Abstract
Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has undergone numerous refinements since its introduction. In addition to being an effective treatment for severe cuff tear arthropathy, indications have expanded to include failed prior cuff surgery, pseudoparalysis, anterior-superior escape, tuberosity nonunion or malunion, and acute shoulder fractures. A number of studies have shown that reverse total shoulder arthroplasty can restore function including overhead elevation, improve pain, and increase external rotation. Common complications include scapular notching, dislocation, and infection. In the hands of skilled shoulder surgeons, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty can be a successful treatment for cuff tear arthropathy and other severe pathological conditions of the shoulder.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
FormalPara Pearls and PitfallsPearls
-
Clarify preoperatively whether the issue is pain, lack of elevation, or lack of strength and whether severe external rotation weakness (hornblower’s sign) might warrant addition of a latissimus transfer.
-
Obtain a CT scan with or without three-dimensional reconstruction to evaluate available glenoid bone and pattern of bone loss. Occasionally a custom glenoid baseplate or bone grafting may be needed if there is no adequate bone for a standard glenosphere.
-
At the time of surgery, especially in the presence of poor cuff tissue, residual cuff can be excised, but try to save the teres minor for some external rotation. Once the subscapularis is divided, it may or may not be able to be repaired.
-
Particularly if the humeral head has been high-riding for a long period of time, a more generous humeral head osteotomy may need to be taken to seat the implant appropriately under glenosphere.
-
The baseplate should have some inferior tilt and, if possible, be inferiorly seated to minimize potential for notching.
-
Ideally, at least 80 % of the base plate should be seated and secured to satisfactory glenoid bone.
-
Once the humeral bearing surface is inserted, proper tension in the system may be difficult to define—but, in general, should be secure when reduced and be stable throughout the full range of motion. The senior author uses “a little hard to reduce, a little hard to dislocate” as a guide or “Three Bears” analogy—not too loose, not too tight, but just right.
-
It does not seem critical to repair the subscapularis, and repair may not be possible if there is poor tissue quality.
-
Immobilize in a sling postoperatively—but the period of immobilization is shorter than in an anatomic total shoulder replacement in which subscapularis healing is so critical.
-
If performed for fracture, repair the tuberosities for optimal functional result.
Pitfalls
-
Protect the axillary nerve—loss of deltoid function is a major problem if RTSA is being performed.
-
Confirm baseplate security and taper of parts are engaged fully.
-
When the shoulder is reduced, make certain the arm can be brought to the side and there is no inferior impingement of the humerus on the inferior glenoid—inferior impingement can lead to prosthetic instability and scapula notching.
Rehabilitation
-
Formal rehabilitation is rarely necessary after RTSA because there is frequently little cuff tissue needing postoperative protection. Postoperatively, the shoulder is immobilized in a simple sling to hold the arm in internal rotation for a few weeks. Passive range of motion is begun immediately. Afterward, the patient can remove the sling for hygiene and use the hand for simple activities of daily living. Sling use is gradually weaned after a month and activity as tolerated is permitted.
Background
The first introduction of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in the 1970s was met with little clinical success. It had a constrained design and lateralized glenohumeral center of rotation that led to excessive shear forces and failure of the glenoid component [1, 2]. In the subsequent years, implant design modifications focused on a larger radius of curvature of the glenoid component and movement of the center of shoulder rotation medially and distally to decrease shear forces at the glenoid bone interface and to create a more stable and efficient deltoid fulcrum [3, 4]. Paul Grammont and colleagues modernized the reverse shoulder arthroplasty implant in 1987 to treat “cuff tear arthropathy,” a clinical entity first labeled by Neer et al. [5].
Cuff tear arthropathy is shoulder arthritis in the setting of a massive, irreparable rotator cuff tear. The authors of the original Neer paper that first described the process theorized that both mechanical and nutritional factors might play a role in its development [6, 7] (Fig. 10.1). Mechanical factors arise from disruption of the force coupling effect, as attempts at elevation or rotation of the humerus cause instability. A deficient cuff may also allow excessive upward migration of the humeral head, resulting in abnormal pressure and degenerative changes in the acromion, acromioclavicular joint, and coracoid. In severe cases, loss of the subscapularis muscle and a grossly deficient rotator cuff lead to anterior and superior escape of the humeral head [8] (Fig. 10.2). Moreover, with attempted shoulder abduction and loss of the inferior and compressive action of the rotator cuff, the unopposed contraction of the deltoid creates a force vector that displaces the humeral head superiorly, leading to pseudoparalysis of shoulder elevation (defined as “an inability to actively elevate the arm in the presence of free passive range of motion, and in the absence of a neurologic lesion”) [4]. At about the same time cuff tear arthropathy was described, the rheumatology literature reported an entity named “Milwaukee Shoulder”, which was essentially the same process, and theorized that crystalline deposits had a destructive effect on both joint and soft tissue [6].
Cuff tear arthropathy treatment has ranged from nonoperative management, glenohumeral arthrodesis, resection arthroplasty, and constrained or conventional total shoulder arthroplasty to hemiarthroplasty alone [9–11]. However, these interventions resulted in poor functional outcomes and high long-term complication rates [8]. Eventually, RTSA received renewed interest once improved implant designs were able to provide glenohumeral stability and optimize shoulder biomechanics. Paul Grammont is credited with describing the modern reverse total shoulder prosthesis [12] (Fig. 10.3). Earlier reverse ball-and-socket designs included a small glenoid component and a lateralized center of rotation within the prosthesis, instead of within the glenoid. As a consequence, these designs increased stresses at the glenosphere-bone interface and led to early component failure [13] (Fig. 10.4a). The modern RTSA employs the following concepts: (1) a large glenoid component with no neck to facilitate medialization of the center of rotation and reduced torque; (2) a humeral implant with a nonanatomic valgus angle, which moves the center of joint rotation distally, thereby maximizing the length and tension of the deltoid to make it a more efficient humerus abductor, as well as increasing stability; and (3) a greater impingement-free shoulder range of motion [12, 13] (Figs. 10.4b and 10.5).
Indications
When the RTSA received US Food and Drug Administration approval in 2003, it was initially recommended only for those patients with the combination of disabling glenohumeral arthritis and cuff insufficiency. However, clinical success in restoration of stability, balance, and function has given rise to expanded indications such as the cuff deficient shoulder without arthritis. While the indications continue to evolve, concerns exist over its complication rate, longevity, and paucity of long-term functional outcome data [2]. Despite these concerns, the RTSA is now an important surgical option in the treatment of a variety conditions including: (1) cuff tear arthropathy, (2) irreparable cuff tears without arthritis and clinical “pseudoparalysis,” (3) instability directly attributable to cuff insufficiency (anterior-superior escape), (4) the “cuff insufficiency equivalent”—nonunion or malunion of the tuberosity following trauma or prior arthroplasty, (5) acute shoulder fractures in the elderly patient in which the greater tuberosity has poor potential for healing and poor bone for primary fixation, and (6) revision arthroplasty surgery. Some have recently begun to suggest its use in osteoarthritis with posterior subluxation and glenoid bone loss, a condition which has been associated on occasion with troubling posterior instability in anatomic unconstrained arthroplasty, though its use in this capacity is controversial (Table 10.1).
Cuff tear arthropathy is the single most common indication for RTSA [14]. Total shoulder replacement in the absence of a functioning rotator cuff is unpredictable in restoration of a balanced, centered shoulder, and glenoid longevity can be compromised because of the inability of the cuff to center the humeral head (rocking horse glenoid). Hemiarthroplasty with or without soft tissue interposition has had mixed results, does little to re-center the head, with few reports of improvement in active motion and functional scores [10, 15–20]. Its clinical symptoms include severe shoulder pain, shoulder or arm weakness, and progressive disability [7, 21, 22]. On exam, patients may have glenohumeral or acromiohumeral crepitus with stiffness. Rotator cuff testing will reveal specific deficiencies of the posterosuperior rotator cuff, anterosuperior, or both. Additionally, the long head of the biceps is often diseased or ruptured [7, 13, 23]. Plain radiography displays loss of glenohumeral joint space with or without humeral head osteophytes. Anterosuperior cuff failure can be appreciated on the axillary radiograph as static anterior subluxation (Fig. 10.6). If the posterosuperior cuff is involved, superior subluxation may be seen (Fig. 10.7). A number of studies have shown that the reverse shoulder arthroplasty can predictably restore function including overhead elevation, improve pain (as reflected in Constant score), and increase external rotation, particularly if there is a functioning teres minor [3, 24–26]. Additionally, some studies have suggested that external rotation may be reestablished with incorporation of a latissimus transfer to the reverse shoulder prosthesis [27–29].
Patients may present with massive irreparable cuff tears without glenohumeral arthritis. Despite their cuff dysfunction, some are able to compensate and maintain surprisingly good function. Thus, in the absence of arthritis, particularly if pseudoparalysis is not present, it is reasonable to attempt to build muscle through rehabilitation, allowing potential recruitment of accessory muscles. In the presence of a massive cuff tear, poor function, and pain, options other than a reverse prosthesis may include partial or complete repair, arthroscopic debridement, and biceps tenotomy. However, patients may present with pseudoparalysis: full passive forward elevation but a loss of active elevation as a result of the inability of the rotator cuff to provide a fulcrum for the deltoid during elevation.
Contraindications
Infection, a nonfunctioning deltoid, and insufficient glenoid bone stock and glenoid bone quality are absolute contraindications for a RTSA. However, loss of anterior deltoid alone is not a contraindication if the middle and posterior deltoid are working effectively [30] (Table 10.2).
Arthritis and a small cuff tear with a well-centered head is a relative contraindication. In this situation a traditional anatomic arthroplasty with a cuff repair is a better alternative. Patients with massive cuff tears without arthritis and nearly full active elevation usually have a balanced shoulder with stability provided by the deltoid and residual cuff are not ideal candidates for RTSA.
RTSA cannot treat isolated external rotation deficits. The loss of active external rotation can be severely disabling and is caused from posterior extension of the rotator cuff tear to the teres minor, whereas isolated infraspinatus rupture is generally well-tolerated [31–33]. RTSA does not restore active external rotation when the posterior rotator cuff muscles are absent or deficient. Inferior outcomes have resulted from RTSA in the presence of a nonfunctioning teres minor [3, 12, 34]. Patients who regain active elevation from a RTSA but have an atrophied or absent teres minor may complain of the inability to spatially position their arm due to the tendency of their forearm to swing toward the trunk upon attempted elevation, abduction, or trying to lift an object [29]; this has clinically been termed a “hornblower’s sign. A combined RTSA and latissimus dorsi and teres major transfer can restore both active elevation and external rotation in this subgroup of patients with cuff deficiency and absent or atrophied infraspinatus and teres minor [29] (Fig. 10.8).
Techniques
RTSA can be performed via a deltopectoral or a superolateral approach. There are distinct advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The argument for superolateral is that it may better ensure and provide better postoperative stability and may more effectively prevent fractures of the scapular spine and acromion [35]. A deltopectoral approach provides better preservation of active external rotation, better glenoid positioning, and easier access to the inferior glenoid, is more extensile, and may be associated with fewer incidents of inferior notching. Additionally, most surgeons are more familiar with this approach. Ultimately, the selection of approach should be based on surgeon experience and patient-specific needs. Proper implantation of a RTSA is technically demanding and should therefore be utilized only by experienced shoulder surgeons to minimize complications [2].
The deltopectoral approach is performed in many institutions, and it is our current preference. The key aspects will be emphasized here. The approach gives excellent humeral shaft and glenoid exposure while allowing identification and protection of the axillary nerve. The subscapularis is transected through the tendinous portion, approximately 1.5 cm medial to the insertion, in line with the anatomic neck of the humerus. It is tagged, and after prosthesis implantation, repaired with the goal of both improving humeral internal rotation and creating an anterior soft tissue restraint against instability. However, if the subscapularis is diminutive or if it cannot be repaired in a tension-free fashion with arm in 30° of external rotation, then it is not repaired. A recent retrospective case-control study found subscapularis repair conferred no appreciable effect on complication rate, dislocation events, or range of motion gains and pain relief [36]. A generous capsular release is performed along the inferior neck of the humeral head, back to the insertion of the teres minor. This will help mobilize the humerus so that better glenoid visualization can be achieved.
The specifics of humeral and glenoid preparation depend on the implant used. What follows is a general guideline for proper placement of the prosthesis. To prepare the humerus, the humeral head is typically osteotomized in anywhere between 0° and 30° of retroversion. Cutting the humerus in more retroversion is gaining favor because it may improve postoperative external rotation [37]. The long head of the biceps is tenotomized. The humerus is then reamed and broached similarly to the methods used in conventional total shoulder arthroplasty. Conveniently, many prosthesis systems are platform systems; that is, they allow the same humeral stem to be used for a hemiarthroplasty, conventional total shoulder arthroplasty, or RTSA. Such versatility affords many intraoperative options to be applied as conditions warrant and permit conversion from an anatomic arthroplasty to a reverse without the need for stem extraction (Fig. 10.9).
Once the glenoid is well-exposed, the labrum is excised and the capsule is released circumferentially. Meticulous preoperative planning with careful attention to glenoid bone stock and version is a prerequisite for proper glenoid preparation. Accurate central guidewire placement is dictated by availability of the best bone stock for baseplate screw fixation and placement of the baseplate as inferiorly as possible, with an inferior tilt, since this positioning has been shown to decrease the rate of implant loosening and scapular notching [32, 38, 39]. The method of baseplate fixation is system specific. An appropriate-size glenosphere is then mounted on the baseplate. Larger glenospheres may be associated with less pain and better strength [35, 40]
Once the final prosthesis is implanted and a stable range of motion is demonstrated, the subscapularis tendon is repaired and one or two suction drains are inserted. A sling is used postoperatively and the patient is allowed to use the arm for light activities of daily living such as brushing teeth and eating. Sling use is discontinued at 3 weeks in shoulders in which the subscapularis is not repaired and at 6 weeks in shoulders in which it is repaired (see Pearls and Pitfalls).
Outcomes
Results of RTSA correlate with the original indication for surgery, and functional outcome and complication rates are distinctly different in primary versus revision cases [14, 24, 25, 40]. In cuff tear arthropathy, a number of studies have shown that RTSA can predictably restore function including overhead elevation, improve pain (as reflected in Constant score), and increase external rotation, particularly if there is a functioning teres minor [3, 24–26]. Additionally, some studies have suggested that external rotation may be reestablished with incorporation of a latissimus transfer to the reverse shoulder prosthesis when the posterior cuff and teres minor are absent or deficient [28, 29, 41]. A recent comparison of RTSA and hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of cuff tear arthropathy found superior functional outcomes for RTSA patients [42].In a large multicenter study, the Constant score increased from 24 points preoperatively to 62 points postoperatively, pain scores increased from 3.7 to 12.6 point (where 15 points represents absence of pain), and elevation increased from 71° to 130° [35].Normalized postoperative Constant scores reflect improvement generally within the same range. Sersohn et al. [43] reported a mean of 54.3, which was similar to Ek et al. [44] (mean, 57) and Boileau et al. [45] (mean, 55.8). Improvement in active forward flexion also occurred across studies: Wall et al. [14] (from 86° to 137°), Sersohn et al. [43] (from 56° to 121°), Boileau et al. [3] (from 82° to 123°), Muilieri et al. [46] (from 53° to 134°), and Levy et al. [47] (from 38° to 72°). A long-term study by Molé and Favard with at least 10 years follow-up [35] demonstrated that 89 % of prostheses were still in place, and 72 % of the patients had a Constant score greater than 30 points. Radiographic deterioration, however, started to appear after 5–6 years, and clinical deterioration appeared after approximately 8 years.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis and adequate glenoid bone stock have encouraging short-term results, showing good pain relief and significant improvement in Constant score [48–50]. Studies with follow-up between 5 and 10 years suggest faster radiographic deterioration than in rotator cuff disease [51]. However, a higher rate of infection is found in this group [48, 49].
Acute three- and four-part proximal humerus fractures in the elderly have been successfully treated by RTSA [52, 53]. Hemiarthroplasty has long been the “gold standard” in these fractures in which the risk of nonunion, malunion, implant failure, or osteonecrosis precludes fragment fixation [54–56]. The repair and healing of the greater and lesser tuberosities have the greatest impact on clinical outcomes in hemiarthroplasty [57–60]. In contrast, RTSA relies less on a functioning rotator cuff and/or tuberosity healing than hemiarthroplasty does. In the first systematic review to date comparing hemiarthroplasty and RTSA for the treatment of acute fractures, Namdari [61] found similar functional outcomes and physical examination parameters between the groups. Clinical complications differed substantially, however, with a four times greater odds of complication after RTSA. Less optimal results than those achieved in the treatment of cuff tear arthropathy may be expected. Postoperative abduction between 90° and 100° has been reported, with significant variation in external rotation and poor internal rotation [42, 62–64].
Revision surgery with RTSA can be plagued by complications and results are inferior to those obtained for other indications [14, 65]. Furthermore, studies have shown limited gains in range of movement and pain relief and minimal gain or even worsening of rotation [3, 14, 47, 63, 66]. Revising failed hemiarthroplasty to RTSA has resulted in a complication rate between 32 and 50 % depending on the study [14, 65]. Failed total shoulder arthroplasty revision surgery can yield acceptable functional results, but primary total shoulder arthroplasty results are consistently better [67]. Wall et al. [14] found that patients who received primary RTSA for failed arthroplasty or posttraumatic arthritis had worse results and more complications than patients who received RTSA for cuff tear arthropathy, osteoarthritis with cuff tear, and massive cuff tear. A thorough risk-benefit analysis must be assessed for patients after failed proximal humerus fractures because RTSA is the only surgical procedure that will restore overhead function [4].
There are few studies of revisions of failed RTSA. Boileau et al. [68] recently examined a series of revisions and found that, similar to previous reports instability, humeral complications (aseptic loosening, implant derotation, and fractures), and infection were the most common complications requiring surgical reintervention [14, 25, 40, 66, 69–72]. Outcomes were encouraging, with preservation of shoulder function, a mean Constant score of 47 points compared with 58 points in a previous series of primary RSA [45], and 89 % of the patients were satisfied. It is clear that revision surgery of a failed or complicated RTSA is a high-risk surgery since 30 % of the patients in this series had complications that required further surgical interventions.
Although the majority of RTSA are performed in the older patient population, it is becoming more commonplace in individuals younger than 60. There are few studies on this younger demographic population, however. Findings from a recent retrospective study of 41 patients aged younger than 65 by Ek et al. [44] show that RTSA in younger patients provides subjective improvement of overall shoulder function maintained up to 10 years after treatment. There was a high complication rate of 37.5 % and implant survivorship was only 75 %. Dillon et al. [73] recently completed a multicenter retrospective cohort study on shoulder arthroplasty in 504 patients aged 59 years or younger versus 2,477 patients aged 60 years or older, with a mean follow-up of 2.2 years. There was a two times higher risk of revision arthroplasty in the younger cohort at early follow-up. In their study of patients aged <60 years with RTSA, Sersohn et al. [43] reported a Constant score of 54.3, complication rate of 13.9 %, and implant survivorship of 91 % at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years. In a study of RTSA patients with a mean age of 52.2 years and mean follow-up of 36.5 months, Muh et al. [74] reported excellent improvement in active forward elevation (°); however, overall satisfaction was 81 %, which is substantially lower than rates for older patients reported in the literature (90–96 %) [35, 40].
As RTSAs are performed on younger patients, long-term implant survivorship becomes particularly crucial. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of literature on this long-term data. A recent multicenter analysis of 489 patients with massive cuff tears with or without glenohumeral arthropathy who underwent RTSA by Favard et al. [75] determined complication rates, functional scores over time, survivorship, and whether radiographs would develop signs of loosening. There was a complication rate of 22 %. Survivorship free of revision was 89 % at 10 years with a marked break occurring at 2 and 9 years. Survivorship to a Constant score of less than 30 was 72 % at 10 years with a noticeable break at 8 years. Progressive radiographic changes were apparent after 5 years, and there was an increasing frequency of large notches with long-term follow-up. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that on average, there is a progressive decline in patient function after the eighth year the authors urge caution when indicating RTSA, especially in younger patients.
Complications
Drawing definitive conclusions regarding complications in RTSA is sometimes difficult because of heterogeneity in reporting studies, but salient trends exist in the literature. In general, previous surgery is a risk factor for increased complications [14], reoperations [25], and lower implant survival rates [24].
Scapular notching, erosion of the scapular neck related to impingement by the medial rim of the humeral cup during adduction, is one of the most common complications in many reports [12, 25, 40, 76–79] (Fig. 10.10). In a large multicenter trial comprised of 461 shoulders, Lévigne et al. [80] found an incidence of 68 % at a mean follow-up of 51 months. Furthermore, they demonstrated that notching was accompanied by decreases in strength and anterior elevation as well as an increased incidence in humeral and glenoid radiolucent lines. Inferior placement of the baseplate on the glenoid plate has been shown by Nyffeler et al. [32] to prevent the occurrence of notching and also improve range of motion. Glenospheres with a lateral center of rotation have been shown to produce lower rates of scapular notching [81–83].
In cuff tear arthropathy, the dislocation rate has been reported to be between 2 and 3.4 % [35, 50, 84]. Instability is almost always anterior, but the reasons are not well known. Correct deltoid tension and correct component version are necessary for stability [53]. Dislocation within the first 3 months is most likely due to technical error, and closed reduction is usually not successful. On the other hand, a late dislocation (>1 year postoperatively) has a higher likelihood of a successful closed reduction [35].
The incidence of deep infection in primary RTSA was 4 and 5.4 % in two studies [35, 50], compared with 1.1 % for anatomic replacement [85]. Infection rates are even higher with revision surgery [3, 25]. RTSA may be susceptible to infection because of the large subacromial dead space created by the inverse prosthesis [4]. The two most common organisms responsible for infections after shoulder surgery are Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococci, which are mainly coagulase-negative [86]. Since component removal after RTSA can cause significant bone loss, some authors have advocated that patients with a deep infection should be managed with an initial irrigation and debridement, culture-driven intravenous antibiotics, and component retention [87].
Intraoperative glenoid complications are rare but they can occur because there is often erosion and medialization of the glenoid, leaving little bone stock for fixation. Glenoid loosening has been reported in 4.1 % of prostheses followed for longer than 2 years [35]. Treatment involves a staged procedure to fill the glenoid cavity with autogenous bone and await incorporation with a hemiarthroplasty prior to reimplantation of the glenosphere.
Acromion fracture or even scapula spine fracture is another postoperative complication. Insufficiency fractures are characteristic and may result from overtensioning the deltoid [12], but the exact mechanism is poorly understood [25, 81, 88]. Postoperative fractures have been observed in 1.4–4 % of patients [50, 84]. The fracture usually occurs either through the acromion or at the base of the spine of the scapula [89, 90]. Despite causing minimal pain, the functional score and subjective satisfaction are reduced in patients who sustain acromial fractures [84, 91]. Treatment options are limited because there is little remaining bone for fixation. Preoperative acromial fragmentation due to cuff tear arthropathy or os acromiale, however, is not a contraindication to RTSA because no adverse effects on outcome have been observed [89] (Table 10.3).
Conclusions
Prior to the advent of RTSA, cuff tear arthropathy was a severely debilitating condition with few options. While imperfections still exist, modern RTSA has proven to be an extremely successful innovation in the treatment of this disease. Although sophisticated implants and advanced surgical techniques have expanded indications for RTSA, validation from well-designed long-term studies will help guide its future implementation in cuff tear arthropathy and other pathological conditions of the shoulder.
References
Basamania CJ. Hemiarthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy. In: Advanced reconstruction shoulder. Rosemont: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2007. p. 567–78.
Rockwood CA. The reverse total shoulder prosthesis. The new kid on the block. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(2):233–5. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01394.
Boileau P, Watkinson D, Hatzidakis AM, Hovorka I. Neer Award 2005: the Grammont reverse shoulder prosthesis: results in cuff tear arthritis, fracture sequelae, and revision arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;15(5):527–40. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.003.
Gerber C, Pennington SD, Nyffeler RW. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(5):284–95.
Grammont P, Trouilloud P, Laffay JP, Deries X. Study and realization of a new shoulder prosthesis [in French]. Rhumatologie. 1987;39:17–22.
McCarty DJ, Halverson PB, Carrera GF, Brewer BJ, Kozin F. “Milwaukee shoulder” – association of microspheroids containing hydroxyapatite crystals, active collagenase, and neutral protease with rotator cuff defects. I Clinical aspects. Arthritis Rheum. 1981;24(3):464–73. Available at: http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=6260120&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Neer CS, Craig EV, Fukuda H. Cuff-tear arthropathy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(9):1232–44.
Nam D, Kepler CK, Neviaser AS, et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: current concepts, results, and component wear analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2010;92 Suppl 2:23–35. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00769.
Edwards TB, Boulahia A, Kempf J-F, Boileau P, Nemoz C, Walch G. The influence of rotator cuff disease on the results of shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A(12):2240–8.
Sanchez-Sotelo J, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Shoulder hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(12):1814–22.
Sanchez-Sotelo J. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Anat. 2009;22(2):172–82. doi:10.1002/ca.20736.
Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Suppl S):147S–61.
Gartsman GM, Edwards TB, editors. Shoulder arthroplasty. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2008.
Wall B, Nové-Josserand L, O’Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(7):1476–85. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00666.
Williams GR, Rockwood CA. Hemiarthroplasty in rotator cuff-deficient shoulders. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1996;5(5):362–7.
Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Kabo JM, Jinnah RH, Dorey FJ. The Dana total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988;70(8):1174–82.
Figgie MP, Inglis AE, Figgie HE, Sobel M, Burstein AH, Kraay MJ. Custom total shoulder arthroplasty in inflammatory arthritis. Preliminary results. J Arthroplasty. 1992;7(1):1–6.
Neer CS, Watson KC, Stanton FJ. Recent experience in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(3):319–37.
Raiss P, Aldinger PR, Kasten P, Rickert M, Loew M. Total shoulder replacement in young and middle-aged patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(6):764–9. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.90B6.20387.
Yian EH, Werner CML, Nyffeler RW, et al. Radiographic and computed tomography analysis of cemented pegged polyethylene glenoid components in total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1928–36. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02675.
Ecklund KJ, Lee TQ, Tibone J, Gupta R. Rotator cuff tear arthropathy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(6):340–9.
Feeley BT, Gallo RA, Craig EV. Cuff tear arthropathy: current trends in diagnosis and surgical management. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):484–94. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.003.
Boileau P, Baqué F, Valerio L, Ahrens P, Chuinard C, Trojani C. Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):747–57. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01097.
Guery J, Favard L, Sirveaux F, Oudet D, Molé D, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Survivorship analysis of eighty replacements followed for five to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(8):1742–7. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00851.
Werner CML, Steinmann PA, Gilbart M, Gerber C. 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. 2005;87(7):1476–86. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02342.
Frankle M, Levy JC, Pupello D, et al. The reverse shoulder prosthesis for glenohumeral arthritis associated with severe rotator cuff deficiency: a minimum two-year follow-up study of sixty patients surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 1 Pt 2):178–90. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00123.
Gerber C, Pennington SD, Lingenfelter EJ, Sukthankar A. Reverse Delta-III total shoulder replacement combined with latissimus dorsi transfer: a preliminary report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):940–7.
Favre P, Loeb MD, Helmy N, Gerber C. Latissimus dorsi transfer to restore external rotation with reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(4):650–8. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.12.010.
Boileau P, Chuinard C, Roussanne Y, Bicknell RT. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty combined with a modified latissimus dorsi and teres major tendon transfer for shoulder pseudoparalysis associated with dropping arm. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(3):584–93.
Gulotta LV, Choi D, Marinello P, et al. Anterior deltoid deficiency in reverse total shoulder replacement: a biomechanical study with cadavers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(12):1666–9.
Kölbel R, Friedebold G. Stabilization of shoulders with bone and muscle defects using joint replacement implants. In: Shoulder surgery. At Louis: Mosby; 1984.
Nyffeler RW, Werner CML, Gerber C. Biomechanical relevance of glenoid component positioning in the reverse Delta III total shoulder prosthesis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(5):524–8. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.010.
Swanson AB, de Groot Swanson G, Sattel AB, Cendo RD, Hynes D, Jar-Ning W. Bipolar implant shoulder arthroplasty. Long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;249:227–47.
Boulahia A, Edwards TB, Walch G, Baratta RV. 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. 2002;25(2):129–33.
Mole D, Favard L. Excentered scapulohumeral osteoarthritis. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2007;93(6 Suppl):37–94.
Clark J, Ritchie J, Song F, Kissenberth M, Tolan S, Hart N, Hawkins R. Complication rates, dislocation, pain, and postoperative range of motion after reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with and without repair of the subscapularis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):36–41.
Gulotta LV, Choi D, Marinello P, et al. Humeral component retroversion in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a biomechanical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;9:1121–7. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.07.027.
Gutiérrez S, Comiskey CA, Luo Z-P, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Range of impingement-free abduction and adduction deficit after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Hierarchy of surgical and implant-design-related factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(12):2606–15. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00012.
Simovitch RW, Zumstein MA, Lohri E, Helmy N, Gerber C. Predictors of scapular notching in patients managed with the Delta III reverse total shoulder replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):588–600. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00226.
Sirveaux F, Favard L, Oudet D, Huquet D, Walch G, Mole D. 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. 2004;86(3):388–95.
Gerber C, Vinh TS, Hertel R, Hess CW. Latissimus dorsi transfer for the treatment of massive tears of the rotator cuff. A preliminary report. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;232:51–61.
Young SW, Zhu M, Walker CG, Poon PC. Comparison of functional outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty with those of hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of cuff-tear arthropathy: a matched-pair analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(10):910–5.
Sershon RA, Van Thiel GS, Lin EC, et al. Clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged younger than 60 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.07.047.
Ek ETH, Neukom L, Catanzaro S, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears in patients younger than 65 years old: results after five to fifteen years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(9):1199–208. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2012.11.016.
Boileau P, Gonzalez J-F, Chuinard C, Bicknell R, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty after failed rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4):600–6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.011.
Mulieri P, Dunning P, Klein S, Pupello D. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tear without glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(15):2544–56.
Levy J, Frankle M, Mighell M, Pupello D. The use of the reverse shoulder prosthesis for the treatment of failed hemiarthroplasty for proximal humeral fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(2):292–300. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.01310.
Rittmeister M, Kerschbaumer F. Grammont reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and nonreconstructible rotator cuff lesions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;10(1):17–22. doi:10.1067/mse.2001.110515.
Holcomb JO, Herbert D, Mighell M, et al. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(7):1076–84. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.11.049.
Nolan BM, Ankerson E, Wiater JM. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty improves function in cuff tear arthropathy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2476–82. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1683-z.
Woodruff MJ, Cohen AP, Bradley JG. Arthroplasty of the shoulder in rheumatoid arthritis with rotator cuff dysfunction. Int Orthop. 2003;27(1):7–10. doi:10.1007/s00264-002-0406-9.
Sirveaux F, Navez G, Favard L, Boileau P, Walch G, Mole D. Reverse prosthesis for acute proximal humerus fracture: the multicenter study. In: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical results, complications, revision. Montpellier: Sauramps Medical; 2006. p. 73–80.
Matsen FA, Boileau P, Walch G, Gerber C, Bicknell RT. The reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(3):660–7.
Neer CS. Articular replacement for the humeral head. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37-A(2):215–28.
Zyto K, Wallace WA, Frostick SP, Preston BJ. Outcome after hemiarthroplasty for three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(2):85–9.
Goldman RT, Koval KJ, Cuomo F, Gallagher MA, Zuckerman JD. Functional outcome after humeral head replacement for acute three- and four-part proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1995;4(2):81–6.
Boileau P, Krishnan SG, Tinsi L, Walch G, Coste JS, Mole D. Tuberosity malposition and migration: reasons for poor outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(5):401–12.
Kralinger F, Schwaiger R, Wambacher M, et al. Outcome after primary hemiarthroplasty for fracture of the head of the humerus. A retrospective multicentre study of 167 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(2):217–9.
Krishnan SG, Reineck JR, Bennion PD, Feher L, Burkhead WZ. Shoulder arthroplasty for fracture: does a fracture-specific stem make a difference? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(12):3317–23. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1919-6.
Reuther F, Mühlhäusler B, Wahl D, Nijs S. Functional outcome of shoulder hemiarthroplasty for fractures: a multicentre analysis. Injury. 2010;41(6):606–12. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2009.11.019.
Namdari S, Horneff JG, Baldwin K. Comparison of hemiarthroplasty and reverse arthroplasty for treatment of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(18):1701–8. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01115.
Bufquin T, Hersan A, Hubert L, Massin P. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of three- and four-part fractures of the proximal humerus in the elderly: a prospective review of 43 cases with a short-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(4):516–20. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B4.18435.
Flury MP, Frey P, Goldhahn J, Schwyzer H-K, Simmen BR. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty as a salvage procedure for failed conventional shoulder replacement due to cuff failure – midterm results. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):53–60. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-0990-z.
Klein M, Juschka M, Hinkenjann B, Scherger B, Ostermann PAW. Treatment of comminuted fractures of the proximal humerus in elderly patients with the Delta III reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Orthop Trauma. 2008;22(10):698–704. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e31818afe40.
Walch G, Boileau P, Mole D, Favard L, Levigne C, Sirveaux F, editors. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical results, complications, revision. In: Revision of shoulder hemiarthroplasty with reverse prosthesis.Sauramps Medical, Montpellier; 2006. p. 217–28.
Holcomb JO, Cuff D, Petersen SA, Pupello DR, Frankle MA. Revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid baseplate failure after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(5):717–23. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.11.017.
Walch G, Mole D, Mole, et al., editors. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: clinical results, complications, revision. In: The reverse shoulder prosthesis for revision of failed total shoulder arthroplasty. Sauramps Medical, Montpellier; 2006. p. 231–42.
Boileau P, Melis B, Duperron D, Moineau G, Rumian AP, Han Y. Revision surgery of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(10):1359–70. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.02.004.
Cuff D, Levy JC, Gutiérrez S, Frankle MA. Torsional stability of modular and non-modular reverse shoulder humeral components in a proximal humeral bone loss model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):646–51. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.10.026.
Edwards TB, Williams MD, Labriola JE, Elkousy HA, Gartsman GM, O’Connor DP. Subscapularis insufficiency and the risk of shoulder dislocation after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):892–6. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.013.
Lädermann A, Williams MD, Melis B, Hoffmeyer P, Walch G. Objective evaluation of lengthening in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(4):588–95. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.012.
Zumstein MA, Pinedo M, Old J, Boileau P. Problems, complications, reoperations, and revisions in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):146–57. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.08.001.
Dillon MT, Inacio MCS, Burke MF, Navarro RA, Yian EH. Shoulder arthroplasty in patients 59 years of age and younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(10):1338–44. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2013.01.029.
Muh SJ, Streit JJ, Wanner JP, Lenarz CJ. Early follow-up of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(20):1877–83.
Favard L, Levigne C, Nerot C, Gerber C, De Wilde L, Molé D. Reverse prostheses in arthropathies with cuff tear: are survivorship and function maintained over time? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2469–75. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-1833-y.
Grassi FA, Murena L, Valli F, Alberio R. Six-year experience with the Delta III reverse shoulder prosthesis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2009;17(2):151–6. Available at: http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=19721141&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
John M, Pap G, Angst F, et al. Short-term results after reversed shoulder arthroplasty (Delta III) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and irreparable rotator cuff tear. Int Orthop. 2010;34(1):71–7. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0733-1.
Farshad M, Gerber C. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty-from the most to the least common complication. Int Orthop. 2010;34(8):1075–82. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1125-2.
Vanhove B, Beugnies A. Grammont’s reverse shoulder prosthesis for rotator cuff arthropathy. A retrospective study of 32 cases. Acta Orthop Belg. 2004;70(3):219–25.
Levigne C, Garret J, Boileau P, Alami G, Favard L, Walch G. Scapular notching in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: is it important to avoid it and how? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(9):2512–20.
Levy JC, Virani N, Pupello D, Frankle M. 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. 2007;89(2):189–95. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B2.18161.
Cuff D, Pupello D, Virani N, Levy J, Frankle M. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of rotator cuff deficiency. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(6):1244–51. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00775.
Kalouche I, Sevivas N, Wahegaonker A, Sauzières P, Katz D, Valenti P. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: does reduced medialisation improve radiological and clinical results? Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75(2):158–66. Available at: http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=19492554&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Naveed MA, Kitson J, Bunker TD. The Delta III reverse shoulder replacement for cuff tear arthropathy: a single-centre study of 50 consecutive procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(1):57–61. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B1.24218.
Gonzalez J-F, Alami GB, Baqué F, Walch G, Boileau P. Complications of unconstrained shoulder prostheses. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(4):666–82. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.11.017.
Dodson CC, Thomas A, Dines JS, Nho SJ, Williams RJ, Altchek DW. Medial ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction of the elbow in throwing athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(12):1926–32. doi:10.1177/0363546506290988.
Zavala JA, Clark JC, Kissenberth MJ, Tolan SJ, Hawkins RJ. Management of deep infection after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a case series. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(10):1310–5. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.08.047.
Sarris IK, Papadimitriou NG, Sotereanos DG. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty for chronic rotator cuff tear arthropathy. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(2):169–73. doi:10.1054/arth.2003.50041.
Walch G, Mottier F, Wall B, Boileau P, Molé D, Favard L. Acromial insufficiency in reverse shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(3):495–502. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.12.002.
Wahlquist TC, Hunt AF, Braman JP. Acromial base fractures after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: report of five cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(7):1178–83. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2011.01.029.
Walch G, Young AA, Boileau P, Loew M, Gazielly D, Molé D. Patterns of loosening of polyethylene keeled glenoid components after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study with more than five years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:145–50. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00699.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Williams, P.N., Craig, E.V. (2015). Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty. In: Gulotta, L., Craig, E. (eds) Massive Rotator Cuff Tears. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7494-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7494-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-7493-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7494-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)