ABSTRACT
AIMS: It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic review was performed to identify clinical data for patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. Data were extracted from the literature and pooled for analysis. Complication and reoperation rates were analyzed using a meta-analysis of proportion, and continuous variables underwent comparative subgroup analysis. RESULTS: A total of 112 studies (5,379 shoulders) were eligible for inclusion, although complete clinical data was not ubiquitous. Indications for revision included component loosening 20% (601/3,041), instability 19% (577/3,041), rotator cuff failure 17% (528/3,041), and infection 16% (490/3,041). Intraoperative complication and postoperative complication and reoperation rates were 8% (230/2,915), 22% (825/3,843), and 13% (584/3,843) respectively. Intraoperative and postoperative complications included iatrogenic humeral fractures (91/230, 40%) and instability (215/825, 26%). Revision to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rather than revision to anatomical TSA from any index prosthesis, resulted in lower complication rates and superior Constant scores, although there was no difference in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. CONCLUSION: Satisfactory improvement in patient-reported outcome measures are reported following revision shoulder arthroplasty; however, revision surgery is associated with high complication rates and better outcomes may be evident following revision to reverse TSA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):618-630.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To systematically review the available data with regard to clinical and functional outcomes of arthroscopic and open debridement for elbow arthritis to determine the complication rate with transition to arthroscopic surgery. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses protocol, a systematic review was performed including studies reporting clinical and functional outcomes following open or arthroscopic debridement of elbow arthritis. The primary outcome measures analyzed were functional outcome (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), range of motion, and complication rate. Data were extracted for the whole group and then compared between the techniques using ranges and forest plots. RESULTS: In total, 39 level IV and 3 level III studies with 1097 elbows were eligible for inclusion; 684 elbows were treated using an open technique and 413 using an arthroscopic technique. Regarding functional outcome scores, mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score improved significantly with comparable magnitude of improvement in both groups (arthroscopic group: range 28-34, open group: range 25-31). Regarding range of motion, mean flexion-extension arc improved significantly in both groups (arthroscopic group: range 8-26°, open group: range 13-49°). The open group had a lower preoperative flexion-extension arc (range 63-96) in comparison with the arthroscopic group (range 84-119). The overall incidence of complications was 5.7% (range 0%-19%) in the arthroscopic group and 6.1% (range 0%-25%) in the open group. The most common complication type was neurologic, with an incidence of 2.1% (range 0%-8%) in the arthroscopic group and 1.9% (range 0%-12%) in the open group. The deep infection rate was 0.7% (range 0%-10%) in the open group with no reported incidence in the arthroscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review demonstrated good mid-term functional outcomes following debridement arthroplasty of the arthritic elbow. There was no increase in complications with an arthroscopic technique confirming its safety and efficacy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Systematic Review of Level III and IV articles.
