Revising Failed Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Comprehensive Techniques for Precise Explantation of Well-Fixed Implants.

IF 1 Q3 SURGERY JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques Pub Date : 2024-08-06 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.ST.23.00051
Eddie Y Lo, Alvin Ouseph, Jeffrey Sodl, Raffaele Garofalo, Sumant G Krishnan
{"title":"Revising Failed Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Comprehensive Techniques for Precise Explantation of Well-Fixed Implants.","authors":"Eddie Y Lo, Alvin Ouseph, Jeffrey Sodl, Raffaele Garofalo, Sumant G Krishnan","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.ST.23.00051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the increased utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), there has been a corresponding increase in the incidence of and demand for revision RTSA<sup>3</sup>. In cases in which the patient has undergone multiple previous surgeries and presents with well-fixed shoulder implants, even the most experienced shoulder surgeon can be overwhelmed and frustrated. Having a simple and reproducible treatment algorithm to plan and execute a successful revision surgery will ease the anxiety of a revision operation and avoid future additional revisions. The extraction techniques described here strive to preserve the humeral and glenoid anatomy, hopefully facilitating the reimplantation steps to follow.</p><p><strong>Description: </strong>The main principles of implant removal include several consistent, simple steps. In order to revise a well-fixed humeral implant, (1) identify the old implants; (2) create a preoperative plan that systematically evaluates the glenoid and humeral deficiencies; (3) prepare consistent surgical tools, such as an oscillating saw, osteotomes, and/or a tamp; (4) follow the deltoid; (5) dissect the soft tissue with a sponge; (6) dissect the bone with use of an osteotome; and (7) remove the humeral stem in rotation. In cases in which there is also a well-fixed glenoid implant, the surgical procedure will require additional steps, including (8) exposure of the anteroinferior glenoid, (9) disengagement of the glenosphere, and (10) removal of the glenoid baseplate in rotation.</p><p><strong>Alternatives: </strong>Alternatives to revision RTSA include nonoperative treatment, implant retention with conversion of modular components, extensile revision surgical techniques, and/or mechanical implant removal. With the advent of modular humeral and glenoid components, surgeons may choose to change the implant components instead of removing the entire humeral and glenoid implants; however, repeat complications may occur if the previous implant or implant position was not completely revised. When confronted with a tough humeral explantation, an extensile surgical approach involves creating a cortical window or humeral osteotomy to expose the humeral implant. This approach can compromise the humeral shaft integrity, leading to alternative and less ideal reconstruction implant choices, the use of cerclage wires, and/or the use of a strut graft, all of which may complicate postoperative mobilization. If glenoid implant removal is necessary, the glenosphere is removed first, followed by the underlying baseplate component(s). If the glenosphere is stuck or if screws are cold-welded, the use of a conventional mechanical extraction technique with a burr or diamond saw may be required; however, this may lead to additional metal debris and intraoperative sparks.</p><p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Revision RTSA can lead to high complication rates, ranging from 12% to 70%<sup>2</sup>, which will often require additional revision surgeries<sup>4</sup>. The first steps to all revision RTSA procedures include careful surgical exposure and component explantation. A simplified approach to expose the humerus and glenoid, coupled with a systematic and atraumatic approach to remove the implants without inadvertent injuries, will prevent surgical complications and the need for re-revision. The proposed comprehensive technique hopefully will allow precise removal of the humeral and glenoid implants while also preserving the remnant humerus or glenoid for future reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Expected outcomes: </strong>Few studies have evaluated postoperative patient outcomes in revision RTSA. Chalmers et al. performed a meta-analysis and found that patients were able to achieve a mean elevation of 106°, a mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 63, and a mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score of 52<sup>2</sup>. Boileau showed very similar outcomes, with a mean elevation of 107° and a mean adjusted Constant score of 62<sup>1</sup>. These outcomes are slightly inferior to those of primary RTSA, but patients remain satisfied with their improvement from their preoperative function.</p><p><strong>Important tips: </strong>Preoperative preparation will reduce intraoperative reparation. Know the existing implant and the unique features of its design, understand the patient anatomy including bone defects, and anticipate all of the potential tools that may be needed.Know your anatomy. The anteromedial deltoid edge will help you identify the scarred-in humeral shaft.Da Vinci said that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Some of the most common surgical tools and instruments can be more effective than custom-designed ones.The implant should be removed in rotation.There are some company-specific explantation instruments that can be very helpful. Give the appropriate ones a try, but be prepared to consider alternative solutions.</p><p><strong>Acronyms and abbreviations: </strong>RTSA = reverse total shoulder arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyFE = forward elevation.</p>","PeriodicalId":44676,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11299987/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.ST.23.00051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With the increased utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), there has been a corresponding increase in the incidence of and demand for revision RTSA3. In cases in which the patient has undergone multiple previous surgeries and presents with well-fixed shoulder implants, even the most experienced shoulder surgeon can be overwhelmed and frustrated. Having a simple and reproducible treatment algorithm to plan and execute a successful revision surgery will ease the anxiety of a revision operation and avoid future additional revisions. The extraction techniques described here strive to preserve the humeral and glenoid anatomy, hopefully facilitating the reimplantation steps to follow.

Description: The main principles of implant removal include several consistent, simple steps. In order to revise a well-fixed humeral implant, (1) identify the old implants; (2) create a preoperative plan that systematically evaluates the glenoid and humeral deficiencies; (3) prepare consistent surgical tools, such as an oscillating saw, osteotomes, and/or a tamp; (4) follow the deltoid; (5) dissect the soft tissue with a sponge; (6) dissect the bone with use of an osteotome; and (7) remove the humeral stem in rotation. In cases in which there is also a well-fixed glenoid implant, the surgical procedure will require additional steps, including (8) exposure of the anteroinferior glenoid, (9) disengagement of the glenosphere, and (10) removal of the glenoid baseplate in rotation.

Alternatives: Alternatives to revision RTSA include nonoperative treatment, implant retention with conversion of modular components, extensile revision surgical techniques, and/or mechanical implant removal. With the advent of modular humeral and glenoid components, surgeons may choose to change the implant components instead of removing the entire humeral and glenoid implants; however, repeat complications may occur if the previous implant or implant position was not completely revised. When confronted with a tough humeral explantation, an extensile surgical approach involves creating a cortical window or humeral osteotomy to expose the humeral implant. This approach can compromise the humeral shaft integrity, leading to alternative and less ideal reconstruction implant choices, the use of cerclage wires, and/or the use of a strut graft, all of which may complicate postoperative mobilization. If glenoid implant removal is necessary, the glenosphere is removed first, followed by the underlying baseplate component(s). If the glenosphere is stuck or if screws are cold-welded, the use of a conventional mechanical extraction technique with a burr or diamond saw may be required; however, this may lead to additional metal debris and intraoperative sparks.

Rationale: Revision RTSA can lead to high complication rates, ranging from 12% to 70%2, which will often require additional revision surgeries4. The first steps to all revision RTSA procedures include careful surgical exposure and component explantation. A simplified approach to expose the humerus and glenoid, coupled with a systematic and atraumatic approach to remove the implants without inadvertent injuries, will prevent surgical complications and the need for re-revision. The proposed comprehensive technique hopefully will allow precise removal of the humeral and glenoid implants while also preserving the remnant humerus or glenoid for future reconstruction.

Expected outcomes: Few studies have evaluated postoperative patient outcomes in revision RTSA. Chalmers et al. performed a meta-analysis and found that patients were able to achieve a mean elevation of 106°, a mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score of 63, and a mean Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score of 522. Boileau showed very similar outcomes, with a mean elevation of 107° and a mean adjusted Constant score of 621. These outcomes are slightly inferior to those of primary RTSA, but patients remain satisfied with their improvement from their preoperative function.

Important tips: Preoperative preparation will reduce intraoperative reparation. Know the existing implant and the unique features of its design, understand the patient anatomy including bone defects, and anticipate all of the potential tools that may be needed.Know your anatomy. The anteromedial deltoid edge will help you identify the scarred-in humeral shaft.Da Vinci said that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. Some of the most common surgical tools and instruments can be more effective than custom-designed ones.The implant should be removed in rotation.There are some company-specific explantation instruments that can be very helpful. Give the appropriate ones a try, but be prepared to consider alternative solutions.

Acronyms and abbreviations: RTSA = reverse total shoulder arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyFE = forward elevation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
修复失败的反向全肩关节置换术:对固定良好的假体进行精确剥离的综合技术。
背景:随着反向全肩关节置换术(RTSA)使用率的增加,翻修RTSA的发生率和需求也相应增加3。如果患者既往接受过多次手术,且肩关节假体固定良好,即使是经验最丰富的肩关节外科医生也会感到束手无策、束手无策。如果有一套简单、可重复的治疗算法来计划和实施成功的翻修手术,就能减轻翻修手术的焦虑,避免今后再进行翻修。本文介绍的取出技术力求保留肱骨和盂的解剖结构,希望能为接下来的再植步骤提供便利:植入物取出的主要原则包括几个连贯、简单的步骤。为了修复固定良好的肱骨假体,(1) 确定旧的假体;(2) 制定术前计划,系统评估盂和肱骨的缺陷;(3) 准备一致的手术工具,如摆动锯、截骨器和/或夯实器;(4) 沿着三角肌;(5) 用海绵剥离软组织;(6) 用截骨器剥离骨骼;(7) 旋转移除肱骨柄。如果盂基植入物固定良好,手术过程还需要额外的步骤,包括:(8)暴露盂前内侧;(9)脱离盂骨圈;(10)旋转移除盂基板:翻修RTSA的替代方法包括非手术治疗、通过转换模块化组件保留植入物、外展翻修手术技术和/或机械性植入物移除。随着模块化肱骨和盂组件的出现,外科医生可以选择更换植入组件,而不是移除整个肱骨和盂植入物;但是,如果之前的植入物或植入位置没有完全修正,可能会出现重复并发症。面对棘手的肱骨外翻,外展手术方法包括开皮质窗或肱骨截骨,以暴露肱骨假体。这种方法可能会损害肱骨轴的完整性,从而导致选择其他不理想的重建植入物、使用cerclage钢丝和/或使用支柱移植物,所有这些都可能使术后活动复杂化。如果需要移除盂基台植入物,首先要移除盂基台,然后再移除底板组件。如果盂骨圈被卡住或螺钉被冷焊,可能需要使用传统的机械拔出技术,即使用毛刺或金刚石锯,但这可能会导致更多的金属碎片和术中火花:理由:翻修 RTSA 可导致较高的并发症发生率,从 12% 到 70%2 不等,通常需要进行额外的翻修手术4。所有翻修 RTSA 手术的第一步都包括仔细的手术暴露和组件拆卸。采用简化的方法暴露肱骨和盂,同时采用系统的无创伤方法取出植入物,避免误伤,可避免手术并发症和再次翻修的需要。所建议的综合技术有望在精确取出肱骨和盂成形假体的同时,保留残余的肱骨或盂成形假体,以备将来重建之用:很少有研究对翻修RTSA患者的术后效果进行评估。Chalmers 等人进行了一项荟萃分析,发现患者的平均抬高角度为 106°,平均美国肩肘外科医生评分为 63 分,平均单一评估数值评价评分为 522 分。Boileau的结果非常相似,平均抬高107°,调整后的Constant评分平均值为621分。这些结果略逊于初级 RTSA,但患者对其术前功能的改善仍然感到满意:重要提示:术前准备可减少术中修复。了解现有的种植体及其设计的独特性,了解患者的解剖结构,包括骨缺损,并预测可能需要的所有工具。三角肌前内侧边缘将帮助您识别瘢痕形成的肱骨轴。一些最常见的手术工具和器械可能比定制设计的工具和器械更有效。植入物应轮流取出。请尝试使用合适的器械,但也要做好考虑其他解决方案的准备:RTSA = 反向全肩关节成形术CT = 计算机断层扫描FE = 向前抬高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques (JBJS EST) is the premier journal describing how to perform orthopaedic surgical procedures, verified by evidence-based outcomes, vetted by peer review, while utilizing online delivery, imagery and video to optimize the educational experience, thereby enhancing patient care.
期刊最新文献
Bikini Incision Modification of the Direct Anterior Approach. Closed Intramedullary Pinning of Displaced Radial Neck Fracture (Metaizeau Technique). Flexible Intramedullary Nail Placement in Pediatric Humerus Fractures. Ligamentum Flavum Flap Technique in Lumbar Microdiscectomy. Surgery for Pediatric Trigger Finger.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1