Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026
10:10
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
Published on: July 5, 2011
Outcomes analysis of revision total shoulder replacement
Joshua S Dines1, Stephen Fealy, Eric J Strauss
1Department of Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY 10021, USA. dinesj@hss.edu
Summary
Revision shoulder arthroplasty outcomes depend on the reason for the procedure. Component revisions yield better results than soft-tissue reconstructions, predicting success in revision total shoulder replacement.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic surgery
- Arthroplasty research
Background:
- Total shoulder arthroplasties have increased, leading to a greater need for revision procedures.
- Common failure reasons include soft-tissue deficiencies, bone loss, wear, and infection.
- Revision outcomes may be predictable based on the initial cause of failure.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate if the indication for revision shoulder arthroplasty predicts patient outcomes.
- To compare outcomes between osseous/component issues and soft-tissue deficiencies.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective review of 78 revision shoulder arthroplasties.
- Patients categorized into osseous/component (Category 1) or soft-tissue (Category 2) deficiency groups.
- Outcomes assessed using UCLA, L'Insalata, and satisfaction scores.
Main Results:
- Category 1 (osseous/component) had significantly better outcomes than Category 2 (soft-tissue) (p < 0.05).
- Glenoid component revision and periprosthetic fracture fixation showed the best results.
- Tuberosity reconstruction, hemiarthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy, and infection revision had poor outcomes.
Conclusions:
- The indication for revision shoulder arthroplasty is a significant predictor of outcome.
- Component revisions generally yield superior results compared to soft-tissue reconstructions.
- Revision surgery for infection or complex soft-tissue issues has a poorer prognosis.
