Skip to main content
Download PDF

Mid- to long-term outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as revision procedure for failed hemiarthroplasty after proximal humerus fracture

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 752 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Insufficient tuberosity healing is the most common reason for poor outcome after treatment of proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) using hemiarthroplasty (HA). In these cases, revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) can improve function and reduce pain in the short term, however, long-term results remain scarce. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological mid- to long-term results in patients with a revision RTSA after failed HA for PHF.

Methods

In this retrospective study all patients that received a revision to RTSA after failed fracture HA between 2006 and 2018 were included. A total of 49 shoulders in 48 patients (38 female, 10 male; mean age 82 ± 9 years) were identified in our database. A total of 20 patients (17 female, 3 male; mean age was 79 ± 9 years) were available for follow-up examination after a mean time period of approximately eight years (3–14 years) after revision surgery. At final follow-up, patients were assessed using a subjective shoulder value (SSV), range of motion (ROM), visual analogue score (VAS), the Constant Score (CS) and the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12).

Results

At final follow-up, mean CS was 55 ± 19 (19–91), VAS averaged 3 ± 3 (0–8) and mean SSV was 61 ± 18% (18–90%). Mean SF-12 was 44 (28–57) with a mean physical component summary (PCS) of 38 (21–56) and a mean mental component summary (MCS) of 51 (29–67). On average active forward flexion (FF) was 104° (10–170°), active abduction (ABD) was 101° (50–170°), active external rotation (ER) was 19° (10–30°) and active internal rotation (IR) of the lumbosacral transition was reached. Three patients presented with a periprosthetic humeral fracture after RTSA implantation and underwent a reoperation (15%) during follow-up period.

Conclusions

Revision RTSA results in promising clinical results in patients after initial failed HA after PHF. A complication and reoperation rate of 15% is tolerable in consideration of satisfactory functional and psychological outcome.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) are the third most frequent fracture in the elderly following fractures of the proximal femur and the distal radius [1, 2]. Majority of PHFs in the elderly present little displacement and can be successfully managed with conservative treatment [3]. In cases of displaced three- and four-part fractures with a high risk of avascular head necrosis primary arthroplasty has become the most reliable treatment option, as reconstruction is associated with high risk of complication and increased revision rates [4,5,6,7].

Despite the decrease in hemiarthroplasty (HA) implantation over the last decade [8, 9], fracture HA remains a treatment option in young patients [10]. Hence, revision strategies for failure are necessary. Causes of unsatisfactory outcomes after HA for PHF treatment are multifactorial [11, 12]. Although satisfactory outcomes can be achieved with HA [13,14,15], high rate of tuberosity migration [16,17,18,19,20,21] is a main reason for poor function. Furthermore, patients’ increased age and possible pre-traumatic cuff deficiencies [22] can be responsible for early secondary cuff insufficiency resulting in proximal humeral head migration and poor outcome [18]. Fracture-specific stem design in HA does improve tuberosity fixation and healing which correlates with significantly greater active external rotation (ER), forward flexion (FF) and better functional outcome [23, 24].

To this date, there is no ideal treatment algorithm regarding PHF, however, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) shows superiority over HA in the elderly [5, 18, 25,26,27]. RTSA has emerged as an attractive option with increasing popularity over the past decade, offering more favorable and predictable functional results (especially in FF and active abduction (ABD)), less residual postoperative pain and allowing early initiation of rehabilitation compared to patients with HA [18, 25, 27,28,29,30].

Due to its biomechanical design, RTSA is solely depending on the deltoid muscle. Even in patients with tuberosity migration or insufficiency, good clinical function can be obtained. A meta-analysis for patients with RTSA after acute PHFs show improved ER in those with anatomically healed greater tuberosity, however, its impact on function is not comparable to patients with HA. Although, fracture-specific designs can improve greater tuberosity healing, this does not necessarily correlate with better function [31].

Revision to RTSA is a logical form of treatment, particularly in patients with damaged tuberosities, or rotator cuff pathology [32, 33]. Literature shows that it is a reliable treatment option resulting in stability and providing high potential to improve shoulder function [19]. Although improved clinical short-term results of revision arthroplasty after failed HA have been published [20, 34,35,36], overall literature and long-term results are scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid- to long-term clinical outcome and complications of the revision RTSA after failed HA for PHFs.

Materials and methods

Study population

Ethical approval from the institutional ethics committee was obtained prior to onset of investigation. Patients who underwent revision surgery for a failed fracture HA to RTSA between 2006 and 2018 were eligible. Inclusion criteria was a revision surgery at our center due to a failed HA after an initially displaced three- and four-part PHF. This resulted in a total of 49 shoulders in 48 patients. The mean age of all patients (38 female, 10 male) was 81.5 ± 8.9 years. A total of 20 shoulders in 20 patients (17 female, 3 male; mean age 79.2 ± 8.8 years) were available for follow-up after a mean period of 7.8 years (3.2–14.4 years). 28 patients were lost to follow-up: One RTSA was explanted at an external hospital, one died, four were not available for in-house examination due to severe medical comorbidities, while 22 patients were not contactable via telephone or post at using their last contact information (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of the study participants

Full size image

Implant design

Given the long follow-up period of this study, a large number of diverse implant designs were included. The implanted prosthetic devices included Global Unite Reverse Fracture (Depuy-Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA) (n = 1), Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder (Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) (n = 2), Affinis Fracture Inverse (Mathys Ltd., Bettlach, Switzerland) (n = 3), Aequalis Reversed Shoulder (Tornier/Stryker Inc., Kalamazoo, MI, USA) (n = 23) such as Delta III (n = 5) and Delta Xtend (n = 15) (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA).

Surgical technique

All surgeries were performed by one of four specialized shoulder surgeons at our department with each patient in a beach-chair position and under general anesthesia combined with an interscalene block, using the deltopectoral approach. In three cases, the modularity of the stem allowed only the change of the proximal metaphysis. In case of an exchange, the complete stem including the diaphysis was removed. With the sounder in place proximal preparation using metaphyseal punches was performed until the final stem size was established. A humeral retroversion of 20° was preferred; however the retroversion was usually predetermined by the initial fracture stem and initial head osteotomy. A protection plate was placed onto the resection plane during glenoid preparation.

After establishing the initial retroversion of the paleo-glenoid for orientation and size of the baseplate, a central guiding pin was placed via the template, to allow for correct glenoid reaming. Whenever necessary, due to eccentric glenoid erosion, high-side reaming was performed to establish a plane glenoid surface allowing baseplate fixation. The glenoid components were assembled and implanted according to the manufacturer’s technical manual. The glenosphere diameter was selected based on the surgeon’s preference, joint stability and tuberosity reduction. In none of the cases, it was necessary to use any type of supplementation in the glenoid.

The humeral resection plate was removed, and the definitive stem was placed using the compactor before the definitive tray was placed. In cases of intraoperative humerus fractures during stem removal, additional metal and/or polymer cables were placed above and below the location of fracture line. In all cases, wherever conversion was not possible and rotational stem stability was not achieved with trial implants, hybrid cementation of the diaphyseal stem component was performed (n = 18). After joint reduction, subscapularis repair and wound closure were performed. In addition, fixation of greater tuberosity and posterior cuff was performed whenever possible. In most cases, there were no tuberosities remaining due to resorption after mal- or non-union following HA implantation.

Revision surgeries with single- (n = 3) or two-stage (n = 3) exchange were exclusively performed at our institution, following a standardized revision arthroplasty protocol. Patients with signs for high-grade infections like acute symptoms of local inflammation and/or sinus tract with evidence of communication to the joint or visualization of the prosthesis, or poor soft tissue were admitted to the two-stage revision. The routine PJI protocol at our institution included laboratory values such as serum CRP levels, leucocyte counts, and the proportion of polymorphonuclear leucocytes in aspiration, as well as microbiological and histopathological findings at the time of revision surgery.

In cases of one- or two stage-revision, all hardware, sutures, cement, and infected tissue were removed. Scar formations were accurately dissected, incorporating a careful release and mobilization of the remaining rotator cuff. This was followed by meticulous irrigation with high-pressure pulsatile lavage, debridement, and the implantation of a custom made, antibiotic-loaded cement spacer with a consistent utilization of the deltopectoral approach in all cases. In cases of one stage-revision, the implantation of the RTSA was performed according to the details described above. After the initial stage, an antibiotic regimen, recommended by our infectious diseases department based on the current literature and experience of our department, was administered postoperatively to all patients [37,38,39,40].

In cases of two-stage revision, the reimplantation was carried out via the same deltopectoral approach. This operation also served as another opportunity for comprehensive debridement of surrounding soft tissues and bone, preceding the reimplantation of definitive components. After the second stage, a tailored intravenous antibiotic treatment was administered for one to two weeks, followed by transitioning to an oral regime to complete a total treatment duration of a minimum of six weeks after reimplantation.

Rehabilitation protocol

Patients followed a standardized postoperative rehabilitation protocol. The operated shoulder was immobilized in a sling in internal rotation for six weeks. During this time, only supervised, passive mobilization (excluding external rotation exceeding 0°) was performed during physiotherapy sessions. After six weeks, pain-free active motion was added to the protocol. Strengthening exercises were carefully introduced twelve weeks postoperatively.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation

Clinical outcome was assessed using Constant-Murley score (CS) [41], including its Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain and patient-reported Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) [42] at follow-up examination. Moreover, the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) [43] was obtained, which consists of the physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS).

Active range of motion (ROM) was documented for ABD, FF, ER, and internal rotation (IR). ER was assessed standing with arm at side, IR was categorized by the ability to reach different levels of the spine with the thumb. Postoperative complications were documented throughout the follow-up period. The standard diagnostic protocol was established using institutional criteria according to European Bone and Joint Infection Society to identify periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) [44].

Patients were assessed on standardized true anteroposterior, axillary, and Y-view radiographs to identify implant loosening (in terms of subsidence or shift in position), implant breakage, greater tuberosity insufficiency, and heterotopic ossification [45]. Scapular notching was evaluated according to Sirveaux classification [46].

Data management and statistical analysis

All data were recorded pseudonymously regarding reason for revision, type of implant, operated shoulder, surgeon, time interval between primary HA implantation and revision to RTSA as well as further demographic data (gender, age etc.). All functional outcome measurements were recorded. All intra- and postoperative adverse events were documented. The rate of complication and reoperation were calculated for this respective patient cohort.

A descriptive analysis of the variables was performed by calculating mean, median, standard deviation (±), absolute and percentage frequency, for which IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was employed. The two-sample t-test (for parametric distribution) or Mann-Whitney-U test (for non-parametric distribution) was used to compare continuous variables between groups. We have performed two subgroup analysis for initial reason of HA revision and divided by timing of RTSA revision after HA implantation (cut-off: two years). Statistical significance level was set to 0.05.

Results

All clinical results of these patients are illustrated in Table 1 and their demographics are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1 Detailed illustration of every patient included showing baseline demographics, implant design, glenosphere size, follow-up results, and complication. F, female; M, male; r, right; l, left; GS, Glenosphere size; SSV, subjective shoulder value; VAS, visual analogue score; CS, constant score; SF-12, 12-Item short form survey; IR, active internal rotation (0: lateral side of the thigh, 2: buttocks, 4: lumbosacral transition, 6: third lumbar vertebral body, 8: 12th thoracic vertebral body, 10: between shoulder blades); ER, active external rotation; FF, active forward flexion; ABD, active abduction; con, conversion; Ex, total exchange; tub. insuf., tuberosity insufficiency; PJI, periprosthetic joint infection; perip. fx, periprosthetic fracture
Full size table
Table 2 Patient demographics. Values of age at follow-up and follow-up period are reported as means with standard deviations (±) (ranges). Total number of patients: 20
Full size table

The most frequent indication for revision surgery was rotator cuff insufficiency due to tuberosity insufficiency (n = 32, Fig. 2), followed by acute postoperative infection (n = 11), instability (n = 4), periprosthetic fracture (n = 1), and poor function due to incorrect implant positioning (n = 1). The mean time interval between the primary fracture HA and the revision surgery to RTSA was 2.6 years (0.1–12.8 years) for all patients.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Radiographs obtained during the course of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revision procedure for failed hemiarthroplasty after proximal humerus fracture. A A 66-year-old patient from our cohort fell on to her right shoulder at home, hemiarthroplasty was indicated in this case. B Prosthesis failure due to tuberosity and rotator cuff insufficiency with postoperative persistent pain and stiffness. C Implantation of a reverse total shoulder endoprosthesis was performed

Full size image

The most common used prosthetic device included the Aequalis Reversed Shoulder (Tornier/Stryker Inc., Kalamazoo, MI, USA) in 12 cases (60%) and the most common indication for revision surgery was rotator cuff deficiency due to greater tuberosity insufficiency in 14 patients (70%). Only in three cases a conversion without the exchange of the well-fixed stem was possible. In five cases (25%), an intraoperative humerus fracture occurred during stem removal, that needed additional cable wire fixation. In all six cases with PJI, acute deep infections were observed following the first six months after HA implantation. Hence, complete implant removal and radical debridement was performed to eradicate infection performing a single- (n = 3) or two-stage (n = 3) revision. No recurrent infections in these revision cases were observed at the final follow-up. In the remaining eleven patients (55%), a complete exchange was necessary because the implanted HA stem design did not allow RTSA conversion.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes

Clinical outcome of patients eligible for follow-up examination are summarized in Table 3. There were no cases of osteolysis around the baseplate or fixation screws reported in our cohort. There was one single case of humeral stem loosening (5%). There were five cases with glenoidal heterotopic ossification and two cases with humeral heterotopic ossification, whereas no signs of heterotopic ossification were observed in 13 cases. Seven patients demonstrated scapular notching of grade one (35%), one patient with grade 2 notching (5%), while twelve patients had no scapular notching. There was one case of greater tuberosity resorption, in all other 19 cases, greater tuberosity was resorbed at time of revision RTSA implantation.

Table 3 Clinical outcome measurements. Values reported with standard deviations (± SD) (ranges). SSV, subjective shoulder value; VAS, visual analogue score; CS, constant score; SF-12, 12-Item short form survey; PCS, physical component summary; MCS, mental component summary; FF, active forward flexion; ABD, active abduction; ER, active external rotation; IR, active internal rotation (lateral side of the thigh, buttocks, lumbosacral transition, third lumbar vertebral body, 12th thoracic vertebral body, between shoulder blades)
Full size table

Complications

Three patients presented with complication that needed revision surgery due to periprosthetic humerus fractures after RTSA implantation following a fall onto the operated shoulder. One periprosthetic fracture needed stem revision after 12 years and additional cable wire fixation, whereas the other two were treated with open reduction and internal fixation using a locking plate three months and twelve years after RTSA implantation. Other complications, such as infections, phlebitis, neurological issues, intraoperative fractures of the glenoid and acromion, stress fractures, and muscular complications, were not observed in the patients eligible for follow-up examination.

Subgroup analysis

There was no statistically significant difference between the subgroups early (< 2 years) and late (≥ 2 years) RTSA after fracture HA (Table 4). Patients who were revised to RTSA after fracture HA due to tuberosity insufficiency showed better outcomes than those with revision due to PJI in terms of PCS (38.5 ± 10.8 vs. 36.1 ± 10.7, respectively; p < 0.05), MCS (53.9 ± 7.8 vs. 43.5 ± 13.4, respectively; p < 0.05) and FF (109.6 ± 44.4 vs. 90.0 ± 44.3, respectively; p < 0.05) (Table 5). A trend that is not statistically significant was encountered in VAS: The group of patients with revision to RTSA after fracture HA due to tuberosity insufficiency showed less postoperative pain than those with revision due to PJI (2.4 ± 2.3 vs. 3.0 ± 3.5, respectively, p = 0.070) (Table 5).

Table 4 Subgroup analysis of clinical outcome between patients that received revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at an early (within first two years) or late stage (after two years) after fracture hemiarthroplasty. Values reported as means with standard deviations (±) (ranges). PJI, periprosthetic joint infection; SSV, subjective shoulder value; VAS, visual analogue score; CS, constant score; SF-12, 12-Item short form survey; PCS, physical component summary; MCS, mental component summary; FF, active forward flexion; ABD, active abduction; ER, active external rotation; IR, active internal rotation (lateral side of the thigh, buttocks, lumbosacral transition, third lumbar vertebral body, 12th thoracic vertebral body, between shoulder blades)
Full size table
Table 5 Subgroup analysis of clinical outcome comparing reasons for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revision (periprosthetic joint infection and tuberosity insufficiency). Values reported as means with standard deviations (±) (ranges). PJI, periprosthetic joint infection; SSV, subjective shoulder value; VAS, visual analogue score; CS, constant score; SF-12, 12-Item short form survey; PCS, physical component summary; MCS, mental component summary; FF, active forward flexion; ABD, active abduction; ER, active external rotation; IR, active internal rotation (lateral side of the thigh, buttocks, lumbosacral transition, third lumbar vertebral body, 12th thoracic vertebral body, between shoulder blades)
Full size table

Discussion

Our results demonstrate that patients achieve acceptable clinical outcome after revision RTSA for failed HA fracture treatment. After a mean follow-up of eight years, mean SSV score was 61% and mean CS averaged 55 points, indicating good and reasonable function. Complication and reoperation rates of 15% after recurrent falls are tolerable in this elderly population. Although mean SF-12 score of 44 points does not indicate an outstanding outcome with a relatively low mean PCS of 38 points, a mean MCS of 51 points was reached.

Patients treated with RTSA for PJI showed trends towards worse clinical outcome with regards to PCS, MCS, FF, and VAS, compared to patients who were revised to RTSA after fracture HA due to tuberosity insufficiency. In cases of acute PJI, meticulous operative debridement with implant retention followed by antibiotics are mandatory in combination with a single- or two-stage revision. In the present study, patients with tuberosity insufficiency illustrated overall better clinical outcome and less pain resulting in higher levels of mental health and subjective outcome, compared to patients treated with RTSA for PJI.

Patients who were revised relatively early to RTSA showed similar results with no statistically significant differences compared to patients with longer HA survival time (cut-off at two years after initial HA surgery). One could expect that early problems such as postoperative pseudoparalysis due to early tuberosity migration, or early loosening and pain due to high virulent pathogens that lead to early revision may have influenced the surrounding tissue and therefore impact outcome of RTSA. Patients with late revisions had an initial successful treatment with HA and therefore good function and cuff status. Late revisions caused by secondary rotator cuff deficiency or glenoid bone erosion can be successfully treated with RTSA due to its design. Nevertheless, no differences were shown between patients with initially successful HA treatment and late revision and patients with early revision. One could argue that HA can be used as a treatment option in young patients with satisfactory bone quality, intact rotator cuff and good healing biology, postponing RTSA implantation.

Regarding the good performance in MCS with 51 points, clinical results of our study were evaluated as satisfactory. Mean SF-12 score in our follow-up group was 44 points, which at first did not indicate an ideal outcome with a relatively low mean PCS of 38 points. However, SF-12 consists of two summary measures, PCS and MCS, and in detail a subset of 12 items from SF-36 Health Survey [43, 47, 48] covering the same eight domains of health outcomes, including physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. In an elderly population with a failed HA, pain relief and necessary improvement of ROM mainly influence patient satisfaction in a positive way due to low age-appropriate demands of activities of daily living, as opposed to achieving maximum ROM, which presumably did reflect in the discrepancy of our mean physical and psychological scores of the SF-12.

Available literature shows similar clinical results to the presented study in terms of CS, VAS, complication rate and ROM. Holschen et al. included 44 failed shoulder arthroplasties converted to RTSA in most of the cases with Delta Xtend prosthesis (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN, USA) (n = 31; 70.5%) from 2010 to 2012 with a follow-up of 24 months (14–36 months) [19]. Only 21 of 43 patients were treated for PHF [19]. Patients revised because of failed fracture arthroplasty illustrated a CS of 55 points, VAS of 2.2, complication rate of 24%, FF of 115°, and ABD of 107° [19]. Gohlke et al. designed a similar study from 2000 to 2005 with 84 shoulder replacement revisions (Tornier/Stryker Inc., Kala-mazoo, MI, USA), of which 34 were revisions of failed fracture HA with an average follow-up of 31.5 months (12–59 months) [35]. At final follow-up, patients showed CS of 45 points, complication rate of 24%, FF of 125° and ABD of 95° [35]. The study conducted by Reuther et al. between 2008 and 2015 with a mean follow-up period of 55.1 months (12.0-91.1 months) had 17 patients with Affinis Inverse or Affinis Facture Inverse system (Mathys, Switzerland) implanted as primary prosthesis and without any stem removal during revision for failed HA after PHF [49]. Included patients illustrated postoperatively CS of 58 points, VAS of 2.3, complication rate of 18%, FF of 123° and ABD of 112° [49]. All of these studies suggested overall good CS, an acceptable postoperative VAS, a tolerable complication rate and a reasonable ROM in terms of FF and ABD, corresponding with the results of the present study, which has among the included studies the longest follow-up with a mean period of eight years. This suggests, that regardless of implant design, acceptable clinical function can be expected beyond short-term follow-up and throughout a longer period of time. Limitations to good function are mainly due to falls of patients that lead to periprosthetic fractures.

Our data shows that in 78.6% of patients with aseptic loosening (11/14) a complete exchange was necessary because the implanted HA stem design did not allow for conversion to RTSA. This has resulted in an intraoperative humerus fracture during stem removal in 36.3% of cases (4/11). This suggests that more than every third stem removal bears the risk of fracture in the humerus, which then prolongs surgical time and needs additional cable wire fixation. This stresses how important convertible implants are when using a fracture HA in the young to avoid those unnecessary complication.

This study has several limitations. The design is retrospective and the rate of lost-to-follow-up is high due to patients’ old age, their comorbidities and the studys’ long-term follow-up. Due to the lack of certain digitalized information, it was not possible to determine all the details of the patients who could not be followed up, which may affect the overall complication rate in this study. Furthermore, preoperative SSV, VAS for pain, CS, SF-12 and ROM were not assessed, which reduces the ability to comment on procedure related improvement in functional scores. Although good outcomes were illustrated for this cohort, we could not identify prognostic factors that lead to better or poorer outcome due to its small sample size and lack of a control group. In addition, multiple RTSA implants were used and therefore the effect of specific implant design was not evaluated. However, the use of multiple designs and treatment by four different surgeons could be argued as strength to show that acceptable results can be achieved with RTSA regardless of its specific design when implanted accordingly to their technical manual. Lastly, the long follow-up period is a notable strength of this investigation, providing valuable insights into the mid- to long-term outcomes of RTSA after failed initial HA for PHFs.

Conclusion

In summary, the results of revision RTSA show promising clinical outcomes in patients following a failed HA for fracture treatment. Despite a 15% complication rate leading to revision, functional outcomes are considered acceptable given the satisfactory functional and psychological improvement observed.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

ABD:

Abduction

CS:

Constant Score

ER:

Extrenal Rotation

FF:

Forward flexion

HA:

Hemiarthroplasty

IR:

Internal Rotation

PJI:

Periprosthetic joint infection

PCS:

Physical component summary

PHF:

Proximal humerus fracture

MCS:

Mental component summary

ROM:

Range of motion

RTSA:

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

SF-12:

Short Form Survey

SSV:

Subjective shoulder value

VAS :

Visual analogue score

References

  1. Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury. 2006;37(8):691–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Robinson PM, Harrison T, Cook A, Parker MJ. Orthopaedic injuries associated with hip fractures in those aged over 60 years: a study of patterns of injury and outcomes for 1971 patients. Injury. 2012;43(7):1131–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lefevre-Colau MM, Babinet A, Fayad F, Fermanian J, Anract P, Roren A, et al. Immediate mobilization compared with conventional immobilization for the impacted nonoperatively treated proximal Humeral fracture: a randomized controlled trial. JBJS. 2007;89(12):2582–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Solomon JA, Joseph SM, Shishani Y, Victoroff BN, Wilber JH, Gobezie R, et al. Cost analysis of hemiarthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fractures. Orthopedics. 2016;39(4):230–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van der Merwe M, Boyle MJ, Frampton CMA, Ball CM. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of acute proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26(9):1539–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ferrel JR, Trinh TQ, Fischer RA. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(1):60–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Neer CS. 2nd. Displaced proximal humeral fractures. I. classification and evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(6):1077–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dillon MT, Prentice HA, Burfeind WE, Chan PH, Navarro RA. The increasing role of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Injury. 2019;50(3):676–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patel AH, Wilder JH, Ofa SA, Lee OC, Savoie FH 3, O’Brien MJ, et al. Trending a decade of proximal humerus fracture management in older adults. JSES Int. 2022;6(1):137–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosas S, Law TY, Kurowicki J, Formaini N, Kalandiak SP, Levy JC. Trends in surgical management of proximal humeral fractures in the Medicare population: a nationwide study of records from 2009 to 2012. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(4):608–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Tinsi L, Walch G, Coste JS, Molé D. Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2002;11(5):401–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of glenoid arthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(6):860–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Levine WN, Connor PM, Yamaguchi K, Self EB, Arroyo JS, Pollock RG, et al. Humeral head replacement for proximal humeral fractures. Orthopedics. 1998;21(1):68–73 quiz 4–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mighell MA, Kolm GP, Collinge CA, Frankle MA. Outcomes of hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2003;12(6):569–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Green A, Barnard WL, Limbird RS. Humeral head replacement for acute, four-part proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 1993;2(5):249–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Baudi P, Campochiaro G, Serafini F, Gazzotti G, Matino G, Rovesta C, et al. Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty: comparative study of functional and radiological outcomes in the treatment of acute proximal humerus fracture. Musculoskelet Surg. 2014;98(Suppl 1):19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kralinger F, Schwaiger R, Wambacher M, Farrell E, Menth-Chiari W, Lajtai G, et al. Outcome after primary hemiarthroplasty for fracture of the head of the humerus. A retrospective multicentre study of 167 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(2):217–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sebastiá-Forcada E, Cebrián-Gómez R, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gil-Guillén V. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. A blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective study. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23(10):1419–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Holschen M, Siemes MK, Witt KA, Steinbeck J. Five-year outcome after conversion of a hemiarthroplasty when used for the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2018;100–b(6):761–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Holschen M, Franetzki B, Witt KA, Liem D, Steinbeck J. Conversions from anatomic shoulder replacements to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: do the indications for initial surgery influence the clinical outcome after revision surgery? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137(2):167–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boyle MJ, Youn SM, Frampton CM, Ball CM. Functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty compared with hemiarthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2013;22(1):32–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Park YK, Kim SH, Oh JH. Intermediate-term outcome of hemiarthroplasty for comminuted proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26(1):85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Loew M, Heitkemper S, Parsch D, Schneider S, Rickert M. Influence of the design of the prosthesis on the outcome after hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in displaced fractures of the head of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(3):345–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Krishnan SG, Reineck JR, Bennion PD, Feher L, Burkhead WZ. Jr. Shoulder arthroplasty for fracture: does a fracture-specific stem make a difference? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(12):3317–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Bonnevialle N, Tournier C, Clavert P, Ohl X, Sirveaux F, Saragaglia D. Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty in 4-part displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: Multicenter retrospective study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(5):569–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schairer WW, Nwachukwu BU, Lyman S, Craig EV, Gulotta LV. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24(10):1560–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang J, Zhu Y, Zhang F, Chen W, Tian Y, Zhang Y. Meta-analysis suggests that reverse shoulder arthroplasty in proximal humerus fractures is a better option than hemiarthroplasty in the elderly. Int Orthop. 2016;40(3):531–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gallinet D, Clappaz, Garbuio P, Tropet Y, Obert L. Three or four parts complex proximal humerus fractures: hemiarthroplasty versus reverse prosthesis: a comparative study of 40 cases. Orthop Traumatol. 2009;95(1):48–55.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sirveaux F, Roche O, Molé D. Shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fracture. Orthop Traumatology: Surg Res. 2010;96(6):683–94.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shukla DR, McAnany S, Kim J, Overley S, Parsons BO. Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a meta-analysis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(2):330–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Imiolczyk JP, Moroder P, Scheibel M. Fracture-specific and conventional stem designs in reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fractures—a retrospective, observational study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(2):175.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Walker M, Brooks J, Willis M, Frankle M. How reverse shoulder arthroplasty works. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2440–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Gunst S, Louboutin L, Swan J, Lustig S, Servien E, Nove-Josserand L. Does healing of both greater and lesser tuberosities improve functional outcome after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for fracture? A retrospective study of twenty-eight cases with a computed tomography scan at a minimum of one-year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2021;45(3):681–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 Am. 2007;89(2):292–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Patel DN, Young B, Onyekwelu I, Zuckerman JD, Kwon YW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2012;21(11):1478–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Akgün D, Wiethölter M, Maziak N, Paksoy A, Karczewski D, Scheibel M, et al. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty for periprosthetic shoulder infection is associated with high rate of failure to reimplant and mortality. J Clin Med. 2021;10(21):5186.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Izakovicova P, Borens O, Trampuz A. Periprosthetic joint infection: current concepts and outlook. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(7):482–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Moroder P, Gerhardt C, Renz N, Trampuz A, Scheibel M. Diagnostik und management des endoprotheseninfekts am schultergelenk. Obere Extremität. 2016;11:78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE. Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(16):1645–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Constant CR, Gerber C, Emery RJ, Søjbjerg JO, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2008;17(2):355–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gilbart MK, Gerber C. Comparison of the subjective shoulder value and the constant score. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2007;16(6):717–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3130–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. McNally M, Sousa R, Wouthuyzen-Bakker M, Chen AF, Soriano A, Vogely HC, et al. The EBJIS definition of periprosthetic joint infection. Bone Joint J. 2021;103–b(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Durchholz H, Salomonsson B, Moroder P, Lambert S, Page R, Audigé L, et al. Core set of radiographic parameters for shoulder arthroplasty monitoring: criteria defined by an International Delphi Consensus process. JB JS Open Access. 2019;4(4): e0025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Molé D. Grammont inverted total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis with massive rupture of the cuff. Results of a multicentre study of 80 shoulders. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(3):388–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Health Inst. 1993;6(1–6):22.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Brook RH, Ware JE Jr, Rogers WH, Keeler EB, Davies AR, Donald CA, et al. Does free care improve adults’ health? Results from a randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1983;309(23):1426–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Reuther F, Irlenbusch U, Kääb MJ, Kohut G. Conversion of hemiarthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty with humeral stem retention. J Clin Med. 2022;11(3):834.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charité University Hospital, Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Augustenburger Pl. 1, Berlin, 13353, Germany

    Alp Paksoy, Doruk Akgün, Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk, Henry Gebauer, Markus Scheibel & Agahan Hayta

  2. Schulthess Klinik, Zurich, Switzerland

    Markus Scheibel & Philipp Moroder

  3. University Hospital Rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Lucca Lacheta

Authors
  1. Alp Paksoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Doruk Akgün
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan-Philipp Imiolczyk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Henry Gebauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucca Lacheta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Markus Scheibel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Agahan Hayta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Philipp Moroder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, D.A., P.M., M.S., A.P. and L.L.; methodology, D.A., J.I., L.L., P.M., A.P. and M.S.; software, A.P., D.A., A.H. and H.G.; validation, D.A., P.M. and A.P.; formal analysis, A.P., D.A., J.I.; investigation, A.P. and D.A.; resources, M.S. and P.M.; data curation, A.P., D.A., A.H. and H.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P. and D.A.; writing—review and editing, D.A., P.M., A.P., J.I.; visualization, A.P.; supervision, D.A. and P.M.; project administration, D.A. and P.M.; funding acquisition, P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alp Paksoy.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval from the institutional ethics committee of Charité Universitätsmedizin was obtained prior to onset of investigation (Application number: EA4/013/23; Date of registration: 20.02.2023; Date of approval: 31.05.2023). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s) involved in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paksoy, A., Akgün, D., Imiolczyk, JP. et al. Mid- to long-term outcome of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty as revision procedure for failed hemiarthroplasty after proximal humerus fracture. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 752 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07870-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07870-8

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us