Middernacht B, Van Tongel A, De Wilde L
Acta Orthop Belg. 2014 Sep;80(3):314-21.
Reversed total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has well known indications and good to excellent results are described in the literature. When the arthroplasty fails however, revision remains a technical challenge with many questions unanswered. To analyse retrospectively and consecutively the indications and results of primary RTSA-revision. All patients that underwent revision RTSA between 2004 and 2009 were included. Indications for surgery, surgical details and clinical evaluation with the preand postoperative Constant-score (CS) were analyzed. 37 Revisions (37 patients) of RTSA were analysed with an average follow up of 41.2 months (24-84). Indications were infection (23), glenoid loosening (9), instability (2) malpositioning (2) and suprascapular nerve irritation (1). 25 patients obtained a one-stage conversion to a new reversed prosthesis; 4 patients obtained a two-stage revision; 8 patients got a megahead prosthesis. No difference in reinfection rate is seen between one- and two stage techniques. An overall lower CS is seen for the mega-head prosthesis.
The main indication for revision was infection. Revision of RTSA to a new reversed prosthesis is to prefer even when several procedures are necessary in one patient. When this is impossible, a mega-head prosthesis is to consider and gives reasonable results.
反式全肩关节置换术(RTSA)有众所周知的适应证,文献中描述其效果良好至极佳。然而,当关节置换术失败时,翻修仍然是一项技术挑战,许多问题尚无答案。为了回顾性和连续性地分析初次RTSA翻修的适应证和结果。纳入了2004年至2009年间接受RTSA翻修的所有患者。分析手术适应证、手术细节以及术前和术后Constant评分(CS)的临床评估。对37例RTSA翻修病例(37例患者)进行了分析,平均随访41.2个月(24 - 84个月)。适应证包括感染(23例)、肩胛盂松动(9例)、不稳定(2例)、位置不当(2例)和肩胛上神经刺激(1例)。25例患者一期转换为新的反式假体;4例患者进行了二期翻修;8例患者植入了大头假体。一期和二期技术的再感染率未见差异。大头假体的总体CS较低。
翻修的主要适应证是感染。即使在一名患者中需要进行多项手术,将RTSA翻修为新的反式假体仍是首选。当无法做到这一点时,应考虑使用大头假体,其效果合理。