Revision of failed humeral head resurfacing arthroplasty

Philipp N Streubel, Juan Simone, Robert Cofield, John Sperling

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent revision surgery after humeral head resurfacing (HHR). Our joint registry was queried for all patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for failed HHR at our institution from 2005 to 2010. Eleven consecutive patients (average age 54 years; range 38-69 years) that underwent revision of 11 resurfacing arthroplasties were identified. The primary indication for resurfacing had been osteoarthritis in six, glenoid dysplasia in two, a chondral lesion in two, and postinstability arthropathy in one patient. The indication for revision was pain in 10 and infection in one patient. Seven patients had undergone an average of 1.9 surgeries prior to resurfacing (range 1-3). Materials and Methods: All patients were revised to stemmed arthroplasties, including one hemiarthroplasty, two reverse, and eight anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties at a mean 33 months after primary resurfacing (range 10-131 months). A deltopectoral approach was used in seven patients; four patients required an anteromedial approach due to severe scarring. Subscapularis attenuation was found in four cases, two of which required reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone grafting was required in one glenoid and three humeri. Results: At a mean follow-up of 3.5 years (range 1.6-6.9 years), modified Neer score was rated as satisfactory in five patients and unsatisfactory in six. Abduction and external rotation improved from 73° to 88° (P = 0.32) and from 23° to 32° (P = 0.28) respectively. Reoperation was required in two patients, including one hematoma and one revision for instability. Conclusion: Outcomes of revision of HHR arthroplasty in this cohort did not improve upon those reported for revision of stemmed humeral implants. A comparative study would be required to allow for definitive conclusions to be made.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)21-27
Number of pages7
JournalInternational Journal of Shoulder Surgery
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

Fingerprint

Humeral Head
Arthroplasty
Reoperation
Hemiarthroplasty
Rotator Cuff
Bone Transplantation
Joint Diseases
Humerus
Osteoarthritis
Hematoma
Cartilage
Cicatrix
Registries
Joints

Keywords

  • Humeral head resurfacing
  • revision
  • shoulder arthroplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Revision of failed humeral head resurfacing arthroplasty. / Streubel, Philipp N; Simone, Juan; Cofield, Robert; Sperling, John.

In: International Journal of Shoulder Surgery, Vol. 10, No. 1, 01.01.2016, p. 21-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Streubel, Philipp N ; Simone, Juan ; Cofield, Robert ; Sperling, John. / Revision of failed humeral head resurfacing arthroplasty. In: International Journal of Shoulder Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 10, No. 1. pp. 21-27.
@article{47eda2b322e5450dbe318fbdd53d6859,
title = "Revision of failed humeral head resurfacing arthroplasty",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent revision surgery after humeral head resurfacing (HHR). Our joint registry was queried for all patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for failed HHR at our institution from 2005 to 2010. Eleven consecutive patients (average age 54 years; range 38-69 years) that underwent revision of 11 resurfacing arthroplasties were identified. The primary indication for resurfacing had been osteoarthritis in six, glenoid dysplasia in two, a chondral lesion in two, and postinstability arthropathy in one patient. The indication for revision was pain in 10 and infection in one patient. Seven patients had undergone an average of 1.9 surgeries prior to resurfacing (range 1-3). Materials and Methods: All patients were revised to stemmed arthroplasties, including one hemiarthroplasty, two reverse, and eight anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties at a mean 33 months after primary resurfacing (range 10-131 months). A deltopectoral approach was used in seven patients; four patients required an anteromedial approach due to severe scarring. Subscapularis attenuation was found in four cases, two of which required reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone grafting was required in one glenoid and three humeri. Results: At a mean follow-up of 3.5 years (range 1.6-6.9 years), modified Neer score was rated as satisfactory in five patients and unsatisfactory in six. Abduction and external rotation improved from 73° to 88° (P = 0.32) and from 23° to 32° (P = 0.28) respectively. Reoperation was required in two patients, including one hematoma and one revision for instability. Conclusion: Outcomes of revision of HHR arthroplasty in this cohort did not improve upon those reported for revision of stemmed humeral implants. A comparative study would be required to allow for definitive conclusions to be made.",
keywords = "Humeral head resurfacing, revision, shoulder arthroplasty",
author = "Streubel, {Philipp N} and Juan Simone and Robert Cofield and John Sperling",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/0973-6042.174514",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "21--27",
journal = "International Journal of Shoulder Surgery",
issn = "0973-6042",
publisher = "Cape Shoulder Institute",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revision of failed humeral head resurfacing arthroplasty

AU - Streubel, Philipp N

AU - Simone, Juan

AU - Cofield, Robert

AU - Sperling, John

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent revision surgery after humeral head resurfacing (HHR). Our joint registry was queried for all patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for failed HHR at our institution from 2005 to 2010. Eleven consecutive patients (average age 54 years; range 38-69 years) that underwent revision of 11 resurfacing arthroplasties were identified. The primary indication for resurfacing had been osteoarthritis in six, glenoid dysplasia in two, a chondral lesion in two, and postinstability arthropathy in one patient. The indication for revision was pain in 10 and infection in one patient. Seven patients had undergone an average of 1.9 surgeries prior to resurfacing (range 1-3). Materials and Methods: All patients were revised to stemmed arthroplasties, including one hemiarthroplasty, two reverse, and eight anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties at a mean 33 months after primary resurfacing (range 10-131 months). A deltopectoral approach was used in seven patients; four patients required an anteromedial approach due to severe scarring. Subscapularis attenuation was found in four cases, two of which required reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone grafting was required in one glenoid and three humeri. Results: At a mean follow-up of 3.5 years (range 1.6-6.9 years), modified Neer score was rated as satisfactory in five patients and unsatisfactory in six. Abduction and external rotation improved from 73° to 88° (P = 0.32) and from 23° to 32° (P = 0.28) respectively. Reoperation was required in two patients, including one hematoma and one revision for instability. Conclusion: Outcomes of revision of HHR arthroplasty in this cohort did not improve upon those reported for revision of stemmed humeral implants. A comparative study would be required to allow for definitive conclusions to be made.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent revision surgery after humeral head resurfacing (HHR). Our joint registry was queried for all patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for failed HHR at our institution from 2005 to 2010. Eleven consecutive patients (average age 54 years; range 38-69 years) that underwent revision of 11 resurfacing arthroplasties were identified. The primary indication for resurfacing had been osteoarthritis in six, glenoid dysplasia in two, a chondral lesion in two, and postinstability arthropathy in one patient. The indication for revision was pain in 10 and infection in one patient. Seven patients had undergone an average of 1.9 surgeries prior to resurfacing (range 1-3). Materials and Methods: All patients were revised to stemmed arthroplasties, including one hemiarthroplasty, two reverse, and eight anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties at a mean 33 months after primary resurfacing (range 10-131 months). A deltopectoral approach was used in seven patients; four patients required an anteromedial approach due to severe scarring. Subscapularis attenuation was found in four cases, two of which required reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bone grafting was required in one glenoid and three humeri. Results: At a mean follow-up of 3.5 years (range 1.6-6.9 years), modified Neer score was rated as satisfactory in five patients and unsatisfactory in six. Abduction and external rotation improved from 73° to 88° (P = 0.32) and from 23° to 32° (P = 0.28) respectively. Reoperation was required in two patients, including one hematoma and one revision for instability. Conclusion: Outcomes of revision of HHR arthroplasty in this cohort did not improve upon those reported for revision of stemmed humeral implants. A comparative study would be required to allow for definitive conclusions to be made.

KW - Humeral head resurfacing

KW - revision

KW - shoulder arthroplasty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85000642820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85000642820&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/0973-6042.174514

DO - 10.4103/0973-6042.174514

M3 - Article

C2 - 26980986

AN - SCOPUS:85000642820

VL - 10

SP - 21

EP - 27

JO - International Journal of Shoulder Surgery

JF - International Journal of Shoulder Surgery

SN - 0973-6042

IS - 1

ER -