it essentially was the primary inspiration for creating this TSA system. In addition, the system utilizes a nonspherical, elliptical humeral head that more closely matches the anatomy of the proximal humerus,14,15 and this type of shape has shown improved biomechanics in laboratory testing.12
Good results have been demonstrated in restoring the normal anatomy using stemmed devices on the radiographic analysis of cadavers.16 The creation of stemmed implants with variable inclination and offset has improved computer models17 compared with previous studies,18 with the exception of scenarios with extreme offset.
In theory, resurfacing implants and implants without a canal stem should have a better implant placement than that with stemmed implants; however, the ability to restore the center of rotation was even worse for resurfacing prostheses, with 65% of all implants being measured as outliers postoperatively in one study.19 Most of the resurfacing implants and their instrumentation techniques offer little to help the surgeon control for implant height. The depth of the reaming is variable, not calibrated, and not correlated with the implant size, frequently leading to overstuffing after surgery. Second, the use of spherical prostheses forces the surgeon to choose between matching the superior-inferior humeral size, leading to overhang of the implant, or matching the anteroposterior, leading to frequent undersizing in the coronal plane. The nonspherical, elliptical head shape can potentially simplify implant selection.
In summary, new techniques have been developed in an attempt to achieve increased consistency and precision in TSA. By more accurately reproducing the proximal humeral anatomy, it is proposed that clinical outcomes in terms of the range of motion and patient satisfaction may also be improved through newer techniques. Cadaver studies have validated the anatomic precision of this technique.10 Clinical data comprising of patient-reported outcome measures and radiographic outcome studies are currently underway for this arthroplasty system.
ABSTRACT
Proper reconstruction of proximal humeral anatomy is of primary importance to maximize patient outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty. This article describes a new arthroplasty technique, where a fixed multiplanar bone resection is made and a novel implant, which is designed to precisely match the bone resection, is inserted.
Continue to: The success of total shoulder arthroplasty...
The success of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is largely dependent on how accurate the proximal humeral anatomy is reconstructed and the glenohumeral relationships are restored.1-4 Numerous studies have demonstrated a relationship of worse clinical outcomes and implant failure with nonanatomic implant placement.5-8 The majority of arthroplasty systems rely on surgeon-dependent decision-making to determine the location of the border of the articular surface and, ultimately, the amount and location of bone to be resected. Even in experienced hands, the ability to reproducibly restore the joint line is inconsistent.3
In contrast, the majority of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems have been designed with instrumentation that guides the surgeon precisely regarding where and how much femoral bone must be resected, and the corresponding implant is designed with the same thickness to preserve the location of the joint line. Cutting block instrumentation rather than freehand cuts enables reproducibility of TKA while being performed for an estimated 700,000 times annually in the US.9
To achieve similar high levels of reproducibility in shoulder arthroplasty, a new technique was developed based on the principle of providing instrumentation to assist the surgeon in accurately restoring the proximal humeral joint line. This technical article describes the technique of using a multiplanar instrumented cutting system and matching implants to perform TSA. The technique shown was previously studied and was found to allow surgeons to recreate the original anatomy of the humerus with very high precision.10
The humeral prosthesis described in this article has an articular surface that is slightly elliptical to more closely match the actual shape of the humerus bone.11 Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that implants designed with a nonspherical shape have more similar motion and kinematics to those of the native humeral head.
This provides rotation stability, and the implant rests on the strong subchondral bone of the proximal humerus proximal to the anatomic neck rather than relying on metaphyseal bone or canal fixation, as recommended by Aldoiusti.13 It also allows optimal implant placement with complete freedom with respect to inclination, version, and medial/posterior offset from the humeral canal.
Continue to: The implant respects the relationship...
The implant respects the relationship of the rotator cuff insertion and has a recessed superior margin to keep both the implant and the saw blade 3 mm to 5 mm away from the supraspinatus fibers to protect the rotator cuff from iatrogenic injury.
TECHNIQUE
The technique described in this article uses the Catalyst CSR Total Shoulder System (Catalyst OrthoScience), which was cleared to treat arthritis of the shoulder by the US Food and Drug Administration in May 2016.
A standard deltopectoral incision is made, and the surgeon dissects the interval between the pectoralis major medially and the deltoid laterally. The subscapularis can be incised by tenotomy; alternatively, the surgeon can perform a subscapularis peel or a lesser tuberosity osteotomy using this technique.
Once the glenohumeral joint is exposed, the surgeon delivers the humeral head anteriorly. A preferred method is to place a Darrach retractor between the humeral head and the glenoid, and a cobra or a second Darrach retractor behind the superolateral humeral head superficial to the supraspinatus tendon. By simultaneously pressing on both retractors and externally rotating the patient’s arm, the humeral head is delivered anteriorly. Osteophytes on the anterior and inferior edge of the humeral head are generously removed at this time using a rongeur.
Using a pin guide, the long 3.2-mm guidewire pin is drilled under power into the center of the articular surface. The pin guide is then removed, leaving the pin in the center of the humerus (Figure 3).
Continue to: Next, the surgeon...
Next, the surgeon slides the cannulated reamer over the long guidewire pin and under power removes a small portion of the humeral head subchondral bone until the surgeon feels and observes that the reamer is no longer removing bone (Figure 4). The patent-pending reamer design prevents the surgeon from removing more than a few millimeters of bone, after which point the reamer spins on the surface of the bone without resecting further.
The surgeon is aware that the reamer has achieved its desired depth when it is no longer creating new bone shavings, and the surgeon can hear and feel that the reamer is spinning and no longer cutting. Then the surgeon removes the reamer.
The surgeon places the first humeral cut guide over the long guidewire pin, oriented superiorly-inferiorly and secures the guide using 4 short pins, and the long pin is removed. The surgeon uses an oscillating saw to cut the anterior and posterior plane cuts through the saw captures in the cut guide (Figure 5). The humeral cut guide and short pins are removed (Figure 6).
The surgeon then applies the second humeral cut guide to the proximal humerus and secures it using 2 short pins. The surgeon then uses the 6-mm drill to drill the 4 holes for the pegs of the implant. The top portion of the guide is removed, and the surgeon makes the superior and inferior cuts along the top and bottom surfaces of the guide using an oscillating saw (Figure 7).
The surgeon then uses a rongeur to slightly round the edges of the 4 corners at the periphery of the humerus. The second humeral cut guide and short pins are removed (Figure 8).
Continue to: Next, the surgeon trials...
Next, the surgeon trials humeral implants to determine the correct implant size (Figure 9). Once the proper humeral size is chosen, the trial is removed and the humeral cover is placed over the prepared humeral head. The surgeon then proceeds to glenoid preparation (Figure 10), which is easily accessible and facilitated by angled planar cuts on the humeral head. Glenoid technique will be discussed in a subsequent article.
After glenoid preparation and insertion, the humerus is delivered anteriorly. The proximal humerus is washed and dried, and cement is applied to the peg holes in the humerus bone and the underside of the humeral implant. The implant is then inserted using the humeral impactor to apply pressure and assure that the implant is fully seated. Once the humeral cement is hardened, the glenohumeral joint is irrigated and closure begins. Postoperative radiograph is shown in Figure 11.
DISCUSSION
Numerous authors have demonstrated that accurate implant placement is crucial for restoring normal glenoid kinematics and motion,1-4 while some authors have reported worsening clinical outcomes and higher rates of pain and implant loosening when the implants were not placed anatomically.5-8 This is such an important concept that it essentially was the primary inspiration for creating this TSA system. In addition, the system utilizes a nonspherical, elliptical humeral head that more closely matches the anatomy of the proximal humerus,14,15 and this type of shape has shown improved biomechanics in laboratory testing.12
Good results have been demonstrated in restoring the normal anatomy using stemmed devices on the radiographic analysis of cadavers.16 The creation of stemmed implants with variable inclination and offset has improved computer models17 compared with previous studies,18 with the exception of scenarios with extreme offset.
In theory, resurfacing implants and implants without a canal stem should have a better implant placement than that with stemmed implants; however, the ability to restore the center of rotation was even worse for resurfacing prostheses, with 65% of all implants being measured as outliers postoperatively in one study.19 Most of the resurfacing implants and their instrumentation techniques offer little to help the surgeon control for implant height. The depth of the reaming is variable, not calibrated, and not correlated with the implant size, frequently leading to overstuffing after surgery. Second, the use of spherical prostheses forces the surgeon to choose between matching the superior-inferior humeral size, leading to overhang of the implant, or matching the anteroposterior, leading to frequent undersizing in the coronal plane. The nonspherical, elliptical head shape can potentially simplify implant selection.
In summary, new techniques have been developed in an attempt to achieve increased consistency and precision in TSA. By more accurately reproducing the proximal humeral anatomy, it is proposed that clinical outcomes in terms of the range of motion and patient satisfaction may also be improved through newer techniques. Cadaver studies have validated the anatomic precision of this technique.10 Clinical data comprising of patient-reported outcome measures and radiographic outcome studies are currently underway for this arthroplasty system.
1. Williams GR Jr, Wong KL, Pepe MD, et al. The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):399-409.
2. Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Jacob HA, Gerber C. Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction. An in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(3):575-580.
3. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Supple S):111S-121S.
4. Terrier A, Ramondetti S, Merlini F, Pioletti DD, Farron A. Biomechanical consequences of humeral component malpositioning after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1184-1190.
5. Denard PJ, Raiss P, Sowa B, Walch G. Mid- to long-term follow-up of total shoulder arthroplasty using a keeled glenoid in young adults with primary glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):894-900.
6. Figgie HE 3rd, Inglis AE, Goldberg VM, Ranawat CS, Figgie MP, Wile JM. An analysis of factors affecting the long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty in inflammatory arthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1988;3(2):123-130.
7. Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Neradilek B, Matsen FA 3rd. The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):555-562.
8. Flurin PH, Roche CP, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD. Correlation between clinical outcomes and anatomic reconstruction with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2015;73 Suppl 1:S92-S98.
9. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.
10. Goldberg SS, Akyuz E, Murthi AM, Blaine T. Accuracy of humeral articular surface restoration in a novel anatomic shoulder arthroplasty technique and design: a cadaveric study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty. 2018;2:2471549217750791.
11. Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S. The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(4):491-500.
12. Jun BJ, Lee TQ, McGarry MH, Quigley RJ, Shin SJ, Iannotti JP. The effects of prosthetic humeral head shape on glenohumeral joint kinematics during humeral axial rotation in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(7):1084-1093.
13. Alidousti H, Giles JW, Emery RJH, Jeffers J. Spatial mapping of humeral head bone density. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(9):1653-1661.
14. Harrold F, Wigderowitz C. Humeral head arthroplasty and its ability to restore original humeral head geometry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(1):115-121.
15. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):331-338.
16. Wirth MA, Ondrla J, Southworth C, Kaar K, Anderson BC, Rockwood CA 3rd. Replicating proximal humeral articular geometry with a third-generation implant: a radiographic study in cadaveric shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S111-S116.
17. Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postacchini R. Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: How much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):366-370.
18. Pearl ML, Volk AG. Coronal plane geometry of the proximal humerus relevant to prosthetic arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(4):320-326.
19. Alolabi B, Youderian AR, Napolitano L, et al. Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):1740-1746.
1. Williams GR Jr, Wong KL, Pepe MD, et al. The effect of articular malposition after total shoulder arthroplasty on glenohumeral translations, range of motion, and subacromial impingement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(5):399-409.
2. Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Jacob HA, Gerber C. Influence of humeral prosthesis height on biomechanics of glenohumeral abduction. An in vitro study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(3):575-580.
3. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Supple S):111S-121S.
4. Terrier A, Ramondetti S, Merlini F, Pioletti DD, Farron A. Biomechanical consequences of humeral component malpositioning after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(8):1184-1190.
5. Denard PJ, Raiss P, Sowa B, Walch G. Mid- to long-term follow-up of total shoulder arthroplasty using a keeled glenoid in young adults with primary glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):894-900.
6. Figgie HE 3rd, Inglis AE, Goldberg VM, Ranawat CS, Figgie MP, Wile JM. An analysis of factors affecting the long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty in inflammatory arthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1988;3(2):123-130.
7. Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Neradilek B, Matsen FA 3rd. The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):555-562.
8. Flurin PH, Roche CP, Wright TW, Zuckerman JD. Correlation between clinical outcomes and anatomic reconstruction with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2015;73 Suppl 1:S92-S98.
9. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.
10. Goldberg SS, Akyuz E, Murthi AM, Blaine T. Accuracy of humeral articular surface restoration in a novel anatomic shoulder arthroplasty technique and design: a cadaveric study. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty. 2018;2:2471549217750791.
11. Iannotti JP, Gabriel JP, Schneck SL, Evans BG, Misra S. The normal glenohumeral relationships. An anatomical study of one hundred and forty shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74(4):491-500.
12. Jun BJ, Lee TQ, McGarry MH, Quigley RJ, Shin SJ, Iannotti JP. The effects of prosthetic humeral head shape on glenohumeral joint kinematics during humeral axial rotation in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(7):1084-1093.
13. Alidousti H, Giles JW, Emery RJH, Jeffers J. Spatial mapping of humeral head bone density. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2017;26(9):1653-1661.
14. Harrold F, Wigderowitz C. Humeral head arthroplasty and its ability to restore original humeral head geometry. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(1):115-121.
15. Hertel R, Knothe U, Ballmer FT. Geometry of the proximal humerus and implications for prosthetic design. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(4):331-338.
16. Wirth MA, Ondrla J, Southworth C, Kaar K, Anderson BC, Rockwood CA 3rd. Replicating proximal humeral articular geometry with a third-generation implant: a radiographic study in cadaveric shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(3 Suppl):S111-S116.
17. Pearl ML, Kurutz S, Postacchini R. Geometric variables in anatomic replacement of the proximal humerus: How much prosthetic geometry is necessary? J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):366-370.
18. Pearl ML, Volk AG. Coronal plane geometry of the proximal humerus relevant to prosthetic arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(4):320-326.
19. Alolabi B, Youderian AR, Napolitano L, et al. Radiographic assessment of prosthetic humeral head size after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(11):1740-1746.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
- Bone-preserving shoulder arthroplasty is now available and rapidly growing in the US.
- The calibrated, multiplanar instruments and prosthesis shown here allow surgeons to recreate the normal humerus shape with high precision.
- The elliptical, non-spherical design of the humerus prosthesis has shown improved shoulder kinematics compared to standard spherical prostheses.
- The implant rests on dense bone proximal to the anatomic neck where bone support is strong.
- Glenoid implant insertion is routinely performed using this technique and access is facilitated by the angled bone resections.
Shoulder Arthroplasty in Cases of Significant Bone Loss: An Overview
Over the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties performed around the world. This increase is the result of an aging and increasingly more active population, better implant technology, and the advent of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for rotator cuff arthropathy. Additionally, as the indications for RSA have expanded to include pathologies such as rotator cuff insufficiency, chronic instabilities, trauma, and tumors, the number of arthroplasties will continue to increase. Although the results of most arthroplasties are good and predictable, any glenoid and/or humeral bone deficiencies can have detrimental effects on the clinical outcomes of these procedures. Bone loss becomes more of a problem in revision cases, and, as the number of primary arthroplasties increases, it follows that the number of revision procedures will also increase.
Many of the disease- or procedure-specific processes indicated for shoulder arthroplasty have predictable patterns of bone loss, especially on the glenoid side. Walch and colleagues1 and Bercik and colleagues2 made us aware that many patients with primary osteoarthritis have significant glenoid bone deformity. Similarly, there have been a number of first- and second-generation classification systems for delineating glenoid deformity in rotator cuff tear arthropathy and in revision settings. In revision settings, both glenoid and humeral bone deficiencies can occur as a result of implant removal, iatrogenic fracture, and even infection. Each of these bone loss patterns must be recognized and treated appropriately for the best surgical outcome.
The articles in this month of The American Journal of Orthopedics address the most up-to-date concepts and solutions regarding both humeral and glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty of all types.
HUMERAL BONE LOSS
Humeral bone loss is typically encountered in proximal humerus fractures, in revision surgery necessitating humeral component removal, and, less commonly, in tumors and infection.
In many displaced proximal humeral fractures indicated for shoulder arthroplasty, the bone is comminuted with displacement of the lesser and greater tuberosities. In these situations, failure of tuberosity healing may result in loss of rotator cuff function with loss of elevation, rotation, and even instability. Humeral shortening can also occur as a result of bone loss and can compromise deltoid function by loss of proper muscle tension, leading to instability, dysfunction, or both. In addition to possible instability, humeral shortening with metaphyseal bone loss can adversely affect long-term fixation of the humeral component, leading to stem loosening or failure. Cuff and colleagues3 showed significantly more rotational micromotion in cases lacking metaphyseal support, leading to aseptic loosening of the humeral stem.
Humeral bone loss can also result from humeral stem component removal in revision shoulder arthroplasty for infection, component failure or loosening, and even periprosthetic fracture resulting from surgery or trauma.
For the surgeon, humeral bone loss can create a complex set of circumstances related to rotator cuff attachment failure, soft-tissue balancing effects, and component fixation issues. Any such issue must be recognized and addressed for best outcomes. Best results can be obtained with preoperative imaging, planning, use of bone graft techniques, proximal humeral allografts, and, more recently, modular and patient-specific implants. All of these issues are discussed comprehensively in the articles this month.
Continue to: GLENOID BONE LOSS
GLENOID BONE LOSS
Proper glenoid component placement with durable fixation is crucial for success in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty and RSA. Glenoid bone deformity and loss can result from intrinsic deformity characteristics seen in primary osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, or glenoid component removal in revision situations and infection. These bone deformity complications can be extremely difficult to treat and in some cases lead to catastrophic failure of the index arthroplasty.
We are now aware that one key to success in the face of moderate to severe deformity is proper recognition. Newer imaging techniques, including 2-dimensional (2-D) computed tomography (CT) and 3-dimensional (3-D) modeling and surgical planning software tools, which are outlined in an upcoming article, have given surgeons important new instruments that can help in treating these difficult cases.
Glenoid bone deformity in primary osteoarthritis was well delineated in the 1999 seminal study of CT changes by Walch and colleagues.1 The Walch classification system, which characterized glenoid morphology based on 2-D CT findings, was recently upgraded, based on 3-D imaging technology, to include Walch B3 and D patterns (Figure 1).2 Recognition of certain primary deformities in osteoarthritis has led to increased use of RSA in some cases of Walch B2, B3, and C deformities with substantial glenoid retroversion and/or humeral head subluxation.4
In cases of rotator cuff tear arthropathy, glenoid bone deformities are well described with several classification systems based on degree and dimension of bone insufficiency. The Hamada classification system defines the degree of medial glenoid erosion and superior bone loss, as well as acetabularization of the acromion in 5 grades; 5 Rispoli and colleagues6 defined and graded the degree of medicalization of the glenohumeral joint based on degree of subchondral plate erosion; and Visotsky and colleagues7 based their classification system on wear patterns of bone loss, alignment, and concomitant soft-tissue insufficiencies leading to instability and rotation loss.
In severe glenoid bone deficiency after glenoid component removal, Antuna and colleagues8 described the classic findings related to medial bone loss, anterior and posterior wall failure, and combinations thereof.
Continue to: All these classification systems...
All these classification systems are based on the 2-D appearance of the glenoid and should be considered cautiously. The glenoid is a complex 3-D structure that can be affected by any number of disease processes, trauma, and surgical intervention. Using more modern CT techniques and 3-D imaging, we now know that many deformities previously classified as unidirectional are, instead, complex and multidirectional.
Frankle and colleagues9 developed a classification based more 3-D CT models which has further classified severe glenoid vault deformities in relation to direction and degree of bone loss (Figures 2A-2E). Using this system, they were better able to determine degree and direction of deformity than in previous 2-D evaluations, and they were able to determine the amount of glenoid vault bone available for baseplate fixation. Scalise and colleagues10 further defined the influence of such 3-D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty.
With knowledge of these classification systems and use of contemporary imaging systems, shoulder arthroplasty in cases of severe glenoid deficiency can be more successful. Potentially, we can improve outcomes even more in the more severe cases of bone loss with use of patient-specific planning tools, including the guides and patient-specific implants that are now readily available with many implant systems.11
Preoperative planning tools, bone-grafting techniques, augmented and specialized glenoid and humeral implants, and patient-specific implants are discussed this month to give our readers a comprehensive review of the latest concepts in shoulder arthroplasty in cases of significant bone loss or deformity.
This month of The American Journal of Orthopedics presents the most current and cutting-edge solutions for humeral and glenoid bone deformities and deficiencies in contemporary shoulder arthroplasties.
1. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
2. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1601-1606.
3. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle M. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651.
4. Denard PJ, Walch G. Current concepts in the surgical management of primary glenohumeral arthritis with a biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1589-1598.
5. Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, Kobayashi Y. Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(254):92-96.
6. Rispoli D, Sperling JW, Athwal GS, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Humeral head replacement for the treatment of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2637-2644.
7. Visotsky JL, Basamania C, Seebauer L, Rockwood CA, Jensen KL. Cuff tear arthropathy: pathogenesis, classification, and algorithm for treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(suppl 2):35-40.
8. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224.
9. Frankle MA, Teramoto A, Luo ZP, Levy JC, Pupello D. Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: classification and surgical implications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):874-885.
10. Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(11):2438-2445.
11. Dines DM, Gulotta L, Craig EV, Dines JS. Novel solution for massive glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty: a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108.
Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. David M. Dines reports that he has a financial relationship involving royalties with Zimmer Biomet and Thieme Inc. Dr. Joshua S. Dines reports that he has a financial relationship with Arthrex, and receives royalties from Thieme Inc.
Dr. D.M. Dines is Co-Director, Shoulder Fellowship, and an Attending, Sports and Shoulder Fellowship, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, and Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. Dr. J.S. Dines is an Attending Orthopedic Surgeon, Shoulder Fellowship and Sports and Shoulder Fellowship, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, and Assistant Professor, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Address correspondence to: David M. Dines, MD, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 (tel, 516-482-1037; email, [email protected]).
David M. Dines, MD Joshua S. Dines, MD . Shoulder Arthroplasty in Cases of Significant Bone Loss: An Overview. Am J Orthop. January 29, 2018
Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. David M. Dines reports that he has a financial relationship involving royalties with Zimmer Biomet and Thieme Inc. Dr. Joshua S. Dines reports that he has a financial relationship with Arthrex, and receives royalties from Thieme Inc.
Dr. D.M. Dines is Co-Director, Shoulder Fellowship, and an Attending, Sports and Shoulder Fellowship, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, and Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. Dr. J.S. Dines is an Attending Orthopedic Surgeon, Shoulder Fellowship and Sports and Shoulder Fellowship, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, and Assistant Professor, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Address correspondence to: David M. Dines, MD, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 (tel, 516-482-1037; email, [email protected]).
David M. Dines, MD Joshua S. Dines, MD . Shoulder Arthroplasty in Cases of Significant Bone Loss: An Overview. Am J Orthop. January 29, 2018
Authors’ Disclosure Statement: Dr. David M. Dines reports that he has a financial relationship involving royalties with Zimmer Biomet and Thieme Inc. Dr. Joshua S. Dines reports that he has a financial relationship with Arthrex, and receives royalties from Thieme Inc.
Dr. D.M. Dines is Co-Director, Shoulder Fellowship, and an Attending, Sports and Shoulder Fellowship, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, and Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. Dr. J.S. Dines is an Attending Orthopedic Surgeon, Shoulder Fellowship and Sports and Shoulder Fellowship, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, and Assistant Professor, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Address correspondence to: David M. Dines, MD, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 70th Street, New York, NY 10021 (tel, 516-482-1037; email, [email protected]).
David M. Dines, MD Joshua S. Dines, MD . Shoulder Arthroplasty in Cases of Significant Bone Loss: An Overview. Am J Orthop. January 29, 2018
Over the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties performed around the world. This increase is the result of an aging and increasingly more active population, better implant technology, and the advent of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for rotator cuff arthropathy. Additionally, as the indications for RSA have expanded to include pathologies such as rotator cuff insufficiency, chronic instabilities, trauma, and tumors, the number of arthroplasties will continue to increase. Although the results of most arthroplasties are good and predictable, any glenoid and/or humeral bone deficiencies can have detrimental effects on the clinical outcomes of these procedures. Bone loss becomes more of a problem in revision cases, and, as the number of primary arthroplasties increases, it follows that the number of revision procedures will also increase.
Many of the disease- or procedure-specific processes indicated for shoulder arthroplasty have predictable patterns of bone loss, especially on the glenoid side. Walch and colleagues1 and Bercik and colleagues2 made us aware that many patients with primary osteoarthritis have significant glenoid bone deformity. Similarly, there have been a number of first- and second-generation classification systems for delineating glenoid deformity in rotator cuff tear arthropathy and in revision settings. In revision settings, both glenoid and humeral bone deficiencies can occur as a result of implant removal, iatrogenic fracture, and even infection. Each of these bone loss patterns must be recognized and treated appropriately for the best surgical outcome.
The articles in this month of The American Journal of Orthopedics address the most up-to-date concepts and solutions regarding both humeral and glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty of all types.
HUMERAL BONE LOSS
Humeral bone loss is typically encountered in proximal humerus fractures, in revision surgery necessitating humeral component removal, and, less commonly, in tumors and infection.
In many displaced proximal humeral fractures indicated for shoulder arthroplasty, the bone is comminuted with displacement of the lesser and greater tuberosities. In these situations, failure of tuberosity healing may result in loss of rotator cuff function with loss of elevation, rotation, and even instability. Humeral shortening can also occur as a result of bone loss and can compromise deltoid function by loss of proper muscle tension, leading to instability, dysfunction, or both. In addition to possible instability, humeral shortening with metaphyseal bone loss can adversely affect long-term fixation of the humeral component, leading to stem loosening or failure. Cuff and colleagues3 showed significantly more rotational micromotion in cases lacking metaphyseal support, leading to aseptic loosening of the humeral stem.
Humeral bone loss can also result from humeral stem component removal in revision shoulder arthroplasty for infection, component failure or loosening, and even periprosthetic fracture resulting from surgery or trauma.
For the surgeon, humeral bone loss can create a complex set of circumstances related to rotator cuff attachment failure, soft-tissue balancing effects, and component fixation issues. Any such issue must be recognized and addressed for best outcomes. Best results can be obtained with preoperative imaging, planning, use of bone graft techniques, proximal humeral allografts, and, more recently, modular and patient-specific implants. All of these issues are discussed comprehensively in the articles this month.
Continue to: GLENOID BONE LOSS
GLENOID BONE LOSS
Proper glenoid component placement with durable fixation is crucial for success in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty and RSA. Glenoid bone deformity and loss can result from intrinsic deformity characteristics seen in primary osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, or glenoid component removal in revision situations and infection. These bone deformity complications can be extremely difficult to treat and in some cases lead to catastrophic failure of the index arthroplasty.
We are now aware that one key to success in the face of moderate to severe deformity is proper recognition. Newer imaging techniques, including 2-dimensional (2-D) computed tomography (CT) and 3-dimensional (3-D) modeling and surgical planning software tools, which are outlined in an upcoming article, have given surgeons important new instruments that can help in treating these difficult cases.
Glenoid bone deformity in primary osteoarthritis was well delineated in the 1999 seminal study of CT changes by Walch and colleagues.1 The Walch classification system, which characterized glenoid morphology based on 2-D CT findings, was recently upgraded, based on 3-D imaging technology, to include Walch B3 and D patterns (Figure 1).2 Recognition of certain primary deformities in osteoarthritis has led to increased use of RSA in some cases of Walch B2, B3, and C deformities with substantial glenoid retroversion and/or humeral head subluxation.4
In cases of rotator cuff tear arthropathy, glenoid bone deformities are well described with several classification systems based on degree and dimension of bone insufficiency. The Hamada classification system defines the degree of medial glenoid erosion and superior bone loss, as well as acetabularization of the acromion in 5 grades; 5 Rispoli and colleagues6 defined and graded the degree of medicalization of the glenohumeral joint based on degree of subchondral plate erosion; and Visotsky and colleagues7 based their classification system on wear patterns of bone loss, alignment, and concomitant soft-tissue insufficiencies leading to instability and rotation loss.
In severe glenoid bone deficiency after glenoid component removal, Antuna and colleagues8 described the classic findings related to medial bone loss, anterior and posterior wall failure, and combinations thereof.
Continue to: All these classification systems...
All these classification systems are based on the 2-D appearance of the glenoid and should be considered cautiously. The glenoid is a complex 3-D structure that can be affected by any number of disease processes, trauma, and surgical intervention. Using more modern CT techniques and 3-D imaging, we now know that many deformities previously classified as unidirectional are, instead, complex and multidirectional.
Frankle and colleagues9 developed a classification based more 3-D CT models which has further classified severe glenoid vault deformities in relation to direction and degree of bone loss (Figures 2A-2E). Using this system, they were better able to determine degree and direction of deformity than in previous 2-D evaluations, and they were able to determine the amount of glenoid vault bone available for baseplate fixation. Scalise and colleagues10 further defined the influence of such 3-D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty.
With knowledge of these classification systems and use of contemporary imaging systems, shoulder arthroplasty in cases of severe glenoid deficiency can be more successful. Potentially, we can improve outcomes even more in the more severe cases of bone loss with use of patient-specific planning tools, including the guides and patient-specific implants that are now readily available with many implant systems.11
Preoperative planning tools, bone-grafting techniques, augmented and specialized glenoid and humeral implants, and patient-specific implants are discussed this month to give our readers a comprehensive review of the latest concepts in shoulder arthroplasty in cases of significant bone loss or deformity.
This month of The American Journal of Orthopedics presents the most current and cutting-edge solutions for humeral and glenoid bone deformities and deficiencies in contemporary shoulder arthroplasties.
Over the past few decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of shoulder arthroplasties performed around the world. This increase is the result of an aging and increasingly more active population, better implant technology, and the advent of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for rotator cuff arthropathy. Additionally, as the indications for RSA have expanded to include pathologies such as rotator cuff insufficiency, chronic instabilities, trauma, and tumors, the number of arthroplasties will continue to increase. Although the results of most arthroplasties are good and predictable, any glenoid and/or humeral bone deficiencies can have detrimental effects on the clinical outcomes of these procedures. Bone loss becomes more of a problem in revision cases, and, as the number of primary arthroplasties increases, it follows that the number of revision procedures will also increase.
Many of the disease- or procedure-specific processes indicated for shoulder arthroplasty have predictable patterns of bone loss, especially on the glenoid side. Walch and colleagues1 and Bercik and colleagues2 made us aware that many patients with primary osteoarthritis have significant glenoid bone deformity. Similarly, there have been a number of first- and second-generation classification systems for delineating glenoid deformity in rotator cuff tear arthropathy and in revision settings. In revision settings, both glenoid and humeral bone deficiencies can occur as a result of implant removal, iatrogenic fracture, and even infection. Each of these bone loss patterns must be recognized and treated appropriately for the best surgical outcome.
The articles in this month of The American Journal of Orthopedics address the most up-to-date concepts and solutions regarding both humeral and glenoid bone loss in shoulder arthroplasty of all types.
HUMERAL BONE LOSS
Humeral bone loss is typically encountered in proximal humerus fractures, in revision surgery necessitating humeral component removal, and, less commonly, in tumors and infection.
In many displaced proximal humeral fractures indicated for shoulder arthroplasty, the bone is comminuted with displacement of the lesser and greater tuberosities. In these situations, failure of tuberosity healing may result in loss of rotator cuff function with loss of elevation, rotation, and even instability. Humeral shortening can also occur as a result of bone loss and can compromise deltoid function by loss of proper muscle tension, leading to instability, dysfunction, or both. In addition to possible instability, humeral shortening with metaphyseal bone loss can adversely affect long-term fixation of the humeral component, leading to stem loosening or failure. Cuff and colleagues3 showed significantly more rotational micromotion in cases lacking metaphyseal support, leading to aseptic loosening of the humeral stem.
Humeral bone loss can also result from humeral stem component removal in revision shoulder arthroplasty for infection, component failure or loosening, and even periprosthetic fracture resulting from surgery or trauma.
For the surgeon, humeral bone loss can create a complex set of circumstances related to rotator cuff attachment failure, soft-tissue balancing effects, and component fixation issues. Any such issue must be recognized and addressed for best outcomes. Best results can be obtained with preoperative imaging, planning, use of bone graft techniques, proximal humeral allografts, and, more recently, modular and patient-specific implants. All of these issues are discussed comprehensively in the articles this month.
Continue to: GLENOID BONE LOSS
GLENOID BONE LOSS
Proper glenoid component placement with durable fixation is crucial for success in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty and RSA. Glenoid bone deformity and loss can result from intrinsic deformity characteristics seen in primary osteoarthritis, cuff tear arthropathy, or glenoid component removal in revision situations and infection. These bone deformity complications can be extremely difficult to treat and in some cases lead to catastrophic failure of the index arthroplasty.
We are now aware that one key to success in the face of moderate to severe deformity is proper recognition. Newer imaging techniques, including 2-dimensional (2-D) computed tomography (CT) and 3-dimensional (3-D) modeling and surgical planning software tools, which are outlined in an upcoming article, have given surgeons important new instruments that can help in treating these difficult cases.
Glenoid bone deformity in primary osteoarthritis was well delineated in the 1999 seminal study of CT changes by Walch and colleagues.1 The Walch classification system, which characterized glenoid morphology based on 2-D CT findings, was recently upgraded, based on 3-D imaging technology, to include Walch B3 and D patterns (Figure 1).2 Recognition of certain primary deformities in osteoarthritis has led to increased use of RSA in some cases of Walch B2, B3, and C deformities with substantial glenoid retroversion and/or humeral head subluxation.4
In cases of rotator cuff tear arthropathy, glenoid bone deformities are well described with several classification systems based on degree and dimension of bone insufficiency. The Hamada classification system defines the degree of medial glenoid erosion and superior bone loss, as well as acetabularization of the acromion in 5 grades; 5 Rispoli and colleagues6 defined and graded the degree of medicalization of the glenohumeral joint based on degree of subchondral plate erosion; and Visotsky and colleagues7 based their classification system on wear patterns of bone loss, alignment, and concomitant soft-tissue insufficiencies leading to instability and rotation loss.
In severe glenoid bone deficiency after glenoid component removal, Antuna and colleagues8 described the classic findings related to medial bone loss, anterior and posterior wall failure, and combinations thereof.
Continue to: All these classification systems...
All these classification systems are based on the 2-D appearance of the glenoid and should be considered cautiously. The glenoid is a complex 3-D structure that can be affected by any number of disease processes, trauma, and surgical intervention. Using more modern CT techniques and 3-D imaging, we now know that many deformities previously classified as unidirectional are, instead, complex and multidirectional.
Frankle and colleagues9 developed a classification based more 3-D CT models which has further classified severe glenoid vault deformities in relation to direction and degree of bone loss (Figures 2A-2E). Using this system, they were better able to determine degree and direction of deformity than in previous 2-D evaluations, and they were able to determine the amount of glenoid vault bone available for baseplate fixation. Scalise and colleagues10 further defined the influence of such 3-D planning in total shoulder arthroplasty.
With knowledge of these classification systems and use of contemporary imaging systems, shoulder arthroplasty in cases of severe glenoid deficiency can be more successful. Potentially, we can improve outcomes even more in the more severe cases of bone loss with use of patient-specific planning tools, including the guides and patient-specific implants that are now readily available with many implant systems.11
Preoperative planning tools, bone-grafting techniques, augmented and specialized glenoid and humeral implants, and patient-specific implants are discussed this month to give our readers a comprehensive review of the latest concepts in shoulder arthroplasty in cases of significant bone loss or deformity.
This month of The American Journal of Orthopedics presents the most current and cutting-edge solutions for humeral and glenoid bone deformities and deficiencies in contemporary shoulder arthroplasties.
1. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
2. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1601-1606.
3. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle M. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651.
4. Denard PJ, Walch G. Current concepts in the surgical management of primary glenohumeral arthritis with a biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1589-1598.
5. Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, Kobayashi Y. Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(254):92-96.
6. Rispoli D, Sperling JW, Athwal GS, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Humeral head replacement for the treatment of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2637-2644.
7. Visotsky JL, Basamania C, Seebauer L, Rockwood CA, Jensen KL. Cuff tear arthropathy: pathogenesis, classification, and algorithm for treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(suppl 2):35-40.
8. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224.
9. Frankle MA, Teramoto A, Luo ZP, Levy JC, Pupello D. Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: classification and surgical implications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):874-885.
10. Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(11):2438-2445.
11. Dines DM, Gulotta L, Craig EV, Dines JS. Novel solution for massive glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty: a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108.
1. Walch G, Badet R, Boulahia A, Khoury A. Morphologic study of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(6):756-760.
2. Bercik MJ, Kruse K 2nd, Yalizis M, Gauci MO, Chaoui J, Walch G. A modification to the Walch classification of the glenoid in primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis using three-dimensional imaging. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25(10):1601-1606.
3. Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle M. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646-651.
4. Denard PJ, Walch G. Current concepts in the surgical management of primary glenohumeral arthritis with a biconcave glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(11):1589-1598.
5. Hamada K, Fukuda H, Mikasa M, Kobayashi Y. Roentgenographic findings in massive rotator cuff tears. A long-term observation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;(254):92-96.
6. Rispoli D, Sperling JW, Athwal GS, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Humeral head replacement for the treatment of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2637-2644.
7. Visotsky JL, Basamania C, Seebauer L, Rockwood CA, Jensen KL. Cuff tear arthropathy: pathogenesis, classification, and algorithm for treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(suppl 2):35-40.
8. Antuna SA, Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(3):217-224.
9. Frankle MA, Teramoto A, Luo ZP, Levy JC, Pupello D. Glenoid morphology in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: classification and surgical implications. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):874-885.
10. Scalise JJ, Codsi MJ, Bryan J, Brems JJ, Iannotti JP. The influence of three-dimensional computed tomography images of the shoulder in preoperative planning for total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(11):2438-2445.
11. Dines DM, Gulotta L, Craig EV, Dines JS. Novel solution for massive glenoid defects in shoulder arthroplasty: a patient-specific glenoid vault reconstruction system. Am J Orthop. 2017;46(2):104-108.
Total Hip Arthroplasty and Hemiarthroplasty: US National Trends in the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fractures
Take-Home Points
- An increasing number of THAs and HAs were performed over time for FNF.
- HA patients tended to be older.
- Hospitalization and blood transfusion rates were higher for THA.
- Hospital size affected the rate of HAs, while hospital location affected the rate of THAs.
- A larger proportion of THA patients had private insurance.
Femoral neck fractures (FNFs) are a common source of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The increasing number of FNFs in the United States is attributed to increases in number of US residents >65 years old, the average life span, and the incidence of osteoporosis.1 Three hundred forty thousand hip fractures occurred in the United States in 1996, and the number is expected to double by 2050.2 By that year, an estimated 6.3 million hip fractures will occur worldwide.3 Given the 1-year mortality rate of 14% to 36%, optimizing the management of these fractures is an important public health issue that must be addressed.4
Treatment is based on preoperative ambulatory status, cognitive function, comorbidities, fracture type and displacement, and other factors. In physiologically elderly patients with displaced fractures, surgical treatment usually involves either hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is controversy regarding which modality is the preferred treatment.
Proponents of HA point to a higher rate of dislocation for FNFs treated with THAs,5,6 attributed to increased range of motion.7 Proponents of THA point to superior short-term clinical results and fewer complications, especially in mobile, independent patients.8
We conducted a study to assess recent US national trends in performing THA and HA for FNFs and to evaluate perioperative outcomes for each treatment group.
Materials and Methods
Data for this study were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) and were imported into Microsoft Office Excel 2010.9 The NHDS examines patient discharges from various hospitals across the US, including federal, military, and Veterans Administration hospitals.9 Only short-stay hospitals (mean stay, <30 days) and hospitals with a general specialty are included in the survey. Each year, about 1% of all hospital admissions from across the US are abstracted and weighted to provide nationwide estimates. The information collected from each hospital record includes age, sex, race, marital status, discharge month, discharge status, days of care, hospital location, hospital size (number of beds), hospital type (proprietary or for-profit, government, nonprofit/church), and up to 15 discharge diagnoses and 8 procedures performed during admission.9
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes were used to search the NHDS for patients admitted after FNF for each year from 2001 through 2010. These codes were then used to identify patients within this group who underwent THA or HA. We also collected data on patient demographics, hospitalization duration, discharge disposition, in-hospital adverse events (deep vein thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], blood transfusion, mortality), form of primary medical insurance, number of hospital beds (0-99, 100-199, 200-299, 300-499, ≥500), hospital type (proprietary, government, nonprofit/church), and hospital region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West).
Trends were evaluated by linear regression with the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Statistical comparisons were made using the Student t test for continuous data, and both the Fisher exact test and the χ2 test for categorical variables. Significance level was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 22.
Results
Hospital stay was longer (P < .01) for THA patients (7.7 days; range, 1-312 days) than for HA patients (6.7 days; range, 1-118 days), and blood transfusion rate was higher (P = .02) for THA patients (30.4%) than for HA patients (25.7%), but the groups did not differ in their rates of DVT (THA, 1.2%; HA, 0.80%, P = .50), PE (THA, 0.52%; HA, 0.72%, P = .52), or mortality (THA, 1.8%; HA, 2.9%; P = .16). Discharge disposition varied with surgical status (P < .01): 23.2% of THA patients and 11.6% of HA patients were discharged directly home after their inpatient stay, and 76.8% of THA patients and 88.4% of HA patients were discharged or transferred to a short- or long-term care facility.
Private medical insurance provided coverage for 14.3% of THAs and 9.1% of HAs, and Medicare provided coverage for 80.9% of THAs and 86.0% of HAs (P < .01).
Discussion
The NHDS data showed a preference for HA over THA in the treatment of FNFs and suggested THA was favored for younger, healthier patients while HA was reserved for older patients with more comorbidities. Despite being younger and healthier, the THA group had higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalizations, possibly because of the increased complexity of THA procedures, which generally involve more operative time and increased blood loss. The resultant higher transfusion rate for THAs likely contributed to longer hospitalizations for FNFs. However, the THA and HA groups did not differ in their rates of DVT, PE, or mortality.
Multiple studies have noted no differences in mortality, infection, or general complications between THA and HA for FNF.8,10,11 THA patients have better functional outcomes, including Harris and Oxford hip scores and walking distance, but higher dislocation rates,8,10-12 and HA patients are at higher risk for reoperation because of progressive acetabular erosion.8,10,11
We noted an increase in use of both THA and HA for FNF over the study period (2001-2010). In a review of operative treatment for FNF by surgeons applying for the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery certification between 1999 and 2011, Miller and colleagues13 found a similar increase in the THA rate over time, but decreases in the HA and internal fixation rates, with candidates in the “adult reconstruction” subspecialty showing a particularly strong trend toward THA use.
These findings reflect a general propensity toward femoral head replacement rather than preservation through open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Recent studies have found that ORIF carries a 39% to 43% rate of fixation failure and need for secondary revision, as well as risks of avascular necrosis, malunion, and nonunion.1,14-16 This need for secondary surgery makes ORIF ultimately less cost-effective than either THA or HA.16,17 Most authors would recommend arthroplasty for FNF in elderly patients with normal mental function1,16,18 and would reserve ORIF for young patients with good bone stock, joint space preservation, and reducible noncomminuted fractures.1,19
Our study results suggest that smaller hospitals (<100 beds) tend to have lower rates of HA (P < .01, significant) and THA (P = .10, not significant; Table), possibly because FNF patients who present to these hospitals may be referred elsewhere because of regional differences in the availability of orthopedic traumatologists and arthroplasty subspecialists. Surgeon volume affects postoperative outcomes and may play a role in referral patterns.20 Ames and colleagues20 found that HA performed for FNF by surgeons with high-volume THA experience (vs non-hip-arthroplasty surgeons) had lower rates of dislocation, superficial infection, and mortality.
Regional differences were significant for THA alone, with the highest THA rates in the South (5.2%) and the lowest in the West (3.3%; Figure 5). There were no clear regional trends for HA. Possible explanations include a propensity toward a more aggressive approach in these regions, increased regional prevalence of acetabular disease, regional surgeon preferences, and regional differences in patient characteristics (eg, increased prevalence of obesity in the South).21
HA rates were highest for nonprofit/church hospitals and lowest for proprietary hospitals, whereas THA rates did not differ by hospital type. Possible explanations include an older, less mobile nonprofit/church patient cohort that is more amenable to HA, and surgeon preference.
THA patients were more likely to be covered by private medical insurance than by Medicare—a finding in agreement with Hochfelder and colleagues,22 who found that, compared with federal insurance and self-pay patients, private insurance patients were 41% more likely to undergo THA than HA or internal fixation for FNF. We think that the age difference between our THA and HA groups contributed to the insurance variability in our study.
Our study had several limitations. It was conducted to examine the rates of THA and HA after FNF, not to survey treatment types, including ORIF and nonoperative management. The NHDS database does not provide information on HA implant type (unipolar, bipolar), use or nonuse of cement with HA, or surgical approach. Surgical approach could influence the rate of postoperative dislocation, an outcome measure that was not examined in this study. Last, the NHDS database tracks admissions and discharges, not patients. When a patient is discharged, collection of information on the patient’s postoperative course stops; a patient who returns even only 1 day later is recorded as a new or unique patient. Therefore, intermediate or long-term outcome information is unavailable, which likely led to an underrepresentation of DVT, PE, and mortality after these THA and HA procedures.
There was a trend toward femoral head replacement rather than ORIF in the treatment of FNF. Cognitively functional and independent elderly patients, and patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, may benefit from THA, whereas HA may be better suited to cognitively dysfunctional patients.23,24 The NHDS reflects an increasing trend toward arthroplasty over ORIF, but the exact treatment choice is affected by hospital type, size, location and surgeon preference, training, and subspecialization.
1. Macaulay W, Pagnotto MR, Iorio R, Mont MA, Saleh KJ. Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(5):287-293.
2. Miyamoto RG, Kaplan KM, Levine BR, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD. Surgical management of hip fractures: an evidence-based review of the literature. I: femoral neck fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(10):596-607.
3. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Järvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone. 1996;18(1 suppl):57S-63S.
4. Zuckerman JD. Hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(23):1519-1525.
5. Papandrea RF, Froimson MI. Total hip arthroplasty after acute displaced femoral neck fractures. Am J Orthop. 1996;25(2):85-88.
6. Burgers PT, Van Geene AR, Van den Bekerom MP, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the healthy elderly: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized trials. Int Orthop. 2012;36(8):1549-1560.
7. Skinner P, Riley D, Ellery J, Beaumont A, Coumine R, Shafighian B. Displaced subcapital fractures of the femur: a prospective randomized comparison of internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement. Injury. 1989;20(5):291-293.
8. Baker RP, Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC. Total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck. A randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2583-2589.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhds/about_nhds.htm. Last updated December 6, 2011. Accessed December 10, 2013.
10. Zi-Sheng A, You-Shui G, Zhi-Zhen J, Ting Y, Chang-Qing Z. Hemiarthroplasty vs primary total hip arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck in the elderly: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(4):583-590.
11. Yu L, Wang Y, Chen J. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(8):2235-2243.
12. Hopley C, Stengel D, Ekkernkamp A, Wich M. Primary total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older patients: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c2332.
13. Miller BJ, Callaghan JJ, Cram P, Karam M, Marsh JL, Noiseux NO. Changing trends in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(17):e149.
14. Rogmark C, Carlsson A, Johnell O, Sernbo I. A prospective randomised trial of internal fixation versus arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the neck of the femur. Functional outcome for 450 patients at two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(2):183-188.
15. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(9):1673-1681.
16. Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF. Randomized comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in healthy older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(2):249-260.
17. Iorio R, Healy WL, Lemos DW, Appleby D, Lucchesi CA, Saleh KJ. Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: outcomes and cost effectiveness. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(383):229-242.
18. Johansson T, Jacobsson SA, Ivarsson I, Knutsson A, Wahlström O. Internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study of 100 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(6):597-602.
19. Shah AK, Eissler J, Radomisli T. Algorithms for the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(399):28-34.
20. Ames JB, Lurie JD, Tomek IM, Zhou W, Koval KJ. Does surgeon volume for total hip arthroplasty affect outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? Am J Orthop. 2010;39(8):E84-E89.
21. Le A, Judd SE, Allison DB, et al. The geographic distribution of obesity in the US and the potential regional differences in misreporting of obesity. Obesity. 2014;22(1):300-306.
22. Hochfelder JP, Khatib ON, Glait SA, Slover JD. Femoral neck fractures in New York state. Is the rate of THA increasing, and do race or payer influence decision making? J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(7):422-426.
23. Lowe JA, Crist BD, Bhandari M, Ferguson TA. Optimal treatment of femoral neck fractures according to patient’s physiologic age: an evidence-based review. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41(2):157-166.
24. Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Haidukewych GJ. Subcapital fractures: a changing paradigm. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 suppl A):19-21.
Take-Home Points
- An increasing number of THAs and HAs were performed over time for FNF.
- HA patients tended to be older.
- Hospitalization and blood transfusion rates were higher for THA.
- Hospital size affected the rate of HAs, while hospital location affected the rate of THAs.
- A larger proportion of THA patients had private insurance.
Femoral neck fractures (FNFs) are a common source of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The increasing number of FNFs in the United States is attributed to increases in number of US residents >65 years old, the average life span, and the incidence of osteoporosis.1 Three hundred forty thousand hip fractures occurred in the United States in 1996, and the number is expected to double by 2050.2 By that year, an estimated 6.3 million hip fractures will occur worldwide.3 Given the 1-year mortality rate of 14% to 36%, optimizing the management of these fractures is an important public health issue that must be addressed.4
Treatment is based on preoperative ambulatory status, cognitive function, comorbidities, fracture type and displacement, and other factors. In physiologically elderly patients with displaced fractures, surgical treatment usually involves either hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is controversy regarding which modality is the preferred treatment.
Proponents of HA point to a higher rate of dislocation for FNFs treated with THAs,5,6 attributed to increased range of motion.7 Proponents of THA point to superior short-term clinical results and fewer complications, especially in mobile, independent patients.8
We conducted a study to assess recent US national trends in performing THA and HA for FNFs and to evaluate perioperative outcomes for each treatment group.
Materials and Methods
Data for this study were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) and were imported into Microsoft Office Excel 2010.9 The NHDS examines patient discharges from various hospitals across the US, including federal, military, and Veterans Administration hospitals.9 Only short-stay hospitals (mean stay, <30 days) and hospitals with a general specialty are included in the survey. Each year, about 1% of all hospital admissions from across the US are abstracted and weighted to provide nationwide estimates. The information collected from each hospital record includes age, sex, race, marital status, discharge month, discharge status, days of care, hospital location, hospital size (number of beds), hospital type (proprietary or for-profit, government, nonprofit/church), and up to 15 discharge diagnoses and 8 procedures performed during admission.9
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes were used to search the NHDS for patients admitted after FNF for each year from 2001 through 2010. These codes were then used to identify patients within this group who underwent THA or HA. We also collected data on patient demographics, hospitalization duration, discharge disposition, in-hospital adverse events (deep vein thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], blood transfusion, mortality), form of primary medical insurance, number of hospital beds (0-99, 100-199, 200-299, 300-499, ≥500), hospital type (proprietary, government, nonprofit/church), and hospital region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West).
Trends were evaluated by linear regression with the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Statistical comparisons were made using the Student t test for continuous data, and both the Fisher exact test and the χ2 test for categorical variables. Significance level was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 22.
Results
Hospital stay was longer (P < .01) for THA patients (7.7 days; range, 1-312 days) than for HA patients (6.7 days; range, 1-118 days), and blood transfusion rate was higher (P = .02) for THA patients (30.4%) than for HA patients (25.7%), but the groups did not differ in their rates of DVT (THA, 1.2%; HA, 0.80%, P = .50), PE (THA, 0.52%; HA, 0.72%, P = .52), or mortality (THA, 1.8%; HA, 2.9%; P = .16). Discharge disposition varied with surgical status (P < .01): 23.2% of THA patients and 11.6% of HA patients were discharged directly home after their inpatient stay, and 76.8% of THA patients and 88.4% of HA patients were discharged or transferred to a short- or long-term care facility.
Private medical insurance provided coverage for 14.3% of THAs and 9.1% of HAs, and Medicare provided coverage for 80.9% of THAs and 86.0% of HAs (P < .01).
Discussion
The NHDS data showed a preference for HA over THA in the treatment of FNFs and suggested THA was favored for younger, healthier patients while HA was reserved for older patients with more comorbidities. Despite being younger and healthier, the THA group had higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalizations, possibly because of the increased complexity of THA procedures, which generally involve more operative time and increased blood loss. The resultant higher transfusion rate for THAs likely contributed to longer hospitalizations for FNFs. However, the THA and HA groups did not differ in their rates of DVT, PE, or mortality.
Multiple studies have noted no differences in mortality, infection, or general complications between THA and HA for FNF.8,10,11 THA patients have better functional outcomes, including Harris and Oxford hip scores and walking distance, but higher dislocation rates,8,10-12 and HA patients are at higher risk for reoperation because of progressive acetabular erosion.8,10,11
We noted an increase in use of both THA and HA for FNF over the study period (2001-2010). In a review of operative treatment for FNF by surgeons applying for the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery certification between 1999 and 2011, Miller and colleagues13 found a similar increase in the THA rate over time, but decreases in the HA and internal fixation rates, with candidates in the “adult reconstruction” subspecialty showing a particularly strong trend toward THA use.
These findings reflect a general propensity toward femoral head replacement rather than preservation through open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Recent studies have found that ORIF carries a 39% to 43% rate of fixation failure and need for secondary revision, as well as risks of avascular necrosis, malunion, and nonunion.1,14-16 This need for secondary surgery makes ORIF ultimately less cost-effective than either THA or HA.16,17 Most authors would recommend arthroplasty for FNF in elderly patients with normal mental function1,16,18 and would reserve ORIF for young patients with good bone stock, joint space preservation, and reducible noncomminuted fractures.1,19
Our study results suggest that smaller hospitals (<100 beds) tend to have lower rates of HA (P < .01, significant) and THA (P = .10, not significant; Table), possibly because FNF patients who present to these hospitals may be referred elsewhere because of regional differences in the availability of orthopedic traumatologists and arthroplasty subspecialists. Surgeon volume affects postoperative outcomes and may play a role in referral patterns.20 Ames and colleagues20 found that HA performed for FNF by surgeons with high-volume THA experience (vs non-hip-arthroplasty surgeons) had lower rates of dislocation, superficial infection, and mortality.
Regional differences were significant for THA alone, with the highest THA rates in the South (5.2%) and the lowest in the West (3.3%; Figure 5). There were no clear regional trends for HA. Possible explanations include a propensity toward a more aggressive approach in these regions, increased regional prevalence of acetabular disease, regional surgeon preferences, and regional differences in patient characteristics (eg, increased prevalence of obesity in the South).21
HA rates were highest for nonprofit/church hospitals and lowest for proprietary hospitals, whereas THA rates did not differ by hospital type. Possible explanations include an older, less mobile nonprofit/church patient cohort that is more amenable to HA, and surgeon preference.
THA patients were more likely to be covered by private medical insurance than by Medicare—a finding in agreement with Hochfelder and colleagues,22 who found that, compared with federal insurance and self-pay patients, private insurance patients were 41% more likely to undergo THA than HA or internal fixation for FNF. We think that the age difference between our THA and HA groups contributed to the insurance variability in our study.
Our study had several limitations. It was conducted to examine the rates of THA and HA after FNF, not to survey treatment types, including ORIF and nonoperative management. The NHDS database does not provide information on HA implant type (unipolar, bipolar), use or nonuse of cement with HA, or surgical approach. Surgical approach could influence the rate of postoperative dislocation, an outcome measure that was not examined in this study. Last, the NHDS database tracks admissions and discharges, not patients. When a patient is discharged, collection of information on the patient’s postoperative course stops; a patient who returns even only 1 day later is recorded as a new or unique patient. Therefore, intermediate or long-term outcome information is unavailable, which likely led to an underrepresentation of DVT, PE, and mortality after these THA and HA procedures.
There was a trend toward femoral head replacement rather than ORIF in the treatment of FNF. Cognitively functional and independent elderly patients, and patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, may benefit from THA, whereas HA may be better suited to cognitively dysfunctional patients.23,24 The NHDS reflects an increasing trend toward arthroplasty over ORIF, but the exact treatment choice is affected by hospital type, size, location and surgeon preference, training, and subspecialization.
Take-Home Points
- An increasing number of THAs and HAs were performed over time for FNF.
- HA patients tended to be older.
- Hospitalization and blood transfusion rates were higher for THA.
- Hospital size affected the rate of HAs, while hospital location affected the rate of THAs.
- A larger proportion of THA patients had private insurance.
Femoral neck fractures (FNFs) are a common source of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The increasing number of FNFs in the United States is attributed to increases in number of US residents >65 years old, the average life span, and the incidence of osteoporosis.1 Three hundred forty thousand hip fractures occurred in the United States in 1996, and the number is expected to double by 2050.2 By that year, an estimated 6.3 million hip fractures will occur worldwide.3 Given the 1-year mortality rate of 14% to 36%, optimizing the management of these fractures is an important public health issue that must be addressed.4
Treatment is based on preoperative ambulatory status, cognitive function, comorbidities, fracture type and displacement, and other factors. In physiologically elderly patients with displaced fractures, surgical treatment usually involves either hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is controversy regarding which modality is the preferred treatment.
Proponents of HA point to a higher rate of dislocation for FNFs treated with THAs,5,6 attributed to increased range of motion.7 Proponents of THA point to superior short-term clinical results and fewer complications, especially in mobile, independent patients.8
We conducted a study to assess recent US national trends in performing THA and HA for FNFs and to evaluate perioperative outcomes for each treatment group.
Materials and Methods
Data for this study were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) and were imported into Microsoft Office Excel 2010.9 The NHDS examines patient discharges from various hospitals across the US, including federal, military, and Veterans Administration hospitals.9 Only short-stay hospitals (mean stay, <30 days) and hospitals with a general specialty are included in the survey. Each year, about 1% of all hospital admissions from across the US are abstracted and weighted to provide nationwide estimates. The information collected from each hospital record includes age, sex, race, marital status, discharge month, discharge status, days of care, hospital location, hospital size (number of beds), hospital type (proprietary or for-profit, government, nonprofit/church), and up to 15 discharge diagnoses and 8 procedures performed during admission.9
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) procedure codes were used to search the NHDS for patients admitted after FNF for each year from 2001 through 2010. These codes were then used to identify patients within this group who underwent THA or HA. We also collected data on patient demographics, hospitalization duration, discharge disposition, in-hospital adverse events (deep vein thrombosis [DVT], pulmonary embolism [PE], blood transfusion, mortality), form of primary medical insurance, number of hospital beds (0-99, 100-199, 200-299, 300-499, ≥500), hospital type (proprietary, government, nonprofit/church), and hospital region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West).
Trends were evaluated by linear regression with the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Statistical comparisons were made using the Student t test for continuous data, and both the Fisher exact test and the χ2 test for categorical variables. Significance level was set at P < .05. All analyses were performed with IBM SPSS Statistics 22.
Results
Hospital stay was longer (P < .01) for THA patients (7.7 days; range, 1-312 days) than for HA patients (6.7 days; range, 1-118 days), and blood transfusion rate was higher (P = .02) for THA patients (30.4%) than for HA patients (25.7%), but the groups did not differ in their rates of DVT (THA, 1.2%; HA, 0.80%, P = .50), PE (THA, 0.52%; HA, 0.72%, P = .52), or mortality (THA, 1.8%; HA, 2.9%; P = .16). Discharge disposition varied with surgical status (P < .01): 23.2% of THA patients and 11.6% of HA patients were discharged directly home after their inpatient stay, and 76.8% of THA patients and 88.4% of HA patients were discharged or transferred to a short- or long-term care facility.
Private medical insurance provided coverage for 14.3% of THAs and 9.1% of HAs, and Medicare provided coverage for 80.9% of THAs and 86.0% of HAs (P < .01).
Discussion
The NHDS data showed a preference for HA over THA in the treatment of FNFs and suggested THA was favored for younger, healthier patients while HA was reserved for older patients with more comorbidities. Despite being younger and healthier, the THA group had higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalizations, possibly because of the increased complexity of THA procedures, which generally involve more operative time and increased blood loss. The resultant higher transfusion rate for THAs likely contributed to longer hospitalizations for FNFs. However, the THA and HA groups did not differ in their rates of DVT, PE, or mortality.
Multiple studies have noted no differences in mortality, infection, or general complications between THA and HA for FNF.8,10,11 THA patients have better functional outcomes, including Harris and Oxford hip scores and walking distance, but higher dislocation rates,8,10-12 and HA patients are at higher risk for reoperation because of progressive acetabular erosion.8,10,11
We noted an increase in use of both THA and HA for FNF over the study period (2001-2010). In a review of operative treatment for FNF by surgeons applying for the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery certification between 1999 and 2011, Miller and colleagues13 found a similar increase in the THA rate over time, but decreases in the HA and internal fixation rates, with candidates in the “adult reconstruction” subspecialty showing a particularly strong trend toward THA use.
These findings reflect a general propensity toward femoral head replacement rather than preservation through open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Recent studies have found that ORIF carries a 39% to 43% rate of fixation failure and need for secondary revision, as well as risks of avascular necrosis, malunion, and nonunion.1,14-16 This need for secondary surgery makes ORIF ultimately less cost-effective than either THA or HA.16,17 Most authors would recommend arthroplasty for FNF in elderly patients with normal mental function1,16,18 and would reserve ORIF for young patients with good bone stock, joint space preservation, and reducible noncomminuted fractures.1,19
Our study results suggest that smaller hospitals (<100 beds) tend to have lower rates of HA (P < .01, significant) and THA (P = .10, not significant; Table), possibly because FNF patients who present to these hospitals may be referred elsewhere because of regional differences in the availability of orthopedic traumatologists and arthroplasty subspecialists. Surgeon volume affects postoperative outcomes and may play a role in referral patterns.20 Ames and colleagues20 found that HA performed for FNF by surgeons with high-volume THA experience (vs non-hip-arthroplasty surgeons) had lower rates of dislocation, superficial infection, and mortality.
Regional differences were significant for THA alone, with the highest THA rates in the South (5.2%) and the lowest in the West (3.3%; Figure 5). There were no clear regional trends for HA. Possible explanations include a propensity toward a more aggressive approach in these regions, increased regional prevalence of acetabular disease, regional surgeon preferences, and regional differences in patient characteristics (eg, increased prevalence of obesity in the South).21
HA rates were highest for nonprofit/church hospitals and lowest for proprietary hospitals, whereas THA rates did not differ by hospital type. Possible explanations include an older, less mobile nonprofit/church patient cohort that is more amenable to HA, and surgeon preference.
THA patients were more likely to be covered by private medical insurance than by Medicare—a finding in agreement with Hochfelder and colleagues,22 who found that, compared with federal insurance and self-pay patients, private insurance patients were 41% more likely to undergo THA than HA or internal fixation for FNF. We think that the age difference between our THA and HA groups contributed to the insurance variability in our study.
Our study had several limitations. It was conducted to examine the rates of THA and HA after FNF, not to survey treatment types, including ORIF and nonoperative management. The NHDS database does not provide information on HA implant type (unipolar, bipolar), use or nonuse of cement with HA, or surgical approach. Surgical approach could influence the rate of postoperative dislocation, an outcome measure that was not examined in this study. Last, the NHDS database tracks admissions and discharges, not patients. When a patient is discharged, collection of information on the patient’s postoperative course stops; a patient who returns even only 1 day later is recorded as a new or unique patient. Therefore, intermediate or long-term outcome information is unavailable, which likely led to an underrepresentation of DVT, PE, and mortality after these THA and HA procedures.
There was a trend toward femoral head replacement rather than ORIF in the treatment of FNF. Cognitively functional and independent elderly patients, and patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, may benefit from THA, whereas HA may be better suited to cognitively dysfunctional patients.23,24 The NHDS reflects an increasing trend toward arthroplasty over ORIF, but the exact treatment choice is affected by hospital type, size, location and surgeon preference, training, and subspecialization.
1. Macaulay W, Pagnotto MR, Iorio R, Mont MA, Saleh KJ. Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(5):287-293.
2. Miyamoto RG, Kaplan KM, Levine BR, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD. Surgical management of hip fractures: an evidence-based review of the literature. I: femoral neck fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(10):596-607.
3. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Järvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone. 1996;18(1 suppl):57S-63S.
4. Zuckerman JD. Hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(23):1519-1525.
5. Papandrea RF, Froimson MI. Total hip arthroplasty after acute displaced femoral neck fractures. Am J Orthop. 1996;25(2):85-88.
6. Burgers PT, Van Geene AR, Van den Bekerom MP, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the healthy elderly: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized trials. Int Orthop. 2012;36(8):1549-1560.
7. Skinner P, Riley D, Ellery J, Beaumont A, Coumine R, Shafighian B. Displaced subcapital fractures of the femur: a prospective randomized comparison of internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement. Injury. 1989;20(5):291-293.
8. Baker RP, Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC. Total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck. A randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2583-2589.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhds/about_nhds.htm. Last updated December 6, 2011. Accessed December 10, 2013.
10. Zi-Sheng A, You-Shui G, Zhi-Zhen J, Ting Y, Chang-Qing Z. Hemiarthroplasty vs primary total hip arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck in the elderly: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(4):583-590.
11. Yu L, Wang Y, Chen J. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(8):2235-2243.
12. Hopley C, Stengel D, Ekkernkamp A, Wich M. Primary total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older patients: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c2332.
13. Miller BJ, Callaghan JJ, Cram P, Karam M, Marsh JL, Noiseux NO. Changing trends in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(17):e149.
14. Rogmark C, Carlsson A, Johnell O, Sernbo I. A prospective randomised trial of internal fixation versus arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the neck of the femur. Functional outcome for 450 patients at two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(2):183-188.
15. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(9):1673-1681.
16. Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF. Randomized comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in healthy older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(2):249-260.
17. Iorio R, Healy WL, Lemos DW, Appleby D, Lucchesi CA, Saleh KJ. Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: outcomes and cost effectiveness. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(383):229-242.
18. Johansson T, Jacobsson SA, Ivarsson I, Knutsson A, Wahlström O. Internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study of 100 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(6):597-602.
19. Shah AK, Eissler J, Radomisli T. Algorithms for the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(399):28-34.
20. Ames JB, Lurie JD, Tomek IM, Zhou W, Koval KJ. Does surgeon volume for total hip arthroplasty affect outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? Am J Orthop. 2010;39(8):E84-E89.
21. Le A, Judd SE, Allison DB, et al. The geographic distribution of obesity in the US and the potential regional differences in misreporting of obesity. Obesity. 2014;22(1):300-306.
22. Hochfelder JP, Khatib ON, Glait SA, Slover JD. Femoral neck fractures in New York state. Is the rate of THA increasing, and do race or payer influence decision making? J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(7):422-426.
23. Lowe JA, Crist BD, Bhandari M, Ferguson TA. Optimal treatment of femoral neck fractures according to patient’s physiologic age: an evidence-based review. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41(2):157-166.
24. Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Haidukewych GJ. Subcapital fractures: a changing paradigm. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 suppl A):19-21.
1. Macaulay W, Pagnotto MR, Iorio R, Mont MA, Saleh KJ. Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(5):287-293.
2. Miyamoto RG, Kaplan KM, Levine BR, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD. Surgical management of hip fractures: an evidence-based review of the literature. I: femoral neck fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(10):596-607.
3. Kannus P, Parkkari J, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Vuori I, Järvinen M. Epidemiology of hip fractures. Bone. 1996;18(1 suppl):57S-63S.
4. Zuckerman JD. Hip fracture. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(23):1519-1525.
5. Papandrea RF, Froimson MI. Total hip arthroplasty after acute displaced femoral neck fractures. Am J Orthop. 1996;25(2):85-88.
6. Burgers PT, Van Geene AR, Van den Bekerom MP, et al. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures in the healthy elderly: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized trials. Int Orthop. 2012;36(8):1549-1560.
7. Skinner P, Riley D, Ellery J, Beaumont A, Coumine R, Shafighian B. Displaced subcapital fractures of the femur: a prospective randomized comparison of internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty and total hip replacement. Injury. 1989;20(5):291-293.
8. Baker RP, Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC. Total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty in mobile, independent patients with a displaced intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck. A randomized, controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2583-2589.
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. National Hospital Discharge Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhds/about_nhds.htm. Last updated December 6, 2011. Accessed December 10, 2013.
10. Zi-Sheng A, You-Shui G, Zhi-Zhen J, Ting Y, Chang-Qing Z. Hemiarthroplasty vs primary total hip arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck in the elderly: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(4):583-590.
11. Yu L, Wang Y, Chen J. Total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(8):2235-2243.
12. Hopley C, Stengel D, Ekkernkamp A, Wich M. Primary total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older patients: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;340:c2332.
13. Miller BJ, Callaghan JJ, Cram P, Karam M, Marsh JL, Noiseux NO. Changing trends in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(17):e149.
14. Rogmark C, Carlsson A, Johnell O, Sernbo I. A prospective randomised trial of internal fixation versus arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the neck of the femur. Functional outcome for 450 patients at two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(2):183-188.
15. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Internal fixation compared with arthroplasty for displaced fractures of the femoral neck. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(9):1673-1681.
16. Keating JF, Grant A, Masson M, Scott NW, Forbes JF. Randomized comparison of reduction and fixation, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty. Treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in healthy older patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(2):249-260.
17. Iorio R, Healy WL, Lemos DW, Appleby D, Lucchesi CA, Saleh KJ. Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly: outcomes and cost effectiveness. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(383):229-242.
18. Johansson T, Jacobsson SA, Ivarsson I, Knutsson A, Wahlström O. Internal fixation versus total hip arthroplasty in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures: a prospective randomized study of 100 hips. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(6):597-602.
19. Shah AK, Eissler J, Radomisli T. Algorithms for the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(399):28-34.
20. Ames JB, Lurie JD, Tomek IM, Zhou W, Koval KJ. Does surgeon volume for total hip arthroplasty affect outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? Am J Orthop. 2010;39(8):E84-E89.
21. Le A, Judd SE, Allison DB, et al. The geographic distribution of obesity in the US and the potential regional differences in misreporting of obesity. Obesity. 2014;22(1):300-306.
22. Hochfelder JP, Khatib ON, Glait SA, Slover JD. Femoral neck fractures in New York state. Is the rate of THA increasing, and do race or payer influence decision making? J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(7):422-426.
23. Lowe JA, Crist BD, Bhandari M, Ferguson TA. Optimal treatment of femoral neck fractures according to patient’s physiologic age: an evidence-based review. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41(2):157-166.
24. Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Haidukewych GJ. Subcapital fractures: a changing paradigm. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 suppl A):19-21.
Total Knee Arthroplasty Performed With Long-Acting Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Femoral Nerve Catheter
Take-Home Points
- At our institution, LALB has shortened our hospital stay.
- There is a trend towards decreased opioid consumption with LALB.
- With the opioid epidemic we face today, LALB can be one of many options in our toolbox towards a solution.
- As stated in prior publications, the effectiveness of LALB is definitely technique dependent.
- Additional clinical studies are warranted to better determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LALB.
Almost 1 million total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed in the United States each year, and the number continues to grow.1.2 For patients about to undergo TKA, a significant concern is postoperative pain.3 Fear of postoperative pain is often cited as a reason for delaying surgery.3 Recent literature suggests that patients with poor pain management during the first 48 hours after surgery have a 50% chance of gaining satisfactory long-term pain relief.4 In addition, inadequate postoperative pain management can interfere with participation in and progression of physical rehabilitation, prolong hospital stay, and increase patient dissatisfaction.5 Poorly controlled pain results in decreased range of motion (ROM), strength, stability, and ambulation thereby prolongs hospital stays, and increases costs and overall dissatisfaction with the procedure.
Post-TKA pain management has received much attention in recent years. A multimodal pain management protocol is now a key component of clinical pathways in TKA. Appropriate postoperative pain control lowers postoperative complications and accelerates recovery.6 Pain-caused loss of function makes surgical patients more susceptible to edema, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism.4 Various oral and intravenous medications are used to lessen the pain response during the perioperative period. In addition, regional or neuraxial anesthesia is often added to blunt the immediate surgical pain response.7,8 At our institution, TKA traditionally has been performed with femoral nerve catheters (FNCs) for postoperative pain control. Although effective, this method often results in decreased quadriceps musculature function, which delays rehabilitation and increases the fall risk. Recently, there has been a shift toward using local anesthetic infusions about the knee to provide adequate pain relief and restore motor function, which is often sacrificed with use of regional nerve blocks and continuous catheter infusions.9
Many institutions have started using a new long-acting local anesthetic in their multimodal pain management pathways: Exparel (Pacira Pharmaceuticals), a liposomal membrane-bound bupivacaine with sustained release of approximately 72 hours. Several studies have verified the safety of this medication.10 A systemic review of prospective studies revealed that, compared with bupivacaine, long-acting liposomal bupivacaine (LALB) in therapeutic doses had a higher safety margin and a favorable safety profile.10 However, no study has compared the effectiveness of LALB and FNC in a matched TKA cohort with each patient serving as his or her own control.
We recently reviewed our multimodal pain management protocol for any areas in need of improvement and decided to compare the effects of the indwelling FNC protocol that was in use with the effects of injecting the local anesthetic LALB. We conducted a study to compare the 2 methods with respect to pain control, ROM, ability to ambulate, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We hypothesized that the longer acting local anesthetic would provide comparable post-TKA pain control and post-TKA opioid use but would accelerate post-TKA rehabilitation.
Materials and Methods
This retrospective, longitudinal, repeated- measures study was approved by the Greenville Hospital System Institutional Review Board and conducted at the Steadman Hawkins Clinic of the Carolinas, Greenville Health System.
Interventions
Twenty-three patients underwent separately staged bilateral TKAs between 2010 and 2013. For each TKA, a Genesis II implant (Smith & Nephew) was used, and the surgery was performed with the patient under spinal anesthesia. In each case, FNC was used for pain control after the first TKA, and periarticular injection (PAI) of LALB for pain control after the second TKA.
In the first TKAs, FNC-administered ropivacaine 0.2% (2 mg/mL) was maintained at a standard basal rate of 8 mL/h for 48 hours. In the second TKAs, LALB was administered along with bupivacaine/epinephrine. Twenty milliliters of LALB from a single-use vial was diluted in 40 mL of normal (0.9%) saline to obtain a 60-mL solution, and a 25-gauge needle was used to inject this solution into the periarticular soft tissues; another needle was used for PAI of 30 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine.
Continuous passive motion devices were not used. Most patients began therapy on day of surgery. Knee immobilizers were not used in the FNC group.
The same standardized multimodal pain management protocol was used for all TKAs. Non- narcotic medications, including acetaminophen, ketorolac, and celecoxib, were given on a scheduled basis. Tramadol and opioid medications were administered as needed for pain. The attending physician based patient discharge timing on pain control, ability to safely ambulate, and absence of complications.
Outcome Measures
Outcome measures were LOS; extension and flexion at discharge and 3-week follow-up; total ROM (extension plus flexion) at discharge and 3-week follow-up; per-day and total hospital stay morphine -equivalent doses (MEDs); and per-attempt walking distance during gait training.
ROM was measured with a standard goniometer. Flexion was tested with the patient supine and the hip and knee in neutral rotation. The goniometer axis was along the lateral epicondyle of the femur with the proximal arm of the goniometer parallel to the long axis of the femur and pointing at the greater trochanter and with the distal arm parallel to the long axis of the fibula and pointing at the lateral malleolus. The patient was instructed to flex the hip and knee by moving the heel toward the buttock. Expected normal ROM is 135°. The same landmarks were used for extension. The patient was instructed to push the back of the knee toward the plinth/bed, for maximal active extension. The same ROM assessment strategy was used during the hospitalization and at the 3-week follow-up.
Several opioid medications (eg, hydrocodone, oxycodone, tramadol, hydromorphone, morphine) with different dosages were used during hospitalization. Opioid doses were converted to MEDs to permit FNC–LALB comparisons. For each patient, total MEDs were divided by LOS to determine MEDs per day.
Mean per-attempt walking distance was calculated by dividing the total distance walked during hospitalization—the sum of the number of feet walked during each and every attempt, as measured by the treating physical therapist—by the total number of walking attempts.
Data Analysis
A paired-samples t test was used to calculate differences between all outcome measures: LOS; extension and flexion at discharge and 3-month follow-up; per-day and total MEDs; and mean per-attempt walking distance. P < .05 was considered significant. We elected not to adjust our α for a potential familywise error.
Results
Of the 23 patients, 14 were female and 9 were male, and 19 were white and 4 were black. Mean (SD) age was 64.4 (6.4) years for the FNC group and 66.0 (6.0) years for the LALB group. The age difference was not statistically significant.
Discussion
Poor pain control during the post-TKA period may have a significant impact on recovery rate, standard of living, psychological health, and postoperative complications.10 Inadequate postoperative pain control increases postoperative morbidity, hinders physiotherapy, increases anxiety, disrupts sleep patterns, and decreases patient satisfaction.9 There has been increased interest in PAIs. Local anesthetics are additional sources of pain control at surgical sites. However, the half-life of most local anesthetics is short. Soft-tissue infiltration of LALB into a surgical site extends the duration of active analgesia. Our study found that, compared with patients who received FNC, patients who received LALB had comparable pain control, improved knee ROM, and shorter hospital stays. In addition, the LALB group had no reports of quadriceps weakness or falls, both of which are associated with femoral nerve blocks. The FNC group had no reported falls, either. PAIs have the benefit of avoiding the invasiveness of femoral nerve blocks and possible neuritis.
Many complications are associated with or indirectly related to delayed rehabilitation and immobility during the acute post-TKA period. From prolonged hospitalization to need for manipulation, the consequences of inadequate pain control and decreased function can be numerous and costly for patients and the healthcare system. In the present study, LALB use led to a statistically significant overall decrease in mean LOS (LALB group, 2.3 days; FNC, 2.8 days). With LALB, there was a higher likelihood of discharge the day after surgery; 20% of patients in the LALB group and no patients in the FNC group went home that day.
The implication is that inadequate pain control led to decreased motion and decreased progression during postoperative rehabilitation. Local infiltration resulted in increased total ROM (extension plus flexion) at 3-week follow-up (LALB, 116.3°; FNC, 107.2°). In addition, there was an increase in walking distance per day of hospital stay (LALB, 135.9 feet; FNC, 84.2 feet). Furthermore, patients indicated LALB when asked which anesthetic they preferred. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare LALB and FNC data in a matched TKA cohort with each patient serving as his or her own control.
Our study had several limitations. First was the retrospective design. Second was the small sample size, which made definitive conclusions difficult. However, the statistically significant differences we noted validated our conclusions. A statistically significant difference favoring LALB over FNC was found for total MEDs during hospitalization, but there was no significant difference in per-day MEDs. A possible reason for this difference is that LALB patients had shorter hospital stays, and therefore received fewer doses overall. Another possible reason is the small sample size; whereas a larger study using our protocol may find a statistically significant difference between LALB and FNC, we found only a trend. In the FNC group, anesthetic infiltration occurred with use of a computerized pump, which was removed on postoperative day 2; most of these patients were discharged home that day or the morning of postoperative day 3. As it is possible that some of these patients could have gone home sooner, our LOS data may have been affected. We do not consider this limitation significant, as one of our discharge criteria was 150 feet of ambulation, and most patients who received FNCs could not ambulate that far until after FNC removal. Furthermore, this study compared LALB only with FNC. It is possible that our improved outcomes could have resulted from the PAIs themselves, irrespective of LALB. In a recent TKA study by Bagsby and colleagues,11 pain was controlled better with the less expensive traditional PAI of ropivacaine, epinephrine, and morphine than with the PAI of liposomal bupivacaine. Last, in our study, the experience of undergoing the first TKA may have increased patients’ confidence going into the second TKA and then helped them make faster progress in rehabilitation. Regardless, the promising results of our study and the firsthand use of LALB at our institution led us to modify our intraoperative pain management protocol for surgeons who perform TKA.
As we continue to use LALB, our study numbers will increase, and we may discover other factors that, though now underpowered, will prove to be statistically significant. Additional clinical studies are needed to better determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LALB and other long-acting local anesthetic formulations.
1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.
2. Ruiz D Jr, Koenig L, Dall TM, et al. The direct and indirect costs to society of treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(16):1473-1480.
3. Trousdale RT, McGrory BJ, Berry DJ, Becker MW, Harmsen WS. Patients’ concerns prior to undergoing total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74(10):978-982.
4. Wells N, Pasero C, McCaffery M. Improving the quality of care through pain assessment and management. In: Hughes RG, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses, Vol 1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008:469-497.
5. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(4):287-333.
6. Parvizi J, Miller AG, Gandhi K. Multimodal pain management after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(11):1075-1084.
7. Stein BE, Srikumaran U, Tan EW, Freehill MT, Wilckens JH. Lower-extremity peripheral nerve blocks in the perioperative pain management of orthopaedic patients: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(22):e167.
8. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Mendoza-Lattes S, Callaghan JJ. Differences in short-term complications between spinal and general anesthesia for primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(3):193-199.
9. Dalury DF, Lieberman JR, MacDonald SJ. Current and innovative pain management techniques in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(20):1938-1943.
10. Portillo J, Kamar N, Melibary S, Quevedo E, Bergese S. Safety of liposome extended-release bupivacaine for postoperative pain control. Front Pharmacol. 2014;5:90.
11. Bagsby DT, Ireland PH, Meneghini RM. Liposomal bupivacaine versus traditional periarticular injection for pain control after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(8):1687-1690.
Take-Home Points
- At our institution, LALB has shortened our hospital stay.
- There is a trend towards decreased opioid consumption with LALB.
- With the opioid epidemic we face today, LALB can be one of many options in our toolbox towards a solution.
- As stated in prior publications, the effectiveness of LALB is definitely technique dependent.
- Additional clinical studies are warranted to better determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LALB.
Almost 1 million total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed in the United States each year, and the number continues to grow.1.2 For patients about to undergo TKA, a significant concern is postoperative pain.3 Fear of postoperative pain is often cited as a reason for delaying surgery.3 Recent literature suggests that patients with poor pain management during the first 48 hours after surgery have a 50% chance of gaining satisfactory long-term pain relief.4 In addition, inadequate postoperative pain management can interfere with participation in and progression of physical rehabilitation, prolong hospital stay, and increase patient dissatisfaction.5 Poorly controlled pain results in decreased range of motion (ROM), strength, stability, and ambulation thereby prolongs hospital stays, and increases costs and overall dissatisfaction with the procedure.
Post-TKA pain management has received much attention in recent years. A multimodal pain management protocol is now a key component of clinical pathways in TKA. Appropriate postoperative pain control lowers postoperative complications and accelerates recovery.6 Pain-caused loss of function makes surgical patients more susceptible to edema, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism.4 Various oral and intravenous medications are used to lessen the pain response during the perioperative period. In addition, regional or neuraxial anesthesia is often added to blunt the immediate surgical pain response.7,8 At our institution, TKA traditionally has been performed with femoral nerve catheters (FNCs) for postoperative pain control. Although effective, this method often results in decreased quadriceps musculature function, which delays rehabilitation and increases the fall risk. Recently, there has been a shift toward using local anesthetic infusions about the knee to provide adequate pain relief and restore motor function, which is often sacrificed with use of regional nerve blocks and continuous catheter infusions.9
Many institutions have started using a new long-acting local anesthetic in their multimodal pain management pathways: Exparel (Pacira Pharmaceuticals), a liposomal membrane-bound bupivacaine with sustained release of approximately 72 hours. Several studies have verified the safety of this medication.10 A systemic review of prospective studies revealed that, compared with bupivacaine, long-acting liposomal bupivacaine (LALB) in therapeutic doses had a higher safety margin and a favorable safety profile.10 However, no study has compared the effectiveness of LALB and FNC in a matched TKA cohort with each patient serving as his or her own control.
We recently reviewed our multimodal pain management protocol for any areas in need of improvement and decided to compare the effects of the indwelling FNC protocol that was in use with the effects of injecting the local anesthetic LALB. We conducted a study to compare the 2 methods with respect to pain control, ROM, ability to ambulate, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We hypothesized that the longer acting local anesthetic would provide comparable post-TKA pain control and post-TKA opioid use but would accelerate post-TKA rehabilitation.
Materials and Methods
This retrospective, longitudinal, repeated- measures study was approved by the Greenville Hospital System Institutional Review Board and conducted at the Steadman Hawkins Clinic of the Carolinas, Greenville Health System.
Interventions
Twenty-three patients underwent separately staged bilateral TKAs between 2010 and 2013. For each TKA, a Genesis II implant (Smith & Nephew) was used, and the surgery was performed with the patient under spinal anesthesia. In each case, FNC was used for pain control after the first TKA, and periarticular injection (PAI) of LALB for pain control after the second TKA.
In the first TKAs, FNC-administered ropivacaine 0.2% (2 mg/mL) was maintained at a standard basal rate of 8 mL/h for 48 hours. In the second TKAs, LALB was administered along with bupivacaine/epinephrine. Twenty milliliters of LALB from a single-use vial was diluted in 40 mL of normal (0.9%) saline to obtain a 60-mL solution, and a 25-gauge needle was used to inject this solution into the periarticular soft tissues; another needle was used for PAI of 30 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine.
Continuous passive motion devices were not used. Most patients began therapy on day of surgery. Knee immobilizers were not used in the FNC group.
The same standardized multimodal pain management protocol was used for all TKAs. Non- narcotic medications, including acetaminophen, ketorolac, and celecoxib, were given on a scheduled basis. Tramadol and opioid medications were administered as needed for pain. The attending physician based patient discharge timing on pain control, ability to safely ambulate, and absence of complications.
Outcome Measures
Outcome measures were LOS; extension and flexion at discharge and 3-week follow-up; total ROM (extension plus flexion) at discharge and 3-week follow-up; per-day and total hospital stay morphine -equivalent doses (MEDs); and per-attempt walking distance during gait training.
ROM was measured with a standard goniometer. Flexion was tested with the patient supine and the hip and knee in neutral rotation. The goniometer axis was along the lateral epicondyle of the femur with the proximal arm of the goniometer parallel to the long axis of the femur and pointing at the greater trochanter and with the distal arm parallel to the long axis of the fibula and pointing at the lateral malleolus. The patient was instructed to flex the hip and knee by moving the heel toward the buttock. Expected normal ROM is 135°. The same landmarks were used for extension. The patient was instructed to push the back of the knee toward the plinth/bed, for maximal active extension. The same ROM assessment strategy was used during the hospitalization and at the 3-week follow-up.
Several opioid medications (eg, hydrocodone, oxycodone, tramadol, hydromorphone, morphine) with different dosages were used during hospitalization. Opioid doses were converted to MEDs to permit FNC–LALB comparisons. For each patient, total MEDs were divided by LOS to determine MEDs per day.
Mean per-attempt walking distance was calculated by dividing the total distance walked during hospitalization—the sum of the number of feet walked during each and every attempt, as measured by the treating physical therapist—by the total number of walking attempts.
Data Analysis
A paired-samples t test was used to calculate differences between all outcome measures: LOS; extension and flexion at discharge and 3-month follow-up; per-day and total MEDs; and mean per-attempt walking distance. P < .05 was considered significant. We elected not to adjust our α for a potential familywise error.
Results
Of the 23 patients, 14 were female and 9 were male, and 19 were white and 4 were black. Mean (SD) age was 64.4 (6.4) years for the FNC group and 66.0 (6.0) years for the LALB group. The age difference was not statistically significant.
Discussion
Poor pain control during the post-TKA period may have a significant impact on recovery rate, standard of living, psychological health, and postoperative complications.10 Inadequate postoperative pain control increases postoperative morbidity, hinders physiotherapy, increases anxiety, disrupts sleep patterns, and decreases patient satisfaction.9 There has been increased interest in PAIs. Local anesthetics are additional sources of pain control at surgical sites. However, the half-life of most local anesthetics is short. Soft-tissue infiltration of LALB into a surgical site extends the duration of active analgesia. Our study found that, compared with patients who received FNC, patients who received LALB had comparable pain control, improved knee ROM, and shorter hospital stays. In addition, the LALB group had no reports of quadriceps weakness or falls, both of which are associated with femoral nerve blocks. The FNC group had no reported falls, either. PAIs have the benefit of avoiding the invasiveness of femoral nerve blocks and possible neuritis.
Many complications are associated with or indirectly related to delayed rehabilitation and immobility during the acute post-TKA period. From prolonged hospitalization to need for manipulation, the consequences of inadequate pain control and decreased function can be numerous and costly for patients and the healthcare system. In the present study, LALB use led to a statistically significant overall decrease in mean LOS (LALB group, 2.3 days; FNC, 2.8 days). With LALB, there was a higher likelihood of discharge the day after surgery; 20% of patients in the LALB group and no patients in the FNC group went home that day.
The implication is that inadequate pain control led to decreased motion and decreased progression during postoperative rehabilitation. Local infiltration resulted in increased total ROM (extension plus flexion) at 3-week follow-up (LALB, 116.3°; FNC, 107.2°). In addition, there was an increase in walking distance per day of hospital stay (LALB, 135.9 feet; FNC, 84.2 feet). Furthermore, patients indicated LALB when asked which anesthetic they preferred. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare LALB and FNC data in a matched TKA cohort with each patient serving as his or her own control.
Our study had several limitations. First was the retrospective design. Second was the small sample size, which made definitive conclusions difficult. However, the statistically significant differences we noted validated our conclusions. A statistically significant difference favoring LALB over FNC was found for total MEDs during hospitalization, but there was no significant difference in per-day MEDs. A possible reason for this difference is that LALB patients had shorter hospital stays, and therefore received fewer doses overall. Another possible reason is the small sample size; whereas a larger study using our protocol may find a statistically significant difference between LALB and FNC, we found only a trend. In the FNC group, anesthetic infiltration occurred with use of a computerized pump, which was removed on postoperative day 2; most of these patients were discharged home that day or the morning of postoperative day 3. As it is possible that some of these patients could have gone home sooner, our LOS data may have been affected. We do not consider this limitation significant, as one of our discharge criteria was 150 feet of ambulation, and most patients who received FNCs could not ambulate that far until after FNC removal. Furthermore, this study compared LALB only with FNC. It is possible that our improved outcomes could have resulted from the PAIs themselves, irrespective of LALB. In a recent TKA study by Bagsby and colleagues,11 pain was controlled better with the less expensive traditional PAI of ropivacaine, epinephrine, and morphine than with the PAI of liposomal bupivacaine. Last, in our study, the experience of undergoing the first TKA may have increased patients’ confidence going into the second TKA and then helped them make faster progress in rehabilitation. Regardless, the promising results of our study and the firsthand use of LALB at our institution led us to modify our intraoperative pain management protocol for surgeons who perform TKA.
As we continue to use LALB, our study numbers will increase, and we may discover other factors that, though now underpowered, will prove to be statistically significant. Additional clinical studies are needed to better determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LALB and other long-acting local anesthetic formulations.
Take-Home Points
- At our institution, LALB has shortened our hospital stay.
- There is a trend towards decreased opioid consumption with LALB.
- With the opioid epidemic we face today, LALB can be one of many options in our toolbox towards a solution.
- As stated in prior publications, the effectiveness of LALB is definitely technique dependent.
- Additional clinical studies are warranted to better determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LALB.
Almost 1 million total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) are performed in the United States each year, and the number continues to grow.1.2 For patients about to undergo TKA, a significant concern is postoperative pain.3 Fear of postoperative pain is often cited as a reason for delaying surgery.3 Recent literature suggests that patients with poor pain management during the first 48 hours after surgery have a 50% chance of gaining satisfactory long-term pain relief.4 In addition, inadequate postoperative pain management can interfere with participation in and progression of physical rehabilitation, prolong hospital stay, and increase patient dissatisfaction.5 Poorly controlled pain results in decreased range of motion (ROM), strength, stability, and ambulation thereby prolongs hospital stays, and increases costs and overall dissatisfaction with the procedure.
Post-TKA pain management has received much attention in recent years. A multimodal pain management protocol is now a key component of clinical pathways in TKA. Appropriate postoperative pain control lowers postoperative complications and accelerates recovery.6 Pain-caused loss of function makes surgical patients more susceptible to edema, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism.4 Various oral and intravenous medications are used to lessen the pain response during the perioperative period. In addition, regional or neuraxial anesthesia is often added to blunt the immediate surgical pain response.7,8 At our institution, TKA traditionally has been performed with femoral nerve catheters (FNCs) for postoperative pain control. Although effective, this method often results in decreased quadriceps musculature function, which delays rehabilitation and increases the fall risk. Recently, there has been a shift toward using local anesthetic infusions about the knee to provide adequate pain relief and restore motor function, which is often sacrificed with use of regional nerve blocks and continuous catheter infusions.9
Many institutions have started using a new long-acting local anesthetic in their multimodal pain management pathways: Exparel (Pacira Pharmaceuticals), a liposomal membrane-bound bupivacaine with sustained release of approximately 72 hours. Several studies have verified the safety of this medication.10 A systemic review of prospective studies revealed that, compared with bupivacaine, long-acting liposomal bupivacaine (LALB) in therapeutic doses had a higher safety margin and a favorable safety profile.10 However, no study has compared the effectiveness of LALB and FNC in a matched TKA cohort with each patient serving as his or her own control.
We recently reviewed our multimodal pain management protocol for any areas in need of improvement and decided to compare the effects of the indwelling FNC protocol that was in use with the effects of injecting the local anesthetic LALB. We conducted a study to compare the 2 methods with respect to pain control, ROM, ability to ambulate, and hospital length of stay (LOS). We hypothesized that the longer acting local anesthetic would provide comparable post-TKA pain control and post-TKA opioid use but would accelerate post-TKA rehabilitation.
Materials and Methods
This retrospective, longitudinal, repeated- measures study was approved by the Greenville Hospital System Institutional Review Board and conducted at the Steadman Hawkins Clinic of the Carolinas, Greenville Health System.
Interventions
Twenty-three patients underwent separately staged bilateral TKAs between 2010 and 2013. For each TKA, a Genesis II implant (Smith & Nephew) was used, and the surgery was performed with the patient under spinal anesthesia. In each case, FNC was used for pain control after the first TKA, and periarticular injection (PAI) of LALB for pain control after the second TKA.
In the first TKAs, FNC-administered ropivacaine 0.2% (2 mg/mL) was maintained at a standard basal rate of 8 mL/h for 48 hours. In the second TKAs, LALB was administered along with bupivacaine/epinephrine. Twenty milliliters of LALB from a single-use vial was diluted in 40 mL of normal (0.9%) saline to obtain a 60-mL solution, and a 25-gauge needle was used to inject this solution into the periarticular soft tissues; another needle was used for PAI of 30 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine.
Continuous passive motion devices were not used. Most patients began therapy on day of surgery. Knee immobilizers were not used in the FNC group.
The same standardized multimodal pain management protocol was used for all TKAs. Non- narcotic medications, including acetaminophen, ketorolac, and celecoxib, were given on a scheduled basis. Tramadol and opioid medications were administered as needed for pain. The attending physician based patient discharge timing on pain control, ability to safely ambulate, and absence of complications.
Outcome Measures
Outcome measures were LOS; extension and flexion at discharge and 3-week follow-up; total ROM (extension plus flexion) at discharge and 3-week follow-up; per-day and total hospital stay morphine -equivalent doses (MEDs); and per-attempt walking distance during gait training.
ROM was measured with a standard goniometer. Flexion was tested with the patient supine and the hip and knee in neutral rotation. The goniometer axis was along the lateral epicondyle of the femur with the proximal arm of the goniometer parallel to the long axis of the femur and pointing at the greater trochanter and with the distal arm parallel to the long axis of the fibula and pointing at the lateral malleolus. The patient was instructed to flex the hip and knee by moving the heel toward the buttock. Expected normal ROM is 135°. The same landmarks were used for extension. The patient was instructed to push the back of the knee toward the plinth/bed, for maximal active extension. The same ROM assessment strategy was used during the hospitalization and at the 3-week follow-up.
Several opioid medications (eg, hydrocodone, oxycodone, tramadol, hydromorphone, morphine) with different dosages were used during hospitalization. Opioid doses were converted to MEDs to permit FNC–LALB comparisons. For each patient, total MEDs were divided by LOS to determine MEDs per day.
Mean per-attempt walking distance was calculated by dividing the total distance walked during hospitalization—the sum of the number of feet walked during each and every attempt, as measured by the treating physical therapist—by the total number of walking attempts.
Data Analysis
A paired-samples t test was used to calculate differences between all outcome measures: LOS; extension and flexion at discharge and 3-month follow-up; per-day and total MEDs; and mean per-attempt walking distance. P < .05 was considered significant. We elected not to adjust our α for a potential familywise error.
Results
Of the 23 patients, 14 were female and 9 were male, and 19 were white and 4 were black. Mean (SD) age was 64.4 (6.4) years for the FNC group and 66.0 (6.0) years for the LALB group. The age difference was not statistically significant.
Discussion
Poor pain control during the post-TKA period may have a significant impact on recovery rate, standard of living, psychological health, and postoperative complications.10 Inadequate postoperative pain control increases postoperative morbidity, hinders physiotherapy, increases anxiety, disrupts sleep patterns, and decreases patient satisfaction.9 There has been increased interest in PAIs. Local anesthetics are additional sources of pain control at surgical sites. However, the half-life of most local anesthetics is short. Soft-tissue infiltration of LALB into a surgical site extends the duration of active analgesia. Our study found that, compared with patients who received FNC, patients who received LALB had comparable pain control, improved knee ROM, and shorter hospital stays. In addition, the LALB group had no reports of quadriceps weakness or falls, both of which are associated with femoral nerve blocks. The FNC group had no reported falls, either. PAIs have the benefit of avoiding the invasiveness of femoral nerve blocks and possible neuritis.
Many complications are associated with or indirectly related to delayed rehabilitation and immobility during the acute post-TKA period. From prolonged hospitalization to need for manipulation, the consequences of inadequate pain control and decreased function can be numerous and costly for patients and the healthcare system. In the present study, LALB use led to a statistically significant overall decrease in mean LOS (LALB group, 2.3 days; FNC, 2.8 days). With LALB, there was a higher likelihood of discharge the day after surgery; 20% of patients in the LALB group and no patients in the FNC group went home that day.
The implication is that inadequate pain control led to decreased motion and decreased progression during postoperative rehabilitation. Local infiltration resulted in increased total ROM (extension plus flexion) at 3-week follow-up (LALB, 116.3°; FNC, 107.2°). In addition, there was an increase in walking distance per day of hospital stay (LALB, 135.9 feet; FNC, 84.2 feet). Furthermore, patients indicated LALB when asked which anesthetic they preferred. To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare LALB and FNC data in a matched TKA cohort with each patient serving as his or her own control.
Our study had several limitations. First was the retrospective design. Second was the small sample size, which made definitive conclusions difficult. However, the statistically significant differences we noted validated our conclusions. A statistically significant difference favoring LALB over FNC was found for total MEDs during hospitalization, but there was no significant difference in per-day MEDs. A possible reason for this difference is that LALB patients had shorter hospital stays, and therefore received fewer doses overall. Another possible reason is the small sample size; whereas a larger study using our protocol may find a statistically significant difference between LALB and FNC, we found only a trend. In the FNC group, anesthetic infiltration occurred with use of a computerized pump, which was removed on postoperative day 2; most of these patients were discharged home that day or the morning of postoperative day 3. As it is possible that some of these patients could have gone home sooner, our LOS data may have been affected. We do not consider this limitation significant, as one of our discharge criteria was 150 feet of ambulation, and most patients who received FNCs could not ambulate that far until after FNC removal. Furthermore, this study compared LALB only with FNC. It is possible that our improved outcomes could have resulted from the PAIs themselves, irrespective of LALB. In a recent TKA study by Bagsby and colleagues,11 pain was controlled better with the less expensive traditional PAI of ropivacaine, epinephrine, and morphine than with the PAI of liposomal bupivacaine. Last, in our study, the experience of undergoing the first TKA may have increased patients’ confidence going into the second TKA and then helped them make faster progress in rehabilitation. Regardless, the promising results of our study and the firsthand use of LALB at our institution led us to modify our intraoperative pain management protocol for surgeons who perform TKA.
As we continue to use LALB, our study numbers will increase, and we may discover other factors that, though now underpowered, will prove to be statistically significant. Additional clinical studies are needed to better determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of LALB and other long-acting local anesthetic formulations.
1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.
2. Ruiz D Jr, Koenig L, Dall TM, et al. The direct and indirect costs to society of treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(16):1473-1480.
3. Trousdale RT, McGrory BJ, Berry DJ, Becker MW, Harmsen WS. Patients’ concerns prior to undergoing total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74(10):978-982.
4. Wells N, Pasero C, McCaffery M. Improving the quality of care through pain assessment and management. In: Hughes RG, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses, Vol 1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008:469-497.
5. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(4):287-333.
6. Parvizi J, Miller AG, Gandhi K. Multimodal pain management after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(11):1075-1084.
7. Stein BE, Srikumaran U, Tan EW, Freehill MT, Wilckens JH. Lower-extremity peripheral nerve blocks in the perioperative pain management of orthopaedic patients: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(22):e167.
8. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Mendoza-Lattes S, Callaghan JJ. Differences in short-term complications between spinal and general anesthesia for primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(3):193-199.
9. Dalury DF, Lieberman JR, MacDonald SJ. Current and innovative pain management techniques in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(20):1938-1943.
10. Portillo J, Kamar N, Melibary S, Quevedo E, Bergese S. Safety of liposome extended-release bupivacaine for postoperative pain control. Front Pharmacol. 2014;5:90.
11. Bagsby DT, Ireland PH, Meneghini RM. Liposomal bupivacaine versus traditional periarticular injection for pain control after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(8):1687-1690.
1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.
2. Ruiz D Jr, Koenig L, Dall TM, et al. The direct and indirect costs to society of treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(16):1473-1480.
3. Trousdale RT, McGrory BJ, Berry DJ, Becker MW, Harmsen WS. Patients’ concerns prior to undergoing total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Mayo Clin Proc. 1999;74(10):978-982.
4. Wells N, Pasero C, McCaffery M. Improving the quality of care through pain assessment and management. In: Hughes RG, ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses, Vol 1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008:469-497.
5. Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallacher D. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain. 2006;10(4):287-333.
6. Parvizi J, Miller AG, Gandhi K. Multimodal pain management after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(11):1075-1084.
7. Stein BE, Srikumaran U, Tan EW, Freehill MT, Wilckens JH. Lower-extremity peripheral nerve blocks in the perioperative pain management of orthopaedic patients: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(22):e167.
8. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Mendoza-Lattes S, Callaghan JJ. Differences in short-term complications between spinal and general anesthesia for primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(3):193-199.
9. Dalury DF, Lieberman JR, MacDonald SJ. Current and innovative pain management techniques in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(20):1938-1943.
10. Portillo J, Kamar N, Melibary S, Quevedo E, Bergese S. Safety of liposome extended-release bupivacaine for postoperative pain control. Front Pharmacol. 2014;5:90.
11. Bagsby DT, Ireland PH, Meneghini RM. Liposomal bupivacaine versus traditional periarticular injection for pain control after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(8):1687-1690.
Decreasing the Incidence of Surgical-Site Infections After Total Joint Arthroplasty
Take-Home Points
- SSIs after TJA pose a substantial burden on patients, surgeons, and the healthcare system.
- While different forms of preoperative skin preparation have shown varying outcomes after TJA, the importance of preoperative patient optimization (nutritional status, immune function, etc) cannot be overstated.
- Intraoperative infection prevention measures include cutaneous preparation, gloving, body exhaust suits, surgical drapes, OR staff traffic and ventilation flow, and antibiotic-loaded cement.
- Antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures in TJA patients continues to remain a controversial issue with conflicting recommendations.
- SSIs have considerable financial costs and require increased resource utilization. Given the significant economic burden associated with TJA infections, it is imperative for orthopedists to establish practical and cost-effective strategies to prevent these devastating complications.
Surgical-site infection (SSI), a potentially devastating complication of lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA), is estimated to occur in 1% to 2.5% of cases annually.1 Infection after TJA places a significant burden on patients, surgeons, and the healthcare system. Revision procedures that address infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are associated with more hospitalizations, more operations, longer hospital stay, and higher outpatient costs in comparison with primary THAs and revision surgeries for aseptic loosening.2 If left untreated, a SSI can go deeper into the joint and develop into a periprosthetic infection, which can be disastrous and costly. A periprosthetic joint infection study that used 2001 to 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data found that the cost of revision procedures increased to $560 million from $320 million, and was projected to reach $1.62 billion by 2020.3 Furthermore, society incurs indirect costs as a result of patient disability and loss of wages and productivity.2 Therefore, the issue of infection after TJA is even more crucial in our cost-conscious healthcare environment.
Patient optimization, advances in surgical technique, sterile protocol, and operative procedures have been effective in reducing bacterial counts at incision sites and minimizing SSIs. As a result, infection rates have leveled off after rising for a decade.4 Although infection prevention modalities have their differences, routine use is fundamental and recommended by the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.5 Furthermore, both the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee6,7 recently updated their SSI prevention guidelines by incorporating evidence-based methodology, an element missing from earlier recommendations.
The etiologies of postoperative SSIs have been discussed ad nauseam, but there are few reports summarizing the literature on infection prevention modalities. In this review, we identify and examine SSI prevention strategies as they relate to lower extremity TJA. Specifically, we discuss the literature on the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative actions that can be taken to reduce the incidence of SSIs after TJA. We also highlight the economic implications of SSIs that occur after TJA.
Methods
For this review, we performed a literature search with PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus. We looked for reports published between the inception of each database and July 2016. Combinations of various search terms were used: surgical site, infection, total joint arthroplasty, knee, hip, preoperative, intraoperative, perioperative, postoperative, preparation, nutrition, ventilation, antibiotic, body exhaust suit, gloves, drain, costs, economic, and payment.
Our search identified 195 abstracts. Drs. Mistry and Chughtai reviewed these to determine which articles were relevant. For any uncertainties, consensus was reached with the help of Dr. Delanois. Of the 195 articles, 103 were potentially relevant, and 54 of the 103 were excluded for being not relevant to preventing SSIs after TJA or for being written in a language other than English. The references in the remaining articles were assessed, and those with potentially relevant titles were selected for abstract review. This step provided another 35 articles. After all exclusions, 48 articles remained. We discuss these in the context of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures and economic impact.
Results
Preoperative Measures
Skin Preparation. Preoperative skin preparation methods include standard washing and rinsing, antiseptic soaps, and iodine-based or chlorhexidine gluconate-based antiseptic showers or skin cloths. Iodine-based antiseptics are effective against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and viruses. These agents penetrate the cell wall, oxidize the microbial contents, and replace those contents with free iodine molecules.8 Iodophors are free iodine molecules associated with a polymer (eg, polyvinylpyrrolidone); the iodophor povidone-iodine is bactericidal.9 Chlorhexidine gluconate-based solutions are effective against many types of yeast, Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and a wide variety of viruses.9 Both solutions are useful. Patients with an allergy to iodine can use chlorhexidine. Table 1 summarizes the studies on preoperative measures for preventing SSIs.
There is no shortage of evidence of the efficacy of these antiseptics in minimizing the incidence of SSIs. Hayek and colleagues10 prospectively analyzed use of different preoperative skin preparation methods in 2015 patients. Six weeks after surgery, the infection rate was significantly lower with use of chlorhexidine than with use of an unmedicated bar of soap or placebo cloth (9% vs 11.7% and 12.8%, respectively; P < .05). In a study of 100 patients, Murray and colleagues11 found the overall bacterial culture rate was significantly lower for those who used a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth before shoulder surgery than for those who took a standard shower with soap (66% vs 94%; P = .0008). Darouiche and colleagues12 found the overall SSI rate was significantly lower for 409 surgical patients prepared with chlorhexidine-alcohol than for 440 prepared with povidone-iodine (9.5% vs 16.1%; P = .004; relative risk [RR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.85).
Chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloths have also had promising results, which may be attributed to general ease of use and potentially improved patient adherence. Zywiel and colleagues13 reported no SSIs in 136 patients who used these cloths at home before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 21 SSIs (3.0%) in 711 patients who did not use the cloths. In a study of 2545 THA patients, Kapadia and colleagues14 noted a significantly lower incidence of SSIs with at-home preoperative use of chlorhexidine cloths than with only in-hospital perioperative skin preparation (0.5% vs 1.7%; P = .04). In 2293 TKAs, Johnson and colleagues15 similarly found a lower incidence of SSIs with at-home preoperative use of chlorhexidine cloths (0.6% vs 2.2%; P = .02). In another prospective, randomized trial, Kapadia and colleagues16 compared 275 patients who used chlorhexidine cloths the night before and the morning of lower extremity TJA surgery with 279 patients who underwent standard-of-care preparation (preadmission bathing with antibacterial soap and water). The chlorhexidine cohort had a lower overall incidence of infection (0.4% vs 2.9%; P = .049), and the standard-of-care cohort had a stronger association with infection (odds ratio [OR], 8.15; 95% CI, 1.01-65.6).
Patient Optimization. Poor nutritional status may compromise immune function, potentially resulting in delayed healing, increased risk of infection, and, ultimately, negative postoperative outcomes. Malnutrition can be diagnosed on the basis of a prealbumin level of <15 mg/dL (normal, 15-30 mg/dL), a serum albumin level of <3.4 g/dL (normal, 3.4-5.4 g/dL), or a total lymphocyte count under 1200 cells/μL (normal, 3900-10,000 cells/μL).17-19 Greene and colleagues18 found that patients with preoperative malnutrition had up to a 7-fold higher rate of infection after TJA. In a study of 135 THAs and TKAs, Alfargieny and colleagues20 found preoperative serum albumin was the only nutritional biomarker predictive of SSI (P = .011). Furthermore, patients who take immunomodulating medications (eg, for inflammatory arthropathies) should temporarily discontinue them before surgery in order to lower their risk of infection.21
Smoking is well established as a major risk factor for poor outcomes after surgery. It is postulated that the vasoconstrictive effects of nicotine and the hypoxic effects of carbon monoxide contribute to poor wound healing.22 In a meta-analysis of 4 studies, Sørensen23 found smokers were at increased risk for wound complications (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.82-2.84), delayed wound healing and dehiscence (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.53-2.81), and infection (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.57-2.04). Moreover, smoking cessation decreased the incidence of SSIs (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85). A meta- analysis by Wong and colleagues24 revealed an inflection point for improved outcomes in patients who abstained from smoking for at least 4 weeks before surgery. Risk of infection was lower for these patients than for current smokers (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84).
Other comorbidities contribute to SSIs as well. In their analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry data on 25,235 patients who underwent primary and revision lower extremity TJA, Pugely and colleagues25 found that, in the primary TJA cohort, body mass index (BMI) of >40 kg/m2 (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9), electrolyte disturbance (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.0-6.0), and hypertension diagnosis (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0) increased the risk of SSI within 30 days. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus delays collagen synthesis, impairs lymphocyte function, and impairs wound healing, which may lead to poor recovery and higher risk of infection.26 In a study of 167 TKAs performed in 115 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, Han and Kang26 found that wound complications were 6 times more likely in those with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels higher than 8% than in those with lower HbA1c levels (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 1.12-33.0). In a similar study of 462 patients with diabetes, Hwang and colleagues27 found a higher likelihood of superficial SSIs in patients with HbA1c levels >8% (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.6-23.4; P = .008). This association was also found in patients with a fasting blood glucose level of >200 mg/dL (OR, 9.2; 95% CI, 2.2-38.2; P = .038).
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is thought to account for 10% to 25% of all periprosthetic infections in the United States.28 Nasal colonization by this pathogen increases the risk for SSIs; however, decolonization protocols have proved useful in decreasing the rates of colonization. Moroski and colleagues29 assessed the efficacy of a preoperative 5-day course of intranasal mupirocin in 289 primary or revision TJA patients. Before surgery, 12 patients had positive MRSA cultures, and 44 had positive methicillin-sensitive S aureus (MSSA) cultures. On day of surgery, a significant reduction in MRSA (P = .0073) and MSSA (P = .0341) colonization was noted. Rao and colleagues30 found that the infection rate decreased from 2.7% to 1.2% in 2284 TJA patients treated with a decolonization protocol (P = .009).
Intraoperative Measures
Cutaneous Preparation. The solutions used in perioperative skin preparation are similar to those used preoperatively: povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine. The efficacy of these preparations varies. Table 2 summarizes the studies on intraoperative measures for preventing SSIs.
The literature also highlights the importance of technique in incision-site preparation. In a prospective study, Morrison and colleagues33 randomly assigned 600 primary TJA patients to either (1) use of alcohol and povidone-iodine before draping, with additional preparation with iodine povacrylex (DuraPrep) and isopropyl alcohol before application of the final drape (300-patient intervention group) or (2) only use of alcohol and povidone-iodine before draping (300-patient control group). At the final follow-up, the incidence of SSI was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (1.8% vs 6.5%; P = .015). In another study that assessed perioperative skin preparation methods, Brown and colleagues34 found that airborne bacteria levels in operating rooms were >4 times higher with patients whose legs were prepared by a scrubbed, gowned leg-holder than with patients whose legs were prepared by an unscrubbed, ungowned leg-holder (P = .0001).
Hair Removal. Although removing hair from surgical sites is common practice, the literature advocating it varies. A large comprehensive review35 revealed no increased risk of SSI with removing vs not removing hair (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.85-3.19). On the other hand, some hair removal methods may affect the incidence of infection. For example, use of electric hair clippers is presumed to reduce the risk of SSIs, whereas traditional razors may compromise the epidermal barriers and create a pathway for bacterial colonization.5,36,37 In the aforementioned review,35 SSIs were more than twice as likely to occur with hair removed by shaving than with hair removed by electric clippers (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.21-3.36). Cruse and Foord38 found a higher rate of SSIs with hair removed by shaving than with hair removed by clipping (2.3% vs 1.7%). Most surgeons agree that, if given the choice, they would remove hair with electric clippers rather than razors.
Gloves. Almost all orthopedists double their gloves for TJA cases. Over several studies, the incidence of glove perforation during orthopedic procedures has ranged from 3.6% to 26%,39-41 depending on the operating room personnel and glove layering studied. Orthopedists must know this startling finding, as surgical glove perforation is associated with an increase in the rate of SSIs, from 1.7% to 5.7%.38 Carter and colleagues42 found the highest risk of glove perforation occurs when double-gloved attending surgeons, adult reconstruction fellows, and registered nurses initially assist during primary and revision TJA. In their study, outer and inner glove layers were perforated 2.5% of the time. All outer-layer perforations were noticed, but inner-layer perforations went unnoticed 81% of the time, which poses a potential hazard for both patients and healthcare personnel. In addition, there was a significant increase in the incidence of glove perforations for attending surgeons during revision TJA vs primary TJA (8.9% vs 3.7%; P = .04). This finding may be expected given the complexity of revision procedures, the presence of sharp bony and metal edges, and the longer operative times. Giving more attention to glove perforations during arthroplasties may mitigate the risk of SSI. As soon as a perforation is noticed, the glove should be removed and replaced.
Body Exhaust Suits. Early TJAs had infection rates approaching 10%.43 Bacterial-laden particles shed from surgical staff were postulated to be the cause,44,45 and this idea prompted the development of new technology, such as body exhaust suits, which have demonstrated up to a 20-fold reduction in airborne bacterial contamination and decreased incidence of deep infection, from 1% to 0.1%, as compared with conventional surgical attire.46 However, the efficacy of these suits was recently challenged. Hooper and colleagues47 assessed >88,000 TJA cases in the New Zealand Joint Registry and found a significant increase in early revision THA for deep infection with vs without use of body exhaust suits (0.186% vs 0.064%; P < .0001). The incidence of revision TKAs for deep infections with use of these suits was similar (0.243% vs 0.098%; P < .001). Many of the surgeons surveyed indicated their peripheral vision was limited by the suits, which may contribute to sterile field contamination. By contrast, Miner and colleagues48 were unable to determine an increased risk of SSI with use of body exhaust suits (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.62), though there was a trend toward more infections without suits. Moreover, these suits are effective in reducing mean air bacterial counts (P = .014), but it is not known if this method correlates with mean wound bacterial counts (r = –.011) and therefore increases the risk of SSI.49
Surgical Drapes. Surgical draping, including cloths, iodine-impregnated materials, and woven or unwoven materials, is the standard of care worldwide. The particular draping technique usually varies by surgeon. Plastic drapes are better barriers than cloth drapes, as found in a study by Blom and colleagues50: Bacterial growth rates were almost 10 times higher with use of wet woven cloth drapes than with plastic surgical drapes. These findings were supported in another, similar study by Blom and colleagues51: Wetting drapes with blood or normal saline enhanced bacterial penetration. In addition, wetting drapes with chlorhexidine or iodine reduced but did not eliminate bacterial penetration. Fairclough and colleagues52 emphasized that iodine-impregnated drapes reduced surgical-site bacterial contamination from 15% to 1.6%. However, a Cochrane review53 found these drapes had no effect on the SSI rate (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.06-1.66; P = .89), though the risk of infection was slightly higher with adhesive draping than with no drape (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48; P = .03).
Ventilation Flow. Laminar-airflow systems are widely used to prevent SSIs after TJA. Horizontal-flow and vertical-flow ventilation provides and maintains ultra-clean air in the operating room. Evans54 found the bacterial counts in the air and the wound were lower with laminar airflow than without this airflow. The amount of airborne bacterial colony-forming units and dust large enough to carry bacteria was reduced to 1 or 2 particles more than 2 μm/m3 with use of a typical laminar- airflow system. In comparing 3922 TKA patients in laminar-airflow operating rooms with 4133 patients in conventional rooms, Lidwell and colleagues46 found a significantly lower incidence of SSIs in patients in laminar-airflow operating rooms (0.6% vs 2.3%; P < .001).
Conversely, Miner and colleagues48 did not find a lower risk of SSI with laminar-airflow systems (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.75-3.31). In addition, in their analysis of >88,000 cases from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Hooper and colleagues47 found that the incidence of early infections was higher with laminar-airflow systems than with standard airflow systems for both TKA (0.193% vs 0.100%; P = .019) and THA (0.148% vs 0.061%; P < .001). They postulated that vertically oriented airflow may have transmitted contaminated particles into the surgical sites. Additional evidence may be needed to resolve these conflicting findings and determine whether clean-air practices provide significant clinical benefit in the operating room.
Staff Traffic Volume. When staff enters or exits the operating room or makes extra movements during a procedure, airflow near the wound is disturbed and no longer able to remove sufficient airborne pathogens from the sterile field. The laminar- airflow pattern may be disrupted each time the operating room doors open and close, potentially allowing airborne pathogens to be introduced near the patient. Lynch and colleagues55 found the operating room door opened almost 50 times per hour, and it took about 20 seconds to close each time. As a result, the door may remain open for up to 20 minutes per case, causing substantial airflow disruption and potentially ineffective removal of airborne bacterial particles. Similarly, Young and O’Regan56 found the operating room door opened about 19 times per hour and took 20 seconds to close each time. The theater door was open an estimated 10.7% of each hour of sterile procedure. Presence of more staff also increases airborne bacterial counts. Pryor and Messmer57 evaluated a cohort of 2864 patients to determine the effect of number of personnel in the operating theater on the incidence of SSIs. Infection rates were 6.27% with >17 different people entering the room and 1.52% with <9 different people entering the room. Restricting the number of people in the room may be one of the easiest and most efficient ways to prevent SSI.
Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis. Perioperative antibiotic use is vital in minimizing the risk of infection after TJA. The Surgical Care Improvement Project recommended beginning the first antimicrobial dose either within 60 minutes before surgical incision (for cephalosporin) or within 2 hours before incision (for vancomycin) and discontinuing the prophylactic antimicrobial agents within 24 hours after surgery ends.58,59 However, Gorenoi and colleagues60 were unable to recommend a way to select particular antibiotics, as they found no difference in the effectiveness of various antibiotic agents used in TKA. A systematic review by AlBuhairan and colleagues61 revealed that antibiotic prophylaxis (vs no prophylaxis) reduced the absolute risk of a SSI by 8% and the relative risk by 81% (P < 0.0001). These findings are supported by evidence of the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics in reducing the incidence of SSI.62,63 Antibiotic regimens should be based on susceptibility and availability, depending on hospital prevalence of infections. Even more, patients should receive prophylaxis in a timely manner. Finally, bacteriostatic antibiotics (vancomycin) should not be used on their own for preoperative prophylaxis.
Antibiotic Cement. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC), which locally releases antimicrobials in high concentration, is often used in revision joint arthroplasty, but use in primary joint arthroplasty remains controversial. In a study of THA patients, Parvizi and colleagues64 found infection rates of 1.2% with 2.3% with and without use of ALBC, respectively. Other studies have had opposing results. Namba and colleagues65 evaluated 22,889 primary TKAs, 2030 (8.9%) of which used ALBC. The incidence of deep infection was significantly higher with ALBC than with regular bone cement (1.4% vs 0.7%; P = .002). In addition, a meta- analysis of >6500 primary TKA patients, by Zhou and colleagues,66 revealed no significant difference in the incidence of deep SSIs with use of ALBC vs regular cement (1.32% vs 1.89%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.33; P = .33). More evidence is needed to determine the efficacy of ALBC in primary TJA. International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection participants recommended use of ALBC in high-risk patients, including patients who are obese or immunosuppressed or have diabetes or a prior history of infection.67
Postoperative Measures
Antibiotic Prophylaxis. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American Dental Association (ADA) have suggestions for antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at increased risk for infection. As of 2015, the ADA no longer recommends antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with prosthetic joint implants,68 whereas the AAOS considers all patients with TJA to be at risk.69
Although recommendations exist, the actual risk of infection resulting from dental procedures and the role of antibiotic prophylaxis are not well defined. Berbari and colleagues71 found that antibiotic prophylaxis in high- or low-risk dental procedures did not decrease the risk of subsequent THA infection (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6) or TKA infection (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.2). Moreover, the risk of infection was no higher for patients who had a prosthetic hip or knee and underwent a high- or low-risk dental procedure without antibiotic prophylaxis (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.6) than for similar patients who did not undergo a dental procedure (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-1.1). Some studies highlight the low level of evidence supporting antibiotic prophylaxis during dental procedures.72,73 However, there is no evidence of adverse effects of antibiotic prophylaxis. Given the potential high risk of infection after such procedures, a more robust body of evidence is needed to reach consensus.
Evacuation Drain Management. Prolonged use of surgical evacuation drains may be a risk factor for SSI. Therefore, early drain removal is paramount. Higher infection rates with prolonged drain use have been found in patients with persistent wound drainage, including malnourished, obese, and over-anticoagulated patients. Patients with wounds persistently draining for >1 week should undergo superficial wound irrigation and débridement. Jaberi and colleagues74 assessed 10,325 TJA patients and found that the majority of persistent drainage ceased within 1 week with use of less invasive measures, including oral antibiotics and local wound care. Furthermore, only 28% of patients with persistent drainage underwent surgical débridement. It is unclear if this practice alone is appropriate. Infection should always be suspected and treated aggressively, and cultures should be obtained from synovial fluid before antibiotics are started, unless there is an obvious superficial infection that does not require further work-up.67
Economic Impact
SSIs remain a significant healthcare issue, and the social and financial costs are staggering. Without appropriate measures in place, these complications will place a larger burden on the healthcare system primarily as a result of longer hospital stays, multiple procedures, and increased resource utilization.75 Given the risk of progression to prosthetic joint infection, early preventive interventions must be explored.
Improved patient selection may be an important factor in reducing SSIs. In an analysis of 8494 joint arthroplasties, Malinzak and colleagues80 noted that patients with a BMI of >50 kg/m2 had an increased OR of infection of 21.3 compared to those with BMI <50 kg/m2. Wagner and colleagues81 analyzed 21,361 THAs and found that, for every BMI unit over 25 kg/m2, there was an 8% increased risk of joint infection (P < .001). Although it is unknown if there is an association between reduction in preoperative BMI and reduction in postoperative complication risk, it may still be worthwhile and cost-effective to modify this and similar risk factors before elective procedures.
Market forces are becoming a larger consideration in healthcare and are being driven by provider competition.82 Treatment outcomes, quality of care, and healthcare prices have gained attention as a means of estimating potential costs.83 In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) advanced the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, which aimed to provide better coordinated care of higher quality and lower cost.84 This led to development of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, which gives beneficiaries flexibility in choosing services and ensures that providers adhere to required standards. During its 5-year test period beginning in 2016, the CJR program is projected to save CMS $153 million.84 Under this program, the institution where TJA is performed is responsible for all the costs of related care from time of surgery through 90 days after hospital discharge—which is known as an “episode of care.” If the cost incurred during an episode exceeds an established target cost (as determined by CMS), the hospital must repay Medicare the difference. Conversely, if the cost of an episode is less than the established target cost, the hospital is rewarded with the difference. Bundling payments for a single episode of care in this manner is thought to incentivize providers and hospitals to give patients more comprehensive and coordinated care. Given the substantial economic burden associated with joint arthroplasty infections, it is imperative for orthopedists to establish practical and cost-effective strategies that can prevent these disastrous complications.
Conclusion
SSIs are a devastating burden to patients, surgeons, and other healthcare providers. In recent years, new discoveries and innovations have helped mitigate the incidence of these complications of THA and TKA. However, the incidence of SSIs may rise with the increasing use of TJAs and with the development of new drug-resistant pathogens. In addition, the increasing number of TJAs performed on overweight and high-risk patients means the costs of postoperative infections will be substantial. With new reimbursement models in place, hospitals and providers are being held more accountable for the care they deliver during and after TJA. Consequently, more emphasis should be placed on techniques that are proved to minimize the incidence of SSIs.
1. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(8):470-485.
2. Bozic KJ, Ries MD. The impact of infection after total hip arthroplasty on hospital and surgeon resource utilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1746-1751.
3. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 suppl):61-65.e61.
4. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(7):984-991.
5. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(4):250-278.
6. Berrios-Torres SI. Evidence-based update to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection: developmental process. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016;17(2):256-261.
7 Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):97-132.
8. Marchetti MG, Kampf G, Finzi G, Salvatorelli G. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54(1):63-67.
9. Reichman DE, Greenberg JA. Reducing surgical site infections: a review. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(4):212-221.
10. Hayek LJ, Emerson JM, Gardner AM. A placebo-controlled trial of the effect of two preoperative baths or showers with chlorhexidine detergent on postoperative wound infection rates. J Hosp Infect. 1987;10(2):165-172.
11. Murray MR, Saltzman MD, Gryzlo SM, Terry MA, Woodward CC, Nuber GW. Efficacy of preoperative home use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth before shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(6):928-933.
12. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18-26.
13. Zywiel MG, Daley JA, Delanois RE, Naziri Q, Johnson AJ, Mont MA. Advance pre-operative chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of surgical site infections in knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011;35(7):1001-1006.
14. Kapadia BH, Johnson AJ, Daley JA, Issa K, Mont MA. Pre-admission cutaneous chlorhexidine preparation reduces surgical site infections in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(3):490-493.
15. Johnson AJ, Kapadia BH, Daley JA, Molina CB, Mont MA. Chlorhexidine reduces infections in knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(3):213-218.
16. Kapadia BH, Elmallah RK, Mont MA. A randomized, clinical trial of preadmission chlorhexidine skin preparation for lower extremity total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(12):2856-2861.
17. Mainous MR, Deitch EA. Nutrition and infection. Surg Clin North Am. 1994;74(3):659-676.
18. Greene KA, Wilde AH, Stulberg BN. Preoperative nutritional status of total joint patients. Relationship to postoperative wound complications. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(4):321-325.
19. Del Savio GC, Zelicof SB, Wexler LM, et al. Preoperative nutritional status and outcome of elective total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;(326):153-161.
20. Alfargieny R, Bodalal Z, Bendardaf R, El-Fadli M, Langhi S. Nutritional status as a predictive marker for surgical site infection in total joint arthroplasty. Avicenna J Med. 2015;5(4):117-122.
21. Bridges SL Jr, Lopez-Mendez A, Han KH, Tracy IC, Alarcon GS. Should methotrexate be discontinued before elective orthopedic surgery in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? J Rheumatol. 1991;18(7):984-988.
22. Silverstein P. Smoking and wound healing. Am J Med. 1992;93(1A):22S-24S.
23. Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147(4):373-383.
24. Wong J, Lam DP, Abrishami A, Chan MT, Chung F. Short-term preoperative smoking cessation and postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59(3):268-279.
25. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Schweizer ML, Callaghan JJ. The incidence of and risk factors for 30-day surgical site infections following primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(9 suppl):47-50.
26. Han HS, Kang SB. Relations between long-term glycemic control and postoperative wound and infectious complications after total knee arthroplasty in type 2 diabetics. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013;5(2):118-123.
27. Hwang JS, Kim SJ, Bamne AB, Na YG, Kim TK. Do glycemic markers predict occurrence of complications after total knee arthroplasty in patients with diabetes? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(5):1726-1731.
28. Whiteside LA, Peppers M, Nayfeh TA, Roy ME. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in TKA treated with revision and direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(1):26-33.
29. Moroski NM, Woolwine S, Schwarzkopf R. Is preoperative staphylococcal decolonization efficient in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):444-446.
30. Rao N, Cannella BA, Crossett LS, Yates AJ Jr, McGough RL 3rd, Hamilton CW. Preoperative screening/decolonization for Staphylococcus aureus to prevent orthopedic surgical site infection: prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1501-1507.
31. Saltzman MD, Nuber GW, Gryzlo SM, Marecek GS, Koh JL. Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(8):1949-1953.
32. Carroll K, Dowsey M, Choong P, Peel T. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):130-135.
33. Morrison TN, Chen AF, Taneja M, Kucukdurmaz F, Rothman RH, Parvizi J. Single vs repeat surgical skin preparations for reducing surgical site infection after total joint arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(6):1289-1294.
34. Brown AR, Taylor GJ, Gregg PJ. Air contamination during skin preparation and draping in joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(1):92-94.
35. Tanner J, Woodings D, Moncaster K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD004122.
36. Mishriki SF, Law DJ, Jeffery PJ. Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative wound infection. J Hosp Infect. 1990;16(3):223-230.
37. Harrop JS, Styliaras JC, Ooi YC, Radcliff KE, Vaccaro AR, Wu C. Contributing factors to surgical site infections. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(2):94-101.
38. Cruse PJ, Foord R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg. 1973;107(2):206-210.
39. Laine T, Aarnio P. Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. A comparison between single, double indicator gloving and double gloving with two regular gloves. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(6):898-900.
40. Ersozlu S, Sahin O, Ozgur AF, Akkaya T, Tuncay C. Glove punctures in major and minor orthopaedic surgery with double gloving. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73(6):760-764.
41. Chan KY, Singh VA, Oun BH, To BH. The rate of glove perforations in orthopaedic procedures: single versus double gloving. A prospective study. Med J Malaysia. 2006;61(suppl B):3-7.
42. Carter AH, Casper DS, Parvizi J, Austin MS. A prospective analysis of glove perforation in primary and revision total hip and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(7):1271-1275.
43. Charnley J. A clean-air operating enclosure. Br J Surg. 1964;51:202-205.
44. Whyte W, Hodgson R, Tinkler J. The importance of airborne bacterial contamination of wounds. J Hosp Infect. 1982;3(2):123-135.
45. Owers KL, James E, Bannister GC. Source of bacterial shedding in laminar flow theatres. J Hosp Infect. 2004;58(3):230-232.
46. Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D. Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement: a randomised study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;285(6334):10-14.
47. Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C, Wyatt MC. Does the use of laminar flow and space suits reduce early deep infection after total hip and knee replacement? The ten-year results of the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(1):85-90.
48. Miner AL, Losina E, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Platt R. Deep infection after total knee replacement: impact of laminar airflow systems and body exhaust suits in the modern operating room. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(2):222-226.
49. Der Tavitian J, Ong SM, Taub NA, Taylor GJ. Body-exhaust suit versus occlusive clothing. A randomised, prospective trial using air and wound bacterial counts. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(4):490-494.
50. Blom A, Estela C, Bowker K, MacGowan A, Hardy JR. The passage of bacteria through surgical drapes. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82(6):405-407.
51. Blom AW, Gozzard C, Heal J, Bowker K, Estela CM. Bacterial strike-through of re-usable surgical drapes: the effect of different wetting agents. J Hosp Infect. 2002;52(1):52-55.
52. Fairclough JA, Johnson D, Mackie I. The prevention of wound contamination by skin organisms by the pre-operative application of an iodophor impregnated plastic adhesive drape. J Int Med Res. 1986;14(2):105-109.
53. Webster J, Alghamdi AA. Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD006353.
54. Evans RP. Current concepts for clean air and total joint arthroplasty: laminar airflow and ultraviolet radiation: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):945-953.
55. Lynch RJ, Englesbe MJ, Sturm L, et al. Measurement of foot traffic in the operating room: implications for infection control. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(1):45-52.
56. Young RS, O’Regan DJ. Cardiac surgical theatre traffic: time for traffic calming measures? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10(4):526-529.
57. Pryor F, Messmer PR. The effect of traffic patterns in the OR on surgical site infections. AORN J. 1998;68(4):649-660.
58. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines Writers Workgroup, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Association of Critical Care Nurses, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(12):1706-1715.
59. Rosenberger LH, Politano AD, Sawyer RG. The Surgical Care Improvement Project and prevention of post-operative infection, including surgical site infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011;12(3):163-168.
60. Gorenoi V, Schonermark MP, Hagen A. Prevention of infection after knee arthroplasty. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2010;6:Doc10.
61. AlBuhairan B, Hind D, Hutchinson A. Antibiotic prophylaxis for wound infections in total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(7):915-919.
62. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. 2005;189(4):395-404.
63. Quenon JL, Eveillard M, Vivien A, et al. Evaluation of current practices in surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary total hip prosthesis—a multicentre survey in private and public French hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2004;56(3):202-207.
64. Parvizi J, Saleh KJ, Ragland PS, Pour AE, Mont MA. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop. 2008;79(3):335-341.
65. Namba RS, Chen Y, Paxton EW, Slipchenko T, Fithian DC. Outcomes of routine use of antibiotic-loaded cement in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):44-47.
66. Zhou Y, Li L, Zhou Q, et al. Lack of efficacy of prophylactic application of antibiotic-loaded bone cement for prevention of infection in primary total knee arthroplasty: results of a meta-analysis. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2015;16(2):183-187.
67. Leopold SS. Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(12):3731-3732.
68. Sollecito TP, Abt E, Lockhart PB, et al. The use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures in patients with prosthetic joints: evidence-based clinical practice guideline for dental practitioners—a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(1):11-16.e18.
69. Watters W 3rd, Rethman MP, Hanson NB, et al. Prevention of orthopaedic implant infection in patients undergoing dental procedures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(3):180-189.
70. Merchant VA; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Dental Association. The new AAOS/ADA clinical practice guidelines for management of patients with prosthetic joint replacements. J Mich Dent Assoc. 2013;95(2):16, 74.
71. Berbari EF, Osmon DR, Carr A, et al. Dental procedures as risk factors for prosthetic hip or knee infection: a hospital-based prospective case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):8-16.
72. Little JW, Jacobson JJ, Lockhart PB; American Academy of Oral Medicine. The dental treatment of patients with joint replacements: a position paper from the American Academy of Oral Medicine. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141(6):667-671.
73. Curry S, Phillips H. Joint arthroplasty, dental treatment, and antibiotics: a review. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(1):111-113.
74. Jaberi FM, Parvizi J, Haytmanek CT, Joshi A, Purtill J. Procrastination of wound drainage and malnutrition affect the outcome of joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1368-1371.
75. Stone PW. Economic burden of healthcare-associated infections: an American perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;9(5):417-422.
76. Kapadia BH, McElroy MJ, Issa K, Johnson AJ, Bozic KJ, Mont MA. The economic impact of periprosthetic infections following total knee arthroplasty at a specialized tertiary-care center. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(5):929-932.
77. Slover J, Haas JP, Quirno M, Phillips MS, Bosco JA 3rd. Cost-effectiveness of a Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization program for high-risk orthopedic patients. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(3):360-365.
78. Cummins JS, Tomek IM, Kantor SR, Furnes O, Engesaeter LB, Finlayson SR. Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement used in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(3):634-641.
79. Kapadia BH, Johnson AJ, Issa K, Mont MA. Economic evaluation of chlorhexidine cloths on healthcare costs due to surgical site infections following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(7):1061-1065.
80. Malinzak RA, Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Olberding EM, Davis KE. Morbidly obese, diabetic, younger, and unilateral joint arthroplasty patients have elevated total joint arthroplasty infection rates. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):84-88.
81. Wagner ER, Kamath AF, Fruth KM, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Effect of body mass index on complications and reoperations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(3):169-179.
82 Broex EC, van Asselt AD, Bruggeman CA, van Tiel FH. Surgical site infections: how high are the costs? J Hosp Infect. 2009;72(3):193-201.
83. Anderson DJ, Kirkland KB, Kaye KS, et al. Underresourced hospital infection control and prevention programs: penny wise, pound foolish? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(7):767-773.
84. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare program; comprehensive care for joint replacement payment model for acute care hospitals furnishing lower extremity joint replacement services. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2015;80(226):73273-73554.
Take-Home Points
- SSIs after TJA pose a substantial burden on patients, surgeons, and the healthcare system.
- While different forms of preoperative skin preparation have shown varying outcomes after TJA, the importance of preoperative patient optimization (nutritional status, immune function, etc) cannot be overstated.
- Intraoperative infection prevention measures include cutaneous preparation, gloving, body exhaust suits, surgical drapes, OR staff traffic and ventilation flow, and antibiotic-loaded cement.
- Antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures in TJA patients continues to remain a controversial issue with conflicting recommendations.
- SSIs have considerable financial costs and require increased resource utilization. Given the significant economic burden associated with TJA infections, it is imperative for orthopedists to establish practical and cost-effective strategies to prevent these devastating complications.
Surgical-site infection (SSI), a potentially devastating complication of lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA), is estimated to occur in 1% to 2.5% of cases annually.1 Infection after TJA places a significant burden on patients, surgeons, and the healthcare system. Revision procedures that address infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are associated with more hospitalizations, more operations, longer hospital stay, and higher outpatient costs in comparison with primary THAs and revision surgeries for aseptic loosening.2 If left untreated, a SSI can go deeper into the joint and develop into a periprosthetic infection, which can be disastrous and costly. A periprosthetic joint infection study that used 2001 to 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data found that the cost of revision procedures increased to $560 million from $320 million, and was projected to reach $1.62 billion by 2020.3 Furthermore, society incurs indirect costs as a result of patient disability and loss of wages and productivity.2 Therefore, the issue of infection after TJA is even more crucial in our cost-conscious healthcare environment.
Patient optimization, advances in surgical technique, sterile protocol, and operative procedures have been effective in reducing bacterial counts at incision sites and minimizing SSIs. As a result, infection rates have leveled off after rising for a decade.4 Although infection prevention modalities have their differences, routine use is fundamental and recommended by the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.5 Furthermore, both the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee6,7 recently updated their SSI prevention guidelines by incorporating evidence-based methodology, an element missing from earlier recommendations.
The etiologies of postoperative SSIs have been discussed ad nauseam, but there are few reports summarizing the literature on infection prevention modalities. In this review, we identify and examine SSI prevention strategies as they relate to lower extremity TJA. Specifically, we discuss the literature on the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative actions that can be taken to reduce the incidence of SSIs after TJA. We also highlight the economic implications of SSIs that occur after TJA.
Methods
For this review, we performed a literature search with PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus. We looked for reports published between the inception of each database and July 2016. Combinations of various search terms were used: surgical site, infection, total joint arthroplasty, knee, hip, preoperative, intraoperative, perioperative, postoperative, preparation, nutrition, ventilation, antibiotic, body exhaust suit, gloves, drain, costs, economic, and payment.
Our search identified 195 abstracts. Drs. Mistry and Chughtai reviewed these to determine which articles were relevant. For any uncertainties, consensus was reached with the help of Dr. Delanois. Of the 195 articles, 103 were potentially relevant, and 54 of the 103 were excluded for being not relevant to preventing SSIs after TJA or for being written in a language other than English. The references in the remaining articles were assessed, and those with potentially relevant titles were selected for abstract review. This step provided another 35 articles. After all exclusions, 48 articles remained. We discuss these in the context of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures and economic impact.
Results
Preoperative Measures
Skin Preparation. Preoperative skin preparation methods include standard washing and rinsing, antiseptic soaps, and iodine-based or chlorhexidine gluconate-based antiseptic showers or skin cloths. Iodine-based antiseptics are effective against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and viruses. These agents penetrate the cell wall, oxidize the microbial contents, and replace those contents with free iodine molecules.8 Iodophors are free iodine molecules associated with a polymer (eg, polyvinylpyrrolidone); the iodophor povidone-iodine is bactericidal.9 Chlorhexidine gluconate-based solutions are effective against many types of yeast, Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and a wide variety of viruses.9 Both solutions are useful. Patients with an allergy to iodine can use chlorhexidine. Table 1 summarizes the studies on preoperative measures for preventing SSIs.
There is no shortage of evidence of the efficacy of these antiseptics in minimizing the incidence of SSIs. Hayek and colleagues10 prospectively analyzed use of different preoperative skin preparation methods in 2015 patients. Six weeks after surgery, the infection rate was significantly lower with use of chlorhexidine than with use of an unmedicated bar of soap or placebo cloth (9% vs 11.7% and 12.8%, respectively; P < .05). In a study of 100 patients, Murray and colleagues11 found the overall bacterial culture rate was significantly lower for those who used a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth before shoulder surgery than for those who took a standard shower with soap (66% vs 94%; P = .0008). Darouiche and colleagues12 found the overall SSI rate was significantly lower for 409 surgical patients prepared with chlorhexidine-alcohol than for 440 prepared with povidone-iodine (9.5% vs 16.1%; P = .004; relative risk [RR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.85).
Chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloths have also had promising results, which may be attributed to general ease of use and potentially improved patient adherence. Zywiel and colleagues13 reported no SSIs in 136 patients who used these cloths at home before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 21 SSIs (3.0%) in 711 patients who did not use the cloths. In a study of 2545 THA patients, Kapadia and colleagues14 noted a significantly lower incidence of SSIs with at-home preoperative use of chlorhexidine cloths than with only in-hospital perioperative skin preparation (0.5% vs 1.7%; P = .04). In 2293 TKAs, Johnson and colleagues15 similarly found a lower incidence of SSIs with at-home preoperative use of chlorhexidine cloths (0.6% vs 2.2%; P = .02). In another prospective, randomized trial, Kapadia and colleagues16 compared 275 patients who used chlorhexidine cloths the night before and the morning of lower extremity TJA surgery with 279 patients who underwent standard-of-care preparation (preadmission bathing with antibacterial soap and water). The chlorhexidine cohort had a lower overall incidence of infection (0.4% vs 2.9%; P = .049), and the standard-of-care cohort had a stronger association with infection (odds ratio [OR], 8.15; 95% CI, 1.01-65.6).
Patient Optimization. Poor nutritional status may compromise immune function, potentially resulting in delayed healing, increased risk of infection, and, ultimately, negative postoperative outcomes. Malnutrition can be diagnosed on the basis of a prealbumin level of <15 mg/dL (normal, 15-30 mg/dL), a serum albumin level of <3.4 g/dL (normal, 3.4-5.4 g/dL), or a total lymphocyte count under 1200 cells/μL (normal, 3900-10,000 cells/μL).17-19 Greene and colleagues18 found that patients with preoperative malnutrition had up to a 7-fold higher rate of infection after TJA. In a study of 135 THAs and TKAs, Alfargieny and colleagues20 found preoperative serum albumin was the only nutritional biomarker predictive of SSI (P = .011). Furthermore, patients who take immunomodulating medications (eg, for inflammatory arthropathies) should temporarily discontinue them before surgery in order to lower their risk of infection.21
Smoking is well established as a major risk factor for poor outcomes after surgery. It is postulated that the vasoconstrictive effects of nicotine and the hypoxic effects of carbon monoxide contribute to poor wound healing.22 In a meta-analysis of 4 studies, Sørensen23 found smokers were at increased risk for wound complications (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.82-2.84), delayed wound healing and dehiscence (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.53-2.81), and infection (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.57-2.04). Moreover, smoking cessation decreased the incidence of SSIs (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85). A meta- analysis by Wong and colleagues24 revealed an inflection point for improved outcomes in patients who abstained from smoking for at least 4 weeks before surgery. Risk of infection was lower for these patients than for current smokers (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84).
Other comorbidities contribute to SSIs as well. In their analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry data on 25,235 patients who underwent primary and revision lower extremity TJA, Pugely and colleagues25 found that, in the primary TJA cohort, body mass index (BMI) of >40 kg/m2 (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9), electrolyte disturbance (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.0-6.0), and hypertension diagnosis (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0) increased the risk of SSI within 30 days. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus delays collagen synthesis, impairs lymphocyte function, and impairs wound healing, which may lead to poor recovery and higher risk of infection.26 In a study of 167 TKAs performed in 115 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, Han and Kang26 found that wound complications were 6 times more likely in those with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels higher than 8% than in those with lower HbA1c levels (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 1.12-33.0). In a similar study of 462 patients with diabetes, Hwang and colleagues27 found a higher likelihood of superficial SSIs in patients with HbA1c levels >8% (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.6-23.4; P = .008). This association was also found in patients with a fasting blood glucose level of >200 mg/dL (OR, 9.2; 95% CI, 2.2-38.2; P = .038).
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is thought to account for 10% to 25% of all periprosthetic infections in the United States.28 Nasal colonization by this pathogen increases the risk for SSIs; however, decolonization protocols have proved useful in decreasing the rates of colonization. Moroski and colleagues29 assessed the efficacy of a preoperative 5-day course of intranasal mupirocin in 289 primary or revision TJA patients. Before surgery, 12 patients had positive MRSA cultures, and 44 had positive methicillin-sensitive S aureus (MSSA) cultures. On day of surgery, a significant reduction in MRSA (P = .0073) and MSSA (P = .0341) colonization was noted. Rao and colleagues30 found that the infection rate decreased from 2.7% to 1.2% in 2284 TJA patients treated with a decolonization protocol (P = .009).
Intraoperative Measures
Cutaneous Preparation. The solutions used in perioperative skin preparation are similar to those used preoperatively: povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine. The efficacy of these preparations varies. Table 2 summarizes the studies on intraoperative measures for preventing SSIs.
The literature also highlights the importance of technique in incision-site preparation. In a prospective study, Morrison and colleagues33 randomly assigned 600 primary TJA patients to either (1) use of alcohol and povidone-iodine before draping, with additional preparation with iodine povacrylex (DuraPrep) and isopropyl alcohol before application of the final drape (300-patient intervention group) or (2) only use of alcohol and povidone-iodine before draping (300-patient control group). At the final follow-up, the incidence of SSI was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (1.8% vs 6.5%; P = .015). In another study that assessed perioperative skin preparation methods, Brown and colleagues34 found that airborne bacteria levels in operating rooms were >4 times higher with patients whose legs were prepared by a scrubbed, gowned leg-holder than with patients whose legs were prepared by an unscrubbed, ungowned leg-holder (P = .0001).
Hair Removal. Although removing hair from surgical sites is common practice, the literature advocating it varies. A large comprehensive review35 revealed no increased risk of SSI with removing vs not removing hair (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.85-3.19). On the other hand, some hair removal methods may affect the incidence of infection. For example, use of electric hair clippers is presumed to reduce the risk of SSIs, whereas traditional razors may compromise the epidermal barriers and create a pathway for bacterial colonization.5,36,37 In the aforementioned review,35 SSIs were more than twice as likely to occur with hair removed by shaving than with hair removed by electric clippers (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.21-3.36). Cruse and Foord38 found a higher rate of SSIs with hair removed by shaving than with hair removed by clipping (2.3% vs 1.7%). Most surgeons agree that, if given the choice, they would remove hair with electric clippers rather than razors.
Gloves. Almost all orthopedists double their gloves for TJA cases. Over several studies, the incidence of glove perforation during orthopedic procedures has ranged from 3.6% to 26%,39-41 depending on the operating room personnel and glove layering studied. Orthopedists must know this startling finding, as surgical glove perforation is associated with an increase in the rate of SSIs, from 1.7% to 5.7%.38 Carter and colleagues42 found the highest risk of glove perforation occurs when double-gloved attending surgeons, adult reconstruction fellows, and registered nurses initially assist during primary and revision TJA. In their study, outer and inner glove layers were perforated 2.5% of the time. All outer-layer perforations were noticed, but inner-layer perforations went unnoticed 81% of the time, which poses a potential hazard for both patients and healthcare personnel. In addition, there was a significant increase in the incidence of glove perforations for attending surgeons during revision TJA vs primary TJA (8.9% vs 3.7%; P = .04). This finding may be expected given the complexity of revision procedures, the presence of sharp bony and metal edges, and the longer operative times. Giving more attention to glove perforations during arthroplasties may mitigate the risk of SSI. As soon as a perforation is noticed, the glove should be removed and replaced.
Body Exhaust Suits. Early TJAs had infection rates approaching 10%.43 Bacterial-laden particles shed from surgical staff were postulated to be the cause,44,45 and this idea prompted the development of new technology, such as body exhaust suits, which have demonstrated up to a 20-fold reduction in airborne bacterial contamination and decreased incidence of deep infection, from 1% to 0.1%, as compared with conventional surgical attire.46 However, the efficacy of these suits was recently challenged. Hooper and colleagues47 assessed >88,000 TJA cases in the New Zealand Joint Registry and found a significant increase in early revision THA for deep infection with vs without use of body exhaust suits (0.186% vs 0.064%; P < .0001). The incidence of revision TKAs for deep infections with use of these suits was similar (0.243% vs 0.098%; P < .001). Many of the surgeons surveyed indicated their peripheral vision was limited by the suits, which may contribute to sterile field contamination. By contrast, Miner and colleagues48 were unable to determine an increased risk of SSI with use of body exhaust suits (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.62), though there was a trend toward more infections without suits. Moreover, these suits are effective in reducing mean air bacterial counts (P = .014), but it is not known if this method correlates with mean wound bacterial counts (r = –.011) and therefore increases the risk of SSI.49
Surgical Drapes. Surgical draping, including cloths, iodine-impregnated materials, and woven or unwoven materials, is the standard of care worldwide. The particular draping technique usually varies by surgeon. Plastic drapes are better barriers than cloth drapes, as found in a study by Blom and colleagues50: Bacterial growth rates were almost 10 times higher with use of wet woven cloth drapes than with plastic surgical drapes. These findings were supported in another, similar study by Blom and colleagues51: Wetting drapes with blood or normal saline enhanced bacterial penetration. In addition, wetting drapes with chlorhexidine or iodine reduced but did not eliminate bacterial penetration. Fairclough and colleagues52 emphasized that iodine-impregnated drapes reduced surgical-site bacterial contamination from 15% to 1.6%. However, a Cochrane review53 found these drapes had no effect on the SSI rate (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.06-1.66; P = .89), though the risk of infection was slightly higher with adhesive draping than with no drape (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48; P = .03).
Ventilation Flow. Laminar-airflow systems are widely used to prevent SSIs after TJA. Horizontal-flow and vertical-flow ventilation provides and maintains ultra-clean air in the operating room. Evans54 found the bacterial counts in the air and the wound were lower with laminar airflow than without this airflow. The amount of airborne bacterial colony-forming units and dust large enough to carry bacteria was reduced to 1 or 2 particles more than 2 μm/m3 with use of a typical laminar- airflow system. In comparing 3922 TKA patients in laminar-airflow operating rooms with 4133 patients in conventional rooms, Lidwell and colleagues46 found a significantly lower incidence of SSIs in patients in laminar-airflow operating rooms (0.6% vs 2.3%; P < .001).
Conversely, Miner and colleagues48 did not find a lower risk of SSI with laminar-airflow systems (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.75-3.31). In addition, in their analysis of >88,000 cases from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Hooper and colleagues47 found that the incidence of early infections was higher with laminar-airflow systems than with standard airflow systems for both TKA (0.193% vs 0.100%; P = .019) and THA (0.148% vs 0.061%; P < .001). They postulated that vertically oriented airflow may have transmitted contaminated particles into the surgical sites. Additional evidence may be needed to resolve these conflicting findings and determine whether clean-air practices provide significant clinical benefit in the operating room.
Staff Traffic Volume. When staff enters or exits the operating room or makes extra movements during a procedure, airflow near the wound is disturbed and no longer able to remove sufficient airborne pathogens from the sterile field. The laminar- airflow pattern may be disrupted each time the operating room doors open and close, potentially allowing airborne pathogens to be introduced near the patient. Lynch and colleagues55 found the operating room door opened almost 50 times per hour, and it took about 20 seconds to close each time. As a result, the door may remain open for up to 20 minutes per case, causing substantial airflow disruption and potentially ineffective removal of airborne bacterial particles. Similarly, Young and O’Regan56 found the operating room door opened about 19 times per hour and took 20 seconds to close each time. The theater door was open an estimated 10.7% of each hour of sterile procedure. Presence of more staff also increases airborne bacterial counts. Pryor and Messmer57 evaluated a cohort of 2864 patients to determine the effect of number of personnel in the operating theater on the incidence of SSIs. Infection rates were 6.27% with >17 different people entering the room and 1.52% with <9 different people entering the room. Restricting the number of people in the room may be one of the easiest and most efficient ways to prevent SSI.
Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis. Perioperative antibiotic use is vital in minimizing the risk of infection after TJA. The Surgical Care Improvement Project recommended beginning the first antimicrobial dose either within 60 minutes before surgical incision (for cephalosporin) or within 2 hours before incision (for vancomycin) and discontinuing the prophylactic antimicrobial agents within 24 hours after surgery ends.58,59 However, Gorenoi and colleagues60 were unable to recommend a way to select particular antibiotics, as they found no difference in the effectiveness of various antibiotic agents used in TKA. A systematic review by AlBuhairan and colleagues61 revealed that antibiotic prophylaxis (vs no prophylaxis) reduced the absolute risk of a SSI by 8% and the relative risk by 81% (P < 0.0001). These findings are supported by evidence of the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics in reducing the incidence of SSI.62,63 Antibiotic regimens should be based on susceptibility and availability, depending on hospital prevalence of infections. Even more, patients should receive prophylaxis in a timely manner. Finally, bacteriostatic antibiotics (vancomycin) should not be used on their own for preoperative prophylaxis.
Antibiotic Cement. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC), which locally releases antimicrobials in high concentration, is often used in revision joint arthroplasty, but use in primary joint arthroplasty remains controversial. In a study of THA patients, Parvizi and colleagues64 found infection rates of 1.2% with 2.3% with and without use of ALBC, respectively. Other studies have had opposing results. Namba and colleagues65 evaluated 22,889 primary TKAs, 2030 (8.9%) of which used ALBC. The incidence of deep infection was significantly higher with ALBC than with regular bone cement (1.4% vs 0.7%; P = .002). In addition, a meta- analysis of >6500 primary TKA patients, by Zhou and colleagues,66 revealed no significant difference in the incidence of deep SSIs with use of ALBC vs regular cement (1.32% vs 1.89%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.33; P = .33). More evidence is needed to determine the efficacy of ALBC in primary TJA. International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection participants recommended use of ALBC in high-risk patients, including patients who are obese or immunosuppressed or have diabetes or a prior history of infection.67
Postoperative Measures
Antibiotic Prophylaxis. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American Dental Association (ADA) have suggestions for antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at increased risk for infection. As of 2015, the ADA no longer recommends antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with prosthetic joint implants,68 whereas the AAOS considers all patients with TJA to be at risk.69
Although recommendations exist, the actual risk of infection resulting from dental procedures and the role of antibiotic prophylaxis are not well defined. Berbari and colleagues71 found that antibiotic prophylaxis in high- or low-risk dental procedures did not decrease the risk of subsequent THA infection (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6) or TKA infection (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.2). Moreover, the risk of infection was no higher for patients who had a prosthetic hip or knee and underwent a high- or low-risk dental procedure without antibiotic prophylaxis (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.6) than for similar patients who did not undergo a dental procedure (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-1.1). Some studies highlight the low level of evidence supporting antibiotic prophylaxis during dental procedures.72,73 However, there is no evidence of adverse effects of antibiotic prophylaxis. Given the potential high risk of infection after such procedures, a more robust body of evidence is needed to reach consensus.
Evacuation Drain Management. Prolonged use of surgical evacuation drains may be a risk factor for SSI. Therefore, early drain removal is paramount. Higher infection rates with prolonged drain use have been found in patients with persistent wound drainage, including malnourished, obese, and over-anticoagulated patients. Patients with wounds persistently draining for >1 week should undergo superficial wound irrigation and débridement. Jaberi and colleagues74 assessed 10,325 TJA patients and found that the majority of persistent drainage ceased within 1 week with use of less invasive measures, including oral antibiotics and local wound care. Furthermore, only 28% of patients with persistent drainage underwent surgical débridement. It is unclear if this practice alone is appropriate. Infection should always be suspected and treated aggressively, and cultures should be obtained from synovial fluid before antibiotics are started, unless there is an obvious superficial infection that does not require further work-up.67
Economic Impact
SSIs remain a significant healthcare issue, and the social and financial costs are staggering. Without appropriate measures in place, these complications will place a larger burden on the healthcare system primarily as a result of longer hospital stays, multiple procedures, and increased resource utilization.75 Given the risk of progression to prosthetic joint infection, early preventive interventions must be explored.
Improved patient selection may be an important factor in reducing SSIs. In an analysis of 8494 joint arthroplasties, Malinzak and colleagues80 noted that patients with a BMI of >50 kg/m2 had an increased OR of infection of 21.3 compared to those with BMI <50 kg/m2. Wagner and colleagues81 analyzed 21,361 THAs and found that, for every BMI unit over 25 kg/m2, there was an 8% increased risk of joint infection (P < .001). Although it is unknown if there is an association between reduction in preoperative BMI and reduction in postoperative complication risk, it may still be worthwhile and cost-effective to modify this and similar risk factors before elective procedures.
Market forces are becoming a larger consideration in healthcare and are being driven by provider competition.82 Treatment outcomes, quality of care, and healthcare prices have gained attention as a means of estimating potential costs.83 In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) advanced the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, which aimed to provide better coordinated care of higher quality and lower cost.84 This led to development of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, which gives beneficiaries flexibility in choosing services and ensures that providers adhere to required standards. During its 5-year test period beginning in 2016, the CJR program is projected to save CMS $153 million.84 Under this program, the institution where TJA is performed is responsible for all the costs of related care from time of surgery through 90 days after hospital discharge—which is known as an “episode of care.” If the cost incurred during an episode exceeds an established target cost (as determined by CMS), the hospital must repay Medicare the difference. Conversely, if the cost of an episode is less than the established target cost, the hospital is rewarded with the difference. Bundling payments for a single episode of care in this manner is thought to incentivize providers and hospitals to give patients more comprehensive and coordinated care. Given the substantial economic burden associated with joint arthroplasty infections, it is imperative for orthopedists to establish practical and cost-effective strategies that can prevent these disastrous complications.
Conclusion
SSIs are a devastating burden to patients, surgeons, and other healthcare providers. In recent years, new discoveries and innovations have helped mitigate the incidence of these complications of THA and TKA. However, the incidence of SSIs may rise with the increasing use of TJAs and with the development of new drug-resistant pathogens. In addition, the increasing number of TJAs performed on overweight and high-risk patients means the costs of postoperative infections will be substantial. With new reimbursement models in place, hospitals and providers are being held more accountable for the care they deliver during and after TJA. Consequently, more emphasis should be placed on techniques that are proved to minimize the incidence of SSIs.
Take-Home Points
- SSIs after TJA pose a substantial burden on patients, surgeons, and the healthcare system.
- While different forms of preoperative skin preparation have shown varying outcomes after TJA, the importance of preoperative patient optimization (nutritional status, immune function, etc) cannot be overstated.
- Intraoperative infection prevention measures include cutaneous preparation, gloving, body exhaust suits, surgical drapes, OR staff traffic and ventilation flow, and antibiotic-loaded cement.
- Antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures in TJA patients continues to remain a controversial issue with conflicting recommendations.
- SSIs have considerable financial costs and require increased resource utilization. Given the significant economic burden associated with TJA infections, it is imperative for orthopedists to establish practical and cost-effective strategies to prevent these devastating complications.
Surgical-site infection (SSI), a potentially devastating complication of lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA), is estimated to occur in 1% to 2.5% of cases annually.1 Infection after TJA places a significant burden on patients, surgeons, and the healthcare system. Revision procedures that address infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) are associated with more hospitalizations, more operations, longer hospital stay, and higher outpatient costs in comparison with primary THAs and revision surgeries for aseptic loosening.2 If left untreated, a SSI can go deeper into the joint and develop into a periprosthetic infection, which can be disastrous and costly. A periprosthetic joint infection study that used 2001 to 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data found that the cost of revision procedures increased to $560 million from $320 million, and was projected to reach $1.62 billion by 2020.3 Furthermore, society incurs indirect costs as a result of patient disability and loss of wages and productivity.2 Therefore, the issue of infection after TJA is even more crucial in our cost-conscious healthcare environment.
Patient optimization, advances in surgical technique, sterile protocol, and operative procedures have been effective in reducing bacterial counts at incision sites and minimizing SSIs. As a result, infection rates have leveled off after rising for a decade.4 Although infection prevention modalities have their differences, routine use is fundamental and recommended by the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.5 Furthermore, both the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee6,7 recently updated their SSI prevention guidelines by incorporating evidence-based methodology, an element missing from earlier recommendations.
The etiologies of postoperative SSIs have been discussed ad nauseam, but there are few reports summarizing the literature on infection prevention modalities. In this review, we identify and examine SSI prevention strategies as they relate to lower extremity TJA. Specifically, we discuss the literature on the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative actions that can be taken to reduce the incidence of SSIs after TJA. We also highlight the economic implications of SSIs that occur after TJA.
Methods
For this review, we performed a literature search with PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus. We looked for reports published between the inception of each database and July 2016. Combinations of various search terms were used: surgical site, infection, total joint arthroplasty, knee, hip, preoperative, intraoperative, perioperative, postoperative, preparation, nutrition, ventilation, antibiotic, body exhaust suit, gloves, drain, costs, economic, and payment.
Our search identified 195 abstracts. Drs. Mistry and Chughtai reviewed these to determine which articles were relevant. For any uncertainties, consensus was reached with the help of Dr. Delanois. Of the 195 articles, 103 were potentially relevant, and 54 of the 103 were excluded for being not relevant to preventing SSIs after TJA or for being written in a language other than English. The references in the remaining articles were assessed, and those with potentially relevant titles were selected for abstract review. This step provided another 35 articles. After all exclusions, 48 articles remained. We discuss these in the context of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures and economic impact.
Results
Preoperative Measures
Skin Preparation. Preoperative skin preparation methods include standard washing and rinsing, antiseptic soaps, and iodine-based or chlorhexidine gluconate-based antiseptic showers or skin cloths. Iodine-based antiseptics are effective against a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, fungi, and viruses. These agents penetrate the cell wall, oxidize the microbial contents, and replace those contents with free iodine molecules.8 Iodophors are free iodine molecules associated with a polymer (eg, polyvinylpyrrolidone); the iodophor povidone-iodine is bactericidal.9 Chlorhexidine gluconate-based solutions are effective against many types of yeast, Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, and a wide variety of viruses.9 Both solutions are useful. Patients with an allergy to iodine can use chlorhexidine. Table 1 summarizes the studies on preoperative measures for preventing SSIs.
There is no shortage of evidence of the efficacy of these antiseptics in minimizing the incidence of SSIs. Hayek and colleagues10 prospectively analyzed use of different preoperative skin preparation methods in 2015 patients. Six weeks after surgery, the infection rate was significantly lower with use of chlorhexidine than with use of an unmedicated bar of soap or placebo cloth (9% vs 11.7% and 12.8%, respectively; P < .05). In a study of 100 patients, Murray and colleagues11 found the overall bacterial culture rate was significantly lower for those who used a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth before shoulder surgery than for those who took a standard shower with soap (66% vs 94%; P = .0008). Darouiche and colleagues12 found the overall SSI rate was significantly lower for 409 surgical patients prepared with chlorhexidine-alcohol than for 440 prepared with povidone-iodine (9.5% vs 16.1%; P = .004; relative risk [RR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.85).
Chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloths have also had promising results, which may be attributed to general ease of use and potentially improved patient adherence. Zywiel and colleagues13 reported no SSIs in 136 patients who used these cloths at home before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and 21 SSIs (3.0%) in 711 patients who did not use the cloths. In a study of 2545 THA patients, Kapadia and colleagues14 noted a significantly lower incidence of SSIs with at-home preoperative use of chlorhexidine cloths than with only in-hospital perioperative skin preparation (0.5% vs 1.7%; P = .04). In 2293 TKAs, Johnson and colleagues15 similarly found a lower incidence of SSIs with at-home preoperative use of chlorhexidine cloths (0.6% vs 2.2%; P = .02). In another prospective, randomized trial, Kapadia and colleagues16 compared 275 patients who used chlorhexidine cloths the night before and the morning of lower extremity TJA surgery with 279 patients who underwent standard-of-care preparation (preadmission bathing with antibacterial soap and water). The chlorhexidine cohort had a lower overall incidence of infection (0.4% vs 2.9%; P = .049), and the standard-of-care cohort had a stronger association with infection (odds ratio [OR], 8.15; 95% CI, 1.01-65.6).
Patient Optimization. Poor nutritional status may compromise immune function, potentially resulting in delayed healing, increased risk of infection, and, ultimately, negative postoperative outcomes. Malnutrition can be diagnosed on the basis of a prealbumin level of <15 mg/dL (normal, 15-30 mg/dL), a serum albumin level of <3.4 g/dL (normal, 3.4-5.4 g/dL), or a total lymphocyte count under 1200 cells/μL (normal, 3900-10,000 cells/μL).17-19 Greene and colleagues18 found that patients with preoperative malnutrition had up to a 7-fold higher rate of infection after TJA. In a study of 135 THAs and TKAs, Alfargieny and colleagues20 found preoperative serum albumin was the only nutritional biomarker predictive of SSI (P = .011). Furthermore, patients who take immunomodulating medications (eg, for inflammatory arthropathies) should temporarily discontinue them before surgery in order to lower their risk of infection.21
Smoking is well established as a major risk factor for poor outcomes after surgery. It is postulated that the vasoconstrictive effects of nicotine and the hypoxic effects of carbon monoxide contribute to poor wound healing.22 In a meta-analysis of 4 studies, Sørensen23 found smokers were at increased risk for wound complications (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.82-2.84), delayed wound healing and dehiscence (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.53-2.81), and infection (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.57-2.04). Moreover, smoking cessation decreased the incidence of SSIs (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85). A meta- analysis by Wong and colleagues24 revealed an inflection point for improved outcomes in patients who abstained from smoking for at least 4 weeks before surgery. Risk of infection was lower for these patients than for current smokers (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.84).
Other comorbidities contribute to SSIs as well. In their analysis of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry data on 25,235 patients who underwent primary and revision lower extremity TJA, Pugely and colleagues25 found that, in the primary TJA cohort, body mass index (BMI) of >40 kg/m2 (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9), electrolyte disturbance (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.0-6.0), and hypertension diagnosis (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0) increased the risk of SSI within 30 days. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus delays collagen synthesis, impairs lymphocyte function, and impairs wound healing, which may lead to poor recovery and higher risk of infection.26 In a study of 167 TKAs performed in 115 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, Han and Kang26 found that wound complications were 6 times more likely in those with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels higher than 8% than in those with lower HbA1c levels (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 1.12-33.0). In a similar study of 462 patients with diabetes, Hwang and colleagues27 found a higher likelihood of superficial SSIs in patients with HbA1c levels >8% (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 1.6-23.4; P = .008). This association was also found in patients with a fasting blood glucose level of >200 mg/dL (OR, 9.2; 95% CI, 2.2-38.2; P = .038).
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is thought to account for 10% to 25% of all periprosthetic infections in the United States.28 Nasal colonization by this pathogen increases the risk for SSIs; however, decolonization protocols have proved useful in decreasing the rates of colonization. Moroski and colleagues29 assessed the efficacy of a preoperative 5-day course of intranasal mupirocin in 289 primary or revision TJA patients. Before surgery, 12 patients had positive MRSA cultures, and 44 had positive methicillin-sensitive S aureus (MSSA) cultures. On day of surgery, a significant reduction in MRSA (P = .0073) and MSSA (P = .0341) colonization was noted. Rao and colleagues30 found that the infection rate decreased from 2.7% to 1.2% in 2284 TJA patients treated with a decolonization protocol (P = .009).
Intraoperative Measures
Cutaneous Preparation. The solutions used in perioperative skin preparation are similar to those used preoperatively: povidone-iodine, alcohol, and chlorhexidine. The efficacy of these preparations varies. Table 2 summarizes the studies on intraoperative measures for preventing SSIs.
The literature also highlights the importance of technique in incision-site preparation. In a prospective study, Morrison and colleagues33 randomly assigned 600 primary TJA patients to either (1) use of alcohol and povidone-iodine before draping, with additional preparation with iodine povacrylex (DuraPrep) and isopropyl alcohol before application of the final drape (300-patient intervention group) or (2) only use of alcohol and povidone-iodine before draping (300-patient control group). At the final follow-up, the incidence of SSI was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (1.8% vs 6.5%; P = .015). In another study that assessed perioperative skin preparation methods, Brown and colleagues34 found that airborne bacteria levels in operating rooms were >4 times higher with patients whose legs were prepared by a scrubbed, gowned leg-holder than with patients whose legs were prepared by an unscrubbed, ungowned leg-holder (P = .0001).
Hair Removal. Although removing hair from surgical sites is common practice, the literature advocating it varies. A large comprehensive review35 revealed no increased risk of SSI with removing vs not removing hair (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.85-3.19). On the other hand, some hair removal methods may affect the incidence of infection. For example, use of electric hair clippers is presumed to reduce the risk of SSIs, whereas traditional razors may compromise the epidermal barriers and create a pathway for bacterial colonization.5,36,37 In the aforementioned review,35 SSIs were more than twice as likely to occur with hair removed by shaving than with hair removed by electric clippers (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.21-3.36). Cruse and Foord38 found a higher rate of SSIs with hair removed by shaving than with hair removed by clipping (2.3% vs 1.7%). Most surgeons agree that, if given the choice, they would remove hair with electric clippers rather than razors.
Gloves. Almost all orthopedists double their gloves for TJA cases. Over several studies, the incidence of glove perforation during orthopedic procedures has ranged from 3.6% to 26%,39-41 depending on the operating room personnel and glove layering studied. Orthopedists must know this startling finding, as surgical glove perforation is associated with an increase in the rate of SSIs, from 1.7% to 5.7%.38 Carter and colleagues42 found the highest risk of glove perforation occurs when double-gloved attending surgeons, adult reconstruction fellows, and registered nurses initially assist during primary and revision TJA. In their study, outer and inner glove layers were perforated 2.5% of the time. All outer-layer perforations were noticed, but inner-layer perforations went unnoticed 81% of the time, which poses a potential hazard for both patients and healthcare personnel. In addition, there was a significant increase in the incidence of glove perforations for attending surgeons during revision TJA vs primary TJA (8.9% vs 3.7%; P = .04). This finding may be expected given the complexity of revision procedures, the presence of sharp bony and metal edges, and the longer operative times. Giving more attention to glove perforations during arthroplasties may mitigate the risk of SSI. As soon as a perforation is noticed, the glove should be removed and replaced.
Body Exhaust Suits. Early TJAs had infection rates approaching 10%.43 Bacterial-laden particles shed from surgical staff were postulated to be the cause,44,45 and this idea prompted the development of new technology, such as body exhaust suits, which have demonstrated up to a 20-fold reduction in airborne bacterial contamination and decreased incidence of deep infection, from 1% to 0.1%, as compared with conventional surgical attire.46 However, the efficacy of these suits was recently challenged. Hooper and colleagues47 assessed >88,000 TJA cases in the New Zealand Joint Registry and found a significant increase in early revision THA for deep infection with vs without use of body exhaust suits (0.186% vs 0.064%; P < .0001). The incidence of revision TKAs for deep infections with use of these suits was similar (0.243% vs 0.098%; P < .001). Many of the surgeons surveyed indicated their peripheral vision was limited by the suits, which may contribute to sterile field contamination. By contrast, Miner and colleagues48 were unable to determine an increased risk of SSI with use of body exhaust suits (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.34-1.62), though there was a trend toward more infections without suits. Moreover, these suits are effective in reducing mean air bacterial counts (P = .014), but it is not known if this method correlates with mean wound bacterial counts (r = –.011) and therefore increases the risk of SSI.49
Surgical Drapes. Surgical draping, including cloths, iodine-impregnated materials, and woven or unwoven materials, is the standard of care worldwide. The particular draping technique usually varies by surgeon. Plastic drapes are better barriers than cloth drapes, as found in a study by Blom and colleagues50: Bacterial growth rates were almost 10 times higher with use of wet woven cloth drapes than with plastic surgical drapes. These findings were supported in another, similar study by Blom and colleagues51: Wetting drapes with blood or normal saline enhanced bacterial penetration. In addition, wetting drapes with chlorhexidine or iodine reduced but did not eliminate bacterial penetration. Fairclough and colleagues52 emphasized that iodine-impregnated drapes reduced surgical-site bacterial contamination from 15% to 1.6%. However, a Cochrane review53 found these drapes had no effect on the SSI rate (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.06-1.66; P = .89), though the risk of infection was slightly higher with adhesive draping than with no drape (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48; P = .03).
Ventilation Flow. Laminar-airflow systems are widely used to prevent SSIs after TJA. Horizontal-flow and vertical-flow ventilation provides and maintains ultra-clean air in the operating room. Evans54 found the bacterial counts in the air and the wound were lower with laminar airflow than without this airflow. The amount of airborne bacterial colony-forming units and dust large enough to carry bacteria was reduced to 1 or 2 particles more than 2 μm/m3 with use of a typical laminar- airflow system. In comparing 3922 TKA patients in laminar-airflow operating rooms with 4133 patients in conventional rooms, Lidwell and colleagues46 found a significantly lower incidence of SSIs in patients in laminar-airflow operating rooms (0.6% vs 2.3%; P < .001).
Conversely, Miner and colleagues48 did not find a lower risk of SSI with laminar-airflow systems (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.75-3.31). In addition, in their analysis of >88,000 cases from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Hooper and colleagues47 found that the incidence of early infections was higher with laminar-airflow systems than with standard airflow systems for both TKA (0.193% vs 0.100%; P = .019) and THA (0.148% vs 0.061%; P < .001). They postulated that vertically oriented airflow may have transmitted contaminated particles into the surgical sites. Additional evidence may be needed to resolve these conflicting findings and determine whether clean-air practices provide significant clinical benefit in the operating room.
Staff Traffic Volume. When staff enters or exits the operating room or makes extra movements during a procedure, airflow near the wound is disturbed and no longer able to remove sufficient airborne pathogens from the sterile field. The laminar- airflow pattern may be disrupted each time the operating room doors open and close, potentially allowing airborne pathogens to be introduced near the patient. Lynch and colleagues55 found the operating room door opened almost 50 times per hour, and it took about 20 seconds to close each time. As a result, the door may remain open for up to 20 minutes per case, causing substantial airflow disruption and potentially ineffective removal of airborne bacterial particles. Similarly, Young and O’Regan56 found the operating room door opened about 19 times per hour and took 20 seconds to close each time. The theater door was open an estimated 10.7% of each hour of sterile procedure. Presence of more staff also increases airborne bacterial counts. Pryor and Messmer57 evaluated a cohort of 2864 patients to determine the effect of number of personnel in the operating theater on the incidence of SSIs. Infection rates were 6.27% with >17 different people entering the room and 1.52% with <9 different people entering the room. Restricting the number of people in the room may be one of the easiest and most efficient ways to prevent SSI.
Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis. Perioperative antibiotic use is vital in minimizing the risk of infection after TJA. The Surgical Care Improvement Project recommended beginning the first antimicrobial dose either within 60 minutes before surgical incision (for cephalosporin) or within 2 hours before incision (for vancomycin) and discontinuing the prophylactic antimicrobial agents within 24 hours after surgery ends.58,59 However, Gorenoi and colleagues60 were unable to recommend a way to select particular antibiotics, as they found no difference in the effectiveness of various antibiotic agents used in TKA. A systematic review by AlBuhairan and colleagues61 revealed that antibiotic prophylaxis (vs no prophylaxis) reduced the absolute risk of a SSI by 8% and the relative risk by 81% (P < 0.0001). These findings are supported by evidence of the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics in reducing the incidence of SSI.62,63 Antibiotic regimens should be based on susceptibility and availability, depending on hospital prevalence of infections. Even more, patients should receive prophylaxis in a timely manner. Finally, bacteriostatic antibiotics (vancomycin) should not be used on their own for preoperative prophylaxis.
Antibiotic Cement. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC), which locally releases antimicrobials in high concentration, is often used in revision joint arthroplasty, but use in primary joint arthroplasty remains controversial. In a study of THA patients, Parvizi and colleagues64 found infection rates of 1.2% with 2.3% with and without use of ALBC, respectively. Other studies have had opposing results. Namba and colleagues65 evaluated 22,889 primary TKAs, 2030 (8.9%) of which used ALBC. The incidence of deep infection was significantly higher with ALBC than with regular bone cement (1.4% vs 0.7%; P = .002). In addition, a meta- analysis of >6500 primary TKA patients, by Zhou and colleagues,66 revealed no significant difference in the incidence of deep SSIs with use of ALBC vs regular cement (1.32% vs 1.89%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.33; P = .33). More evidence is needed to determine the efficacy of ALBC in primary TJA. International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection participants recommended use of ALBC in high-risk patients, including patients who are obese or immunosuppressed or have diabetes or a prior history of infection.67
Postoperative Measures
Antibiotic Prophylaxis. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American Dental Association (ADA) have suggestions for antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at increased risk for infection. As of 2015, the ADA no longer recommends antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with prosthetic joint implants,68 whereas the AAOS considers all patients with TJA to be at risk.69
Although recommendations exist, the actual risk of infection resulting from dental procedures and the role of antibiotic prophylaxis are not well defined. Berbari and colleagues71 found that antibiotic prophylaxis in high- or low-risk dental procedures did not decrease the risk of subsequent THA infection (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.6) or TKA infection (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7-2.2). Moreover, the risk of infection was no higher for patients who had a prosthetic hip or knee and underwent a high- or low-risk dental procedure without antibiotic prophylaxis (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.4-1.6) than for similar patients who did not undergo a dental procedure (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-1.1). Some studies highlight the low level of evidence supporting antibiotic prophylaxis during dental procedures.72,73 However, there is no evidence of adverse effects of antibiotic prophylaxis. Given the potential high risk of infection after such procedures, a more robust body of evidence is needed to reach consensus.
Evacuation Drain Management. Prolonged use of surgical evacuation drains may be a risk factor for SSI. Therefore, early drain removal is paramount. Higher infection rates with prolonged drain use have been found in patients with persistent wound drainage, including malnourished, obese, and over-anticoagulated patients. Patients with wounds persistently draining for >1 week should undergo superficial wound irrigation and débridement. Jaberi and colleagues74 assessed 10,325 TJA patients and found that the majority of persistent drainage ceased within 1 week with use of less invasive measures, including oral antibiotics and local wound care. Furthermore, only 28% of patients with persistent drainage underwent surgical débridement. It is unclear if this practice alone is appropriate. Infection should always be suspected and treated aggressively, and cultures should be obtained from synovial fluid before antibiotics are started, unless there is an obvious superficial infection that does not require further work-up.67
Economic Impact
SSIs remain a significant healthcare issue, and the social and financial costs are staggering. Without appropriate measures in place, these complications will place a larger burden on the healthcare system primarily as a result of longer hospital stays, multiple procedures, and increased resource utilization.75 Given the risk of progression to prosthetic joint infection, early preventive interventions must be explored.
Improved patient selection may be an important factor in reducing SSIs. In an analysis of 8494 joint arthroplasties, Malinzak and colleagues80 noted that patients with a BMI of >50 kg/m2 had an increased OR of infection of 21.3 compared to those with BMI <50 kg/m2. Wagner and colleagues81 analyzed 21,361 THAs and found that, for every BMI unit over 25 kg/m2, there was an 8% increased risk of joint infection (P < .001). Although it is unknown if there is an association between reduction in preoperative BMI and reduction in postoperative complication risk, it may still be worthwhile and cost-effective to modify this and similar risk factors before elective procedures.
Market forces are becoming a larger consideration in healthcare and are being driven by provider competition.82 Treatment outcomes, quality of care, and healthcare prices have gained attention as a means of estimating potential costs.83 In 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) advanced the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, which aimed to provide better coordinated care of higher quality and lower cost.84 This led to development of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, which gives beneficiaries flexibility in choosing services and ensures that providers adhere to required standards. During its 5-year test period beginning in 2016, the CJR program is projected to save CMS $153 million.84 Under this program, the institution where TJA is performed is responsible for all the costs of related care from time of surgery through 90 days after hospital discharge—which is known as an “episode of care.” If the cost incurred during an episode exceeds an established target cost (as determined by CMS), the hospital must repay Medicare the difference. Conversely, if the cost of an episode is less than the established target cost, the hospital is rewarded with the difference. Bundling payments for a single episode of care in this manner is thought to incentivize providers and hospitals to give patients more comprehensive and coordinated care. Given the substantial economic burden associated with joint arthroplasty infections, it is imperative for orthopedists to establish practical and cost-effective strategies that can prevent these disastrous complications.
Conclusion
SSIs are a devastating burden to patients, surgeons, and other healthcare providers. In recent years, new discoveries and innovations have helped mitigate the incidence of these complications of THA and TKA. However, the incidence of SSIs may rise with the increasing use of TJAs and with the development of new drug-resistant pathogens. In addition, the increasing number of TJAs performed on overweight and high-risk patients means the costs of postoperative infections will be substantial. With new reimbursement models in place, hospitals and providers are being held more accountable for the care they deliver during and after TJA. Consequently, more emphasis should be placed on techniques that are proved to minimize the incidence of SSIs.
1. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(8):470-485.
2. Bozic KJ, Ries MD. The impact of infection after total hip arthroplasty on hospital and surgeon resource utilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1746-1751.
3. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 suppl):61-65.e61.
4. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(7):984-991.
5. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(4):250-278.
6. Berrios-Torres SI. Evidence-based update to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection: developmental process. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016;17(2):256-261.
7 Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):97-132.
8. Marchetti MG, Kampf G, Finzi G, Salvatorelli G. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54(1):63-67.
9. Reichman DE, Greenberg JA. Reducing surgical site infections: a review. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(4):212-221.
10. Hayek LJ, Emerson JM, Gardner AM. A placebo-controlled trial of the effect of two preoperative baths or showers with chlorhexidine detergent on postoperative wound infection rates. J Hosp Infect. 1987;10(2):165-172.
11. Murray MR, Saltzman MD, Gryzlo SM, Terry MA, Woodward CC, Nuber GW. Efficacy of preoperative home use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth before shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(6):928-933.
12. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18-26.
13. Zywiel MG, Daley JA, Delanois RE, Naziri Q, Johnson AJ, Mont MA. Advance pre-operative chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of surgical site infections in knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011;35(7):1001-1006.
14. Kapadia BH, Johnson AJ, Daley JA, Issa K, Mont MA. Pre-admission cutaneous chlorhexidine preparation reduces surgical site infections in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(3):490-493.
15. Johnson AJ, Kapadia BH, Daley JA, Molina CB, Mont MA. Chlorhexidine reduces infections in knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(3):213-218.
16. Kapadia BH, Elmallah RK, Mont MA. A randomized, clinical trial of preadmission chlorhexidine skin preparation for lower extremity total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(12):2856-2861.
17. Mainous MR, Deitch EA. Nutrition and infection. Surg Clin North Am. 1994;74(3):659-676.
18. Greene KA, Wilde AH, Stulberg BN. Preoperative nutritional status of total joint patients. Relationship to postoperative wound complications. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(4):321-325.
19. Del Savio GC, Zelicof SB, Wexler LM, et al. Preoperative nutritional status and outcome of elective total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;(326):153-161.
20. Alfargieny R, Bodalal Z, Bendardaf R, El-Fadli M, Langhi S. Nutritional status as a predictive marker for surgical site infection in total joint arthroplasty. Avicenna J Med. 2015;5(4):117-122.
21. Bridges SL Jr, Lopez-Mendez A, Han KH, Tracy IC, Alarcon GS. Should methotrexate be discontinued before elective orthopedic surgery in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? J Rheumatol. 1991;18(7):984-988.
22. Silverstein P. Smoking and wound healing. Am J Med. 1992;93(1A):22S-24S.
23. Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147(4):373-383.
24. Wong J, Lam DP, Abrishami A, Chan MT, Chung F. Short-term preoperative smoking cessation and postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59(3):268-279.
25. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Schweizer ML, Callaghan JJ. The incidence of and risk factors for 30-day surgical site infections following primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(9 suppl):47-50.
26. Han HS, Kang SB. Relations between long-term glycemic control and postoperative wound and infectious complications after total knee arthroplasty in type 2 diabetics. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013;5(2):118-123.
27. Hwang JS, Kim SJ, Bamne AB, Na YG, Kim TK. Do glycemic markers predict occurrence of complications after total knee arthroplasty in patients with diabetes? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(5):1726-1731.
28. Whiteside LA, Peppers M, Nayfeh TA, Roy ME. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in TKA treated with revision and direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(1):26-33.
29. Moroski NM, Woolwine S, Schwarzkopf R. Is preoperative staphylococcal decolonization efficient in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):444-446.
30. Rao N, Cannella BA, Crossett LS, Yates AJ Jr, McGough RL 3rd, Hamilton CW. Preoperative screening/decolonization for Staphylococcus aureus to prevent orthopedic surgical site infection: prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1501-1507.
31. Saltzman MD, Nuber GW, Gryzlo SM, Marecek GS, Koh JL. Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(8):1949-1953.
32. Carroll K, Dowsey M, Choong P, Peel T. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):130-135.
33. Morrison TN, Chen AF, Taneja M, Kucukdurmaz F, Rothman RH, Parvizi J. Single vs repeat surgical skin preparations for reducing surgical site infection after total joint arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(6):1289-1294.
34. Brown AR, Taylor GJ, Gregg PJ. Air contamination during skin preparation and draping in joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(1):92-94.
35. Tanner J, Woodings D, Moncaster K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD004122.
36. Mishriki SF, Law DJ, Jeffery PJ. Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative wound infection. J Hosp Infect. 1990;16(3):223-230.
37. Harrop JS, Styliaras JC, Ooi YC, Radcliff KE, Vaccaro AR, Wu C. Contributing factors to surgical site infections. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(2):94-101.
38. Cruse PJ, Foord R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg. 1973;107(2):206-210.
39. Laine T, Aarnio P. Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. A comparison between single, double indicator gloving and double gloving with two regular gloves. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(6):898-900.
40. Ersozlu S, Sahin O, Ozgur AF, Akkaya T, Tuncay C. Glove punctures in major and minor orthopaedic surgery with double gloving. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73(6):760-764.
41. Chan KY, Singh VA, Oun BH, To BH. The rate of glove perforations in orthopaedic procedures: single versus double gloving. A prospective study. Med J Malaysia. 2006;61(suppl B):3-7.
42. Carter AH, Casper DS, Parvizi J, Austin MS. A prospective analysis of glove perforation in primary and revision total hip and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(7):1271-1275.
43. Charnley J. A clean-air operating enclosure. Br J Surg. 1964;51:202-205.
44. Whyte W, Hodgson R, Tinkler J. The importance of airborne bacterial contamination of wounds. J Hosp Infect. 1982;3(2):123-135.
45. Owers KL, James E, Bannister GC. Source of bacterial shedding in laminar flow theatres. J Hosp Infect. 2004;58(3):230-232.
46. Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D. Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement: a randomised study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;285(6334):10-14.
47. Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C, Wyatt MC. Does the use of laminar flow and space suits reduce early deep infection after total hip and knee replacement? The ten-year results of the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(1):85-90.
48. Miner AL, Losina E, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Platt R. Deep infection after total knee replacement: impact of laminar airflow systems and body exhaust suits in the modern operating room. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(2):222-226.
49. Der Tavitian J, Ong SM, Taub NA, Taylor GJ. Body-exhaust suit versus occlusive clothing. A randomised, prospective trial using air and wound bacterial counts. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(4):490-494.
50. Blom A, Estela C, Bowker K, MacGowan A, Hardy JR. The passage of bacteria through surgical drapes. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82(6):405-407.
51. Blom AW, Gozzard C, Heal J, Bowker K, Estela CM. Bacterial strike-through of re-usable surgical drapes: the effect of different wetting agents. J Hosp Infect. 2002;52(1):52-55.
52. Fairclough JA, Johnson D, Mackie I. The prevention of wound contamination by skin organisms by the pre-operative application of an iodophor impregnated plastic adhesive drape. J Int Med Res. 1986;14(2):105-109.
53. Webster J, Alghamdi AA. Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD006353.
54. Evans RP. Current concepts for clean air and total joint arthroplasty: laminar airflow and ultraviolet radiation: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):945-953.
55. Lynch RJ, Englesbe MJ, Sturm L, et al. Measurement of foot traffic in the operating room: implications for infection control. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(1):45-52.
56. Young RS, O’Regan DJ. Cardiac surgical theatre traffic: time for traffic calming measures? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10(4):526-529.
57. Pryor F, Messmer PR. The effect of traffic patterns in the OR on surgical site infections. AORN J. 1998;68(4):649-660.
58. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines Writers Workgroup, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Association of Critical Care Nurses, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(12):1706-1715.
59. Rosenberger LH, Politano AD, Sawyer RG. The Surgical Care Improvement Project and prevention of post-operative infection, including surgical site infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011;12(3):163-168.
60. Gorenoi V, Schonermark MP, Hagen A. Prevention of infection after knee arthroplasty. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2010;6:Doc10.
61. AlBuhairan B, Hind D, Hutchinson A. Antibiotic prophylaxis for wound infections in total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(7):915-919.
62. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. 2005;189(4):395-404.
63. Quenon JL, Eveillard M, Vivien A, et al. Evaluation of current practices in surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary total hip prosthesis—a multicentre survey in private and public French hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2004;56(3):202-207.
64. Parvizi J, Saleh KJ, Ragland PS, Pour AE, Mont MA. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop. 2008;79(3):335-341.
65. Namba RS, Chen Y, Paxton EW, Slipchenko T, Fithian DC. Outcomes of routine use of antibiotic-loaded cement in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):44-47.
66. Zhou Y, Li L, Zhou Q, et al. Lack of efficacy of prophylactic application of antibiotic-loaded bone cement for prevention of infection in primary total knee arthroplasty: results of a meta-analysis. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2015;16(2):183-187.
67. Leopold SS. Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(12):3731-3732.
68. Sollecito TP, Abt E, Lockhart PB, et al. The use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures in patients with prosthetic joints: evidence-based clinical practice guideline for dental practitioners—a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(1):11-16.e18.
69. Watters W 3rd, Rethman MP, Hanson NB, et al. Prevention of orthopaedic implant infection in patients undergoing dental procedures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(3):180-189.
70. Merchant VA; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Dental Association. The new AAOS/ADA clinical practice guidelines for management of patients with prosthetic joint replacements. J Mich Dent Assoc. 2013;95(2):16, 74.
71. Berbari EF, Osmon DR, Carr A, et al. Dental procedures as risk factors for prosthetic hip or knee infection: a hospital-based prospective case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):8-16.
72. Little JW, Jacobson JJ, Lockhart PB; American Academy of Oral Medicine. The dental treatment of patients with joint replacements: a position paper from the American Academy of Oral Medicine. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141(6):667-671.
73. Curry S, Phillips H. Joint arthroplasty, dental treatment, and antibiotics: a review. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(1):111-113.
74. Jaberi FM, Parvizi J, Haytmanek CT, Joshi A, Purtill J. Procrastination of wound drainage and malnutrition affect the outcome of joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1368-1371.
75. Stone PW. Economic burden of healthcare-associated infections: an American perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;9(5):417-422.
76. Kapadia BH, McElroy MJ, Issa K, Johnson AJ, Bozic KJ, Mont MA. The economic impact of periprosthetic infections following total knee arthroplasty at a specialized tertiary-care center. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(5):929-932.
77. Slover J, Haas JP, Quirno M, Phillips MS, Bosco JA 3rd. Cost-effectiveness of a Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization program for high-risk orthopedic patients. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(3):360-365.
78. Cummins JS, Tomek IM, Kantor SR, Furnes O, Engesaeter LB, Finlayson SR. Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement used in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(3):634-641.
79. Kapadia BH, Johnson AJ, Issa K, Mont MA. Economic evaluation of chlorhexidine cloths on healthcare costs due to surgical site infections following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(7):1061-1065.
80. Malinzak RA, Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Olberding EM, Davis KE. Morbidly obese, diabetic, younger, and unilateral joint arthroplasty patients have elevated total joint arthroplasty infection rates. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):84-88.
81. Wagner ER, Kamath AF, Fruth KM, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Effect of body mass index on complications and reoperations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(3):169-179.
82 Broex EC, van Asselt AD, Bruggeman CA, van Tiel FH. Surgical site infections: how high are the costs? J Hosp Infect. 2009;72(3):193-201.
83. Anderson DJ, Kirkland KB, Kaye KS, et al. Underresourced hospital infection control and prevention programs: penny wise, pound foolish? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(7):767-773.
84. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare program; comprehensive care for joint replacement payment model for acute care hospitals furnishing lower extremity joint replacement services. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2015;80(226):73273-73554.
1. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32(8):470-485.
2. Bozic KJ, Ries MD. The impact of infection after total hip arthroplasty on hospital and surgeon resource utilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(8):1746-1751.
3. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 suppl):61-65.e61.
4. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Schmier J, Ong KL, Zhao K, Parvizi J. Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(7):984-991.
5. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(4):250-278.
6. Berrios-Torres SI. Evidence-based update to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection: developmental process. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016;17(2):256-261.
7 Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27(2):97-132.
8. Marchetti MG, Kampf G, Finzi G, Salvatorelli G. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54(1):63-67.
9. Reichman DE, Greenberg JA. Reducing surgical site infections: a review. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(4):212-221.
10. Hayek LJ, Emerson JM, Gardner AM. A placebo-controlled trial of the effect of two preoperative baths or showers with chlorhexidine detergent on postoperative wound infection rates. J Hosp Infect. 1987;10(2):165-172.
11. Murray MR, Saltzman MD, Gryzlo SM, Terry MA, Woodward CC, Nuber GW. Efficacy of preoperative home use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate cloth before shoulder surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(6):928-933.
12. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18-26.
13. Zywiel MG, Daley JA, Delanois RE, Naziri Q, Johnson AJ, Mont MA. Advance pre-operative chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of surgical site infections in knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011;35(7):1001-1006.
14. Kapadia BH, Johnson AJ, Daley JA, Issa K, Mont MA. Pre-admission cutaneous chlorhexidine preparation reduces surgical site infections in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(3):490-493.
15. Johnson AJ, Kapadia BH, Daley JA, Molina CB, Mont MA. Chlorhexidine reduces infections in knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(3):213-218.
16. Kapadia BH, Elmallah RK, Mont MA. A randomized, clinical trial of preadmission chlorhexidine skin preparation for lower extremity total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(12):2856-2861.
17. Mainous MR, Deitch EA. Nutrition and infection. Surg Clin North Am. 1994;74(3):659-676.
18. Greene KA, Wilde AH, Stulberg BN. Preoperative nutritional status of total joint patients. Relationship to postoperative wound complications. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(4):321-325.
19. Del Savio GC, Zelicof SB, Wexler LM, et al. Preoperative nutritional status and outcome of elective total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;(326):153-161.
20. Alfargieny R, Bodalal Z, Bendardaf R, El-Fadli M, Langhi S. Nutritional status as a predictive marker for surgical site infection in total joint arthroplasty. Avicenna J Med. 2015;5(4):117-122.
21. Bridges SL Jr, Lopez-Mendez A, Han KH, Tracy IC, Alarcon GS. Should methotrexate be discontinued before elective orthopedic surgery in patients with rheumatoid arthritis? J Rheumatol. 1991;18(7):984-988.
22. Silverstein P. Smoking and wound healing. Am J Med. 1992;93(1A):22S-24S.
23. Sørensen LT. Wound healing and infection in surgery. The clinical impact of smoking and smoking cessation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Surg. 2012;147(4):373-383.
24. Wong J, Lam DP, Abrishami A, Chan MT, Chung F. Short-term preoperative smoking cessation and postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59(3):268-279.
25. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Schweizer ML, Callaghan JJ. The incidence of and risk factors for 30-day surgical site infections following primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(9 suppl):47-50.
26. Han HS, Kang SB. Relations between long-term glycemic control and postoperative wound and infectious complications after total knee arthroplasty in type 2 diabetics. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013;5(2):118-123.
27. Hwang JS, Kim SJ, Bamne AB, Na YG, Kim TK. Do glycemic markers predict occurrence of complications after total knee arthroplasty in patients with diabetes? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(5):1726-1731.
28. Whiteside LA, Peppers M, Nayfeh TA, Roy ME. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in TKA treated with revision and direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(1):26-33.
29. Moroski NM, Woolwine S, Schwarzkopf R. Is preoperative staphylococcal decolonization efficient in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):444-446.
30. Rao N, Cannella BA, Crossett LS, Yates AJ Jr, McGough RL 3rd, Hamilton CW. Preoperative screening/decolonization for Staphylococcus aureus to prevent orthopedic surgical site infection: prospective cohort study with 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1501-1507.
31. Saltzman MD, Nuber GW, Gryzlo SM, Marecek GS, Koh JL. Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(8):1949-1953.
32. Carroll K, Dowsey M, Choong P, Peel T. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(2):130-135.
33. Morrison TN, Chen AF, Taneja M, Kucukdurmaz F, Rothman RH, Parvizi J. Single vs repeat surgical skin preparations for reducing surgical site infection after total joint arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(6):1289-1294.
34. Brown AR, Taylor GJ, Gregg PJ. Air contamination during skin preparation and draping in joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(1):92-94.
35. Tanner J, Woodings D, Moncaster K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD004122.
36. Mishriki SF, Law DJ, Jeffery PJ. Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative wound infection. J Hosp Infect. 1990;16(3):223-230.
37. Harrop JS, Styliaras JC, Ooi YC, Radcliff KE, Vaccaro AR, Wu C. Contributing factors to surgical site infections. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20(2):94-101.
38. Cruse PJ, Foord R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg. 1973;107(2):206-210.
39. Laine T, Aarnio P. Glove perforation in orthopaedic and trauma surgery. A comparison between single, double indicator gloving and double gloving with two regular gloves. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(6):898-900.
40. Ersozlu S, Sahin O, Ozgur AF, Akkaya T, Tuncay C. Glove punctures in major and minor orthopaedic surgery with double gloving. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73(6):760-764.
41. Chan KY, Singh VA, Oun BH, To BH. The rate of glove perforations in orthopaedic procedures: single versus double gloving. A prospective study. Med J Malaysia. 2006;61(suppl B):3-7.
42. Carter AH, Casper DS, Parvizi J, Austin MS. A prospective analysis of glove perforation in primary and revision total hip and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(7):1271-1275.
43. Charnley J. A clean-air operating enclosure. Br J Surg. 1964;51:202-205.
44. Whyte W, Hodgson R, Tinkler J. The importance of airborne bacterial contamination of wounds. J Hosp Infect. 1982;3(2):123-135.
45. Owers KL, James E, Bannister GC. Source of bacterial shedding in laminar flow theatres. J Hosp Infect. 2004;58(3):230-232.
46. Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D. Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the joint after total hip or knee replacement: a randomised study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982;285(6334):10-14.
47. Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Frampton C, Wyatt MC. Does the use of laminar flow and space suits reduce early deep infection after total hip and knee replacement? The ten-year results of the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(1):85-90.
48. Miner AL, Losina E, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Platt R. Deep infection after total knee replacement: impact of laminar airflow systems and body exhaust suits in the modern operating room. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(2):222-226.
49. Der Tavitian J, Ong SM, Taub NA, Taylor GJ. Body-exhaust suit versus occlusive clothing. A randomised, prospective trial using air and wound bacterial counts. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(4):490-494.
50. Blom A, Estela C, Bowker K, MacGowan A, Hardy JR. The passage of bacteria through surgical drapes. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82(6):405-407.
51. Blom AW, Gozzard C, Heal J, Bowker K, Estela CM. Bacterial strike-through of re-usable surgical drapes: the effect of different wetting agents. J Hosp Infect. 2002;52(1):52-55.
52. Fairclough JA, Johnson D, Mackie I. The prevention of wound contamination by skin organisms by the pre-operative application of an iodophor impregnated plastic adhesive drape. J Int Med Res. 1986;14(2):105-109.
53. Webster J, Alghamdi AA. Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD006353.
54. Evans RP. Current concepts for clean air and total joint arthroplasty: laminar airflow and ultraviolet radiation: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):945-953.
55. Lynch RJ, Englesbe MJ, Sturm L, et al. Measurement of foot traffic in the operating room: implications for infection control. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(1):45-52.
56. Young RS, O’Regan DJ. Cardiac surgical theatre traffic: time for traffic calming measures? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10(4):526-529.
57. Pryor F, Messmer PR. The effect of traffic patterns in the OR on surgical site infections. AORN J. 1998;68(4):649-660.
58. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines Writers Workgroup, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Association of Critical Care Nurses, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(12):1706-1715.
59. Rosenberger LH, Politano AD, Sawyer RG. The Surgical Care Improvement Project and prevention of post-operative infection, including surgical site infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2011;12(3):163-168.
60. Gorenoi V, Schonermark MP, Hagen A. Prevention of infection after knee arthroplasty. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2010;6:Doc10.
61. AlBuhairan B, Hind D, Hutchinson A. Antibiotic prophylaxis for wound infections in total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(7):915-919.
62. Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. 2005;189(4):395-404.
63. Quenon JL, Eveillard M, Vivien A, et al. Evaluation of current practices in surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary total hip prosthesis—a multicentre survey in private and public French hospitals. J Hosp Infect. 2004;56(3):202-207.
64. Parvizi J, Saleh KJ, Ragland PS, Pour AE, Mont MA. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop. 2008;79(3):335-341.
65. Namba RS, Chen Y, Paxton EW, Slipchenko T, Fithian DC. Outcomes of routine use of antibiotic-loaded cement in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):44-47.
66. Zhou Y, Li L, Zhou Q, et al. Lack of efficacy of prophylactic application of antibiotic-loaded bone cement for prevention of infection in primary total knee arthroplasty: results of a meta-analysis. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2015;16(2):183-187.
67. Leopold SS. Consensus statement from the International Consensus Meeting on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(12):3731-3732.
68. Sollecito TP, Abt E, Lockhart PB, et al. The use of prophylactic antibiotics prior to dental procedures in patients with prosthetic joints: evidence-based clinical practice guideline for dental practitioners—a report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015;146(1):11-16.e18.
69. Watters W 3rd, Rethman MP, Hanson NB, et al. Prevention of orthopaedic implant infection in patients undergoing dental procedures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(3):180-189.
70. Merchant VA; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Dental Association. The new AAOS/ADA clinical practice guidelines for management of patients with prosthetic joint replacements. J Mich Dent Assoc. 2013;95(2):16, 74.
71. Berbari EF, Osmon DR, Carr A, et al. Dental procedures as risk factors for prosthetic hip or knee infection: a hospital-based prospective case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):8-16.
72. Little JW, Jacobson JJ, Lockhart PB; American Academy of Oral Medicine. The dental treatment of patients with joint replacements: a position paper from the American Academy of Oral Medicine. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141(6):667-671.
73. Curry S, Phillips H. Joint arthroplasty, dental treatment, and antibiotics: a review. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(1):111-113.
74. Jaberi FM, Parvizi J, Haytmanek CT, Joshi A, Purtill J. Procrastination of wound drainage and malnutrition affect the outcome of joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(6):1368-1371.
75. Stone PW. Economic burden of healthcare-associated infections: an American perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;9(5):417-422.
76. Kapadia BH, McElroy MJ, Issa K, Johnson AJ, Bozic KJ, Mont MA. The economic impact of periprosthetic infections following total knee arthroplasty at a specialized tertiary-care center. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(5):929-932.
77. Slover J, Haas JP, Quirno M, Phillips MS, Bosco JA 3rd. Cost-effectiveness of a Staphylococcus aureus screening and decolonization program for high-risk orthopedic patients. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(3):360-365.
78. Cummins JS, Tomek IM, Kantor SR, Furnes O, Engesaeter LB, Finlayson SR. Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement used in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(3):634-641.
79. Kapadia BH, Johnson AJ, Issa K, Mont MA. Economic evaluation of chlorhexidine cloths on healthcare costs due to surgical site infections following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(7):1061-1065.
80. Malinzak RA, Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Olberding EM, Davis KE. Morbidly obese, diabetic, younger, and unilateral joint arthroplasty patients have elevated total joint arthroplasty infection rates. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):84-88.
81. Wagner ER, Kamath AF, Fruth KM, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Effect of body mass index on complications and reoperations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(3):169-179.
82 Broex EC, van Asselt AD, Bruggeman CA, van Tiel FH. Surgical site infections: how high are the costs? J Hosp Infect. 2009;72(3):193-201.
83. Anderson DJ, Kirkland KB, Kaye KS, et al. Underresourced hospital infection control and prevention programs: penny wise, pound foolish? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007;28(7):767-773.
84. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Medicare program; comprehensive care for joint replacement payment model for acute care hospitals furnishing lower extremity joint replacement services. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2015;80(226):73273-73554.