Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty—from the most to the least common complication

  • Review
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has been reported to be associated with a complication rate that is four times that of conventional total shoulder arthroplasty. It is the purpose of this article to identify and understand the most common and most serious complications of RTSA and to review current methods of prevention and treatment. The current literature was reviewed to identify type and prevalence of reported complications and to identify risk factors, preventive measures as well as technical details for management strategies for complications of RTSA. The variable accuracy of reporting and the heterogeneity of methodology in the literature limited our study, however, a definitive ranking of most to least common complication emerged. The currently identified most common complication is scapular notching. The clinically most relevant complications are infection, instability and acromial fractures. Haematoma formation used to be very frequent but can be controlled, glenoid component loosening, however, is rare when compared with conventional total shoulder replacement. In conclusion, RTSA is associated with a high rate of complications. Their incidence and the results of their treatment are inconsistently reported. To document and then prevent complications, a standardised monitoring tool including clear definitions and assessment instructions appears necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Molé D, Favard L (2007) Excentered scapulohumeral osteoarthritis. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 93(6 Suppl):37–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wall B, Nove-Josserand L, O'Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G (2007) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(7):1476–1485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boileau P, Gonzalez JF, Chuinard C, Bicknell R, Walch G (2009) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty after failed rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(4):600–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F (2005) Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):147S–161S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boulahia A, Edwards TB, Walch G, Baratta RV (2002) Early results of a reverse design prosthesis in the treatment of arthritis of the shoulder in elderly patients with a large rotator cuff tear. Orthopedics 25(2):129–133

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cuff D, Pupello D, Virani N, Levy J, Frankle M (2008) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(6):1244–1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gerber C, Pennington SD, Nyffeler RW (2009) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17(5):284–295

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vanhove B, Beugnies A (2004) Grammont’s reverse shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff arthropathy. A retrospective study of 32 cases. Acta Orthop Belg 70(3):219–225

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Levigne C, Boileau P, Favard L, Garaud P, Molé D, Sirveaux F et al (2008) Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(6):925–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Levy JC, Virani N, Pupello D, Frankle M (2007) 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 89(2):189–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kontaxis A, Johnson GR (2009) The biomechanics of reverse anatomy shoulder replacement—a modelling study. Clin Biomech (Bristol) 24(3):254–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wierks C, Skolasky RL, Ji JH, McFarland EG (2009) Reverse total shoulder replacement: intraoperative and early postoperative complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(1):225–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Werner CM, Steinmann PA, Gilbart M, Gerber C (2005) Treatment of painful pseudoparesis due to irreparable rotator cuff dysfunction with the Delta III reverse-ball-and-socket total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(7):1476–1486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Molé D (2004) 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 86(3):388–395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grassi FA, Murena L, Valli F, Alberio R (2009) Six-year experience with the Delta III reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 17(2):151–156

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rittmeister M, Kerschbaumer F (2001) Grammont reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and nonreconstructible rotator cuff lesions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 10(1):17–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. John M, Pap G, Angst F, Flury MP, Lieske S, Schwyzer HK et al. Short-term results after reversed shoulder arthroplasty (Delta III) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and irreparable rotator cuff tear. Int Orthop 34(1):71–77

  18. Valenti P, Boutens D, Nerot C (2001) Delta 3 reversed prosthesis for osteoarthritis with massive rotator cuff tear: long term results (>5 years). In: Walch G, Boileau P, Molé D (eds) Shoulder prosthesis. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier, pp 253–259

    Google Scholar 

  19. Simovitch RW, Zumstein MA, Lohri E, Helmy N, Gerber C (2007) Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the Delta III reverse total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(3):588–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Levigne C, Boileau P, Favard L (2006) Scapular notching. In: Walch G, Boileau P, Molé D (eds) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical results, complications, revision. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier, France, pp 353–372

  21. Nyffeler RW, Werner CM, Simmen BR, Gerber C (2004) Analysis of a retrieved delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(8):1187–1191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nyffeler RW, Werner CM, Gerber C (2005) Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(5):524–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gutierrez S, Levy JC, Frankle MA, Cuff D, Keller TS, Pupello DR et al (2008) Evaluation of abduction range of motion and avoidance of inferior scapular impingement in a reverse shoulder model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(4):608–615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gutierrez S, Luo ZP, Levy J, Frankle MA (2009) Arc of motion and socket depth in reverse shoulder implants. Clin Biomech (Bristol) 24(6):473–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wirth MA, Rockwood CA Jr (1996) Complications of total shoulder-replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(4):603–616

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Norris TR, Iannotti JP (2002) Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 11(2):130–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O (2009) Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty: 1,825 shoulder arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 80(1):83–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Harman M, Frankle M, Vasey M, Banks S (2005) Initial glenoid component fixation in “reverse” total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical evaluation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 14(1 Suppl S):162S–167S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Chebli C, Huber P, Watling J, Bertelsen A, Bicknell RT, Matsen F 3rd (2008) Factors affecting fixation of the glenoid component of a reverse total shoulder prothesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 17(2):323–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cazeneuve JF, Cristofari DJ (2006) Grammont reversed prosthesis for acute complex fracture of the proximal humerus in an elderly population with 5 to 12 years follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 92(6):543–548

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Seebauer L (2007) Total reverse shoulder arthroplasty: European lessons and future trends. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 36(12 Suppl 1):22–28

    Google Scholar 

  32. Neyton L, Sirveaux F, Roche O, Molé D, Boileau P, Walch G (2004) Results of revision surgery for glenoid loosening: a multicentric series of 37 shoulder prosthesis. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 90(2):111–121

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hill JM, Norris TR (2001) Long-term results of total shoulder arthroplasty following bone-grafting of the glenoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(6):877–883

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cheung EV, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2008) Infection associated with hematoma formation after shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(6):1363–1367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fehringer EV, Mikuls TR, Michaud KD, Henderson WG, O'Dell JR. Shoulder arthroplasties have fewer complications than hip or knee arthroplasties in US veterans. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(3):717–722

  36. Coste JS, Reig S, Trojani C, Berg M, Walch G, Boileau P (2004) The management of infection in arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(1):65–69

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zeller V, Ghorbani A, Strady C, Leonard P, Mamoudy P, Desplaces N (2007) Propionibacterium acnes: an agent of prosthetic joint infection and colonization. J Infect 55(2):119–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kelly JD 2nd, Hobgood ER (2009) Positive culture rate in revision shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(9):2343–2348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ghanem E, Parvizi J, Burnett RS, Sharkey PF, Keshavarzi N, Aggarwal A et al (2008) Cell count and differential of aspirated fluid in the diagnosis of infection at the site of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(8):1637–1643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Topolski MS, Chin PY, Sperling JW, Cofield RH (2006) Revision shoulder arthroplasty with positive intraoperative cultures: the value of preoperative studies and intraoperative histology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 15(4):402–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zimmerli W, Trampuz A, Ochsner PE (2004) Prosthetic-joint infections. N Engl J Med 351(16):1645–1654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ghanem E, Parvizi J, Clohisy J, Burnett S, Sharkey PF, Barrack R (2007) Perioperative antibiotics should not be withheld in proven cases of periprosthetic infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 461:44–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sperling JW, Kozak TK, Hanssen AD, Cofield RH (2001) Infection after shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 382:206–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gutierrez S, Keller TS, Levy JC, Lee WE 3rd, Luo ZP (2008) Hierarchy of stability factors in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(3):670–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ladermann A, Williams MD, Melis B, Hoffmeyer P, Walch G (2009) Objective evaluation of lengthening in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(4):588–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Walch G, Mottier F, Wall B, Boileau P, Molé D, Favard L (2009) Acromial insufficiency in reverse shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 18(3):495–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR (2010) Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure-midterm results. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z

  48. Levy J, Frankle M, Mighell M, Pupello D (2007) The use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(2):292–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Middernacht B, De Wilde L, Molé D, Favard L, Debeer P (2008) Glenosphere disengagement: a potentially serious default in reverse shoulder surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(4):892–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Guery J, Favard L, Sirveaux F, Oudet D, Mole D, Walch G (2006) Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship analysis of eight replacements followed for ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(8):1742–1747

    Google Scholar 

  51. Frankle M, Siegal S, Pupello D, Saleem A, Mighell M, Vasey M (2005) The Reverse Shoulder Prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff dificiency. A minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(8):1697–1705

    Google Scholar 

  52. Klein M, Juschka M, Hinkenjann B, Scherger B, Ostermann PA (2008) Treatment of comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients with the Delta III reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Orthop Trauma, 22(10):698–704

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zürich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zürich, Switzerland

    Mazda Farshad & Christian Gerber

Authors
  1. Mazda Farshad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Gerber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farshad, M., Gerber, C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty—from the most to the least common complication. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 34, 1075–1082 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1125-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1125-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation