Conversion of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a unique hybrid glenoid component: technique and preliminary results

Alexander Bitzer; Salvatore Rondinelli; Daniel J Hurwit; Julian J Sonnenfeld; Ian S Hong; Patrick M Connor

doi:10.1016/j.xrrt.2021.11.002

Conversion of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty to reverse shoulder arthroplasty using a unique hybrid glenoid component: technique and preliminary results

JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2021 Dec 10;2(2):155-163. doi: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2021.11.002. eCollection 2022 May.

Authors

Alexander Bitzer¹, Salvatore Rondinelli¹, Daniel J Hurwit¹, Julian J Sonnenfeld¹, Ian S Hong^{1

2}, Patrick M Connor^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ OrthoCarolina - Sports Medicine Center, Charlotte, NC, USA.
² Atrium Health - Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA.

Abstract

Background: Degenerative arthritis of the shoulder is a common condition that is successfully treated with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Rotator cuff disease has evolved as a leading cause of failure of anatomic TSA, requiring revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This revision procedure can be extremely complex, particularly if removal of a well-fixed glenoid component is necessary. This case series outlines the technique and preliminary clinical results of conversion of anatomic TSA to RSA utilizing both modular humeral and hybrid glenoid components.

Methods: From July 2017 to December 2019, the senior author (PMC) performed 84 consecutive anatomic TSA procedures utilizing a modular humeral arthroplasty system and a unique hybrid glenoid component. Three cases (3/84, or 3.6%) required conversion from anatomic TSA to RSA because of postoperative traumatic rotator cuff failure. All modular revision cases were performed without humeral stem removal and with utilization of the existing, well-fixed hybrid glenoid central titanium peg as the foundation for glenoid component revision. Preoperative and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, visual analog scale pain scores, forward flexion, and patient satisfaction were analyzed in this modular revision group. In addition, several perioperative variables including operative time, blood loss, and length of stay were compared between this modular revision group and a nonmodular anatomic TSA to RSA revision comparative cohort.

Results: At an average follow-up of 24 months, average active forward flexion, postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, and visual analog scale pain scores improved significantly compared with preoperative scores in the modular revision group. All three patients were satisfied with their outcome. The average total operative time (109 minutes vs. 154 minutes, P = .02), blood loss (183 cc vs. 500 cc, P = .08), and length of hospital stay (26.3 hours vs. 36.6 hours P < .05) were lower in the modular revision group than those in a nonmodular revision cohort.

Conclusion: Revision of anatomic TSA to RSA utilizing a modular humeral system and a convertible hybrid glenoid component that does not require removal of a well-fixed central titanium peg which serves as the foundation for glenoid component revision was performed efficiently, safely, and successfully in three cases. This technique results in significantly improved clinical outcomes when revision to RSA is needed while potentially decreasing perioperative complications in the revision setting.

Keywords: Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty; Glenoid; Reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Revision; Shoulder.