Factors associated with humeral stem revision in anatomic to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revision

Abstract

Background: Recent advances in implant technology have allowed for modular or platform humeral stem insertion during initial anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). These systems allow for humeral stem retention during conversion to reverse TSA (RTSA). However, some patients still require humeral stem revision when undergoing revision to RTSA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between patient-specific factors and radiographic parameters with humeral stem revision vs. retention during conversion from TSA to RTSA.

Methods: Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent a revision TSA to RTSA between January 2010 and May 2022 at a single institution. Patients were included if their prosthesis included a convertible humeral stem. Patient demographic information, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes and complications were collected. Radiographic parameters were measured by 2 graders on radiographs taken prior to the revision procedure. The need for humeral stem revision and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores (preoperative and 2 years) were also noted. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test for categorical variables and t test for continuous variables.

Results: One hundred seven patients were included, with 52 undergoing humeral stem revision. Patients were revised an average of 51.0 ± 54 months after primary TSA. Younger patient age (63.6 vs. 68.5 years, P = .017) and use of a lateralized glenosphere (1.6 mm vs. 0.4 mm, P < .001) were significantly associated with need for humeral stem revision. Glenoid to humeral head cut distance (28.3 mm vs. 26.3 mm, P = .076) approached significant association with the need for humeral stem revision. All other measurements were not associated with the need for humeral stem revision. Improvement of ASES scores at 2 years' follow-up was higher in the nonrevised group (increase of 33.4 points) than the revision group (23.3), but this did not reach significance (P = .149). Estimated blood loss and surgical time were significantly higher in the stem revision group than the non-revised group (P = .048 and P < .001, respectively).

Conclusion: Younger patients and those receiving a lateralized glenosphere were more likely to undergo humeral stem revision during conversion from TSA to RTSA. Glenoid to the humeral head cut distance should be studied further as a potential indication for humeral stem revision, as it correlates with the space available for a revision implant. This information can guide surgeons with preoperative planning for a revision arthroplasty.

Keywords: ASES score; Humeral stem revision; humeral stem retention; patient-reported outcomes; reverse shoulder arthroplasty; revision total shoulder arthroplasty.