Outcomes following revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty for infection

In comparison to primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) procedures, revision arthroplasty can be a longer and more complex procedure leading to an increased risk of complications. The reported rates of infection in primary RSA range from 1% to 19% and the cost impact on patients and health care systems is significant, leading to multiple revision surgeries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, complications, and revision rates for revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rRSA) due to infection compared with rRSA for noninfectious causes.

Patients who underwent rRSA between 2009 and 2020 by a single fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeon at a single institution were retrospectively identified through a prospectively collected database. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts based on revision diagnosis: (1) rRSA due to infection (rRSAi) and (2) rRSA due to noninfectious causes (rRSAn). Patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), including the Simple Shoulder Test, Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score, Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score, and active range of motion (ROM) were collected preoperatively and at a minimum 1-year follow-up. Postoperative complications and revision rates were also collected.

A total of 93 patients (n = 19 rRSAi group, n = 74 rRSAn group) with a mean age of 68 years were included in this analysis. All baseline demographics were comparable between groups. No significant differences were found in preoperative or postoperative PROs and ROM between the 2 groups. Postoperative complication rates and revision rates were comparable between the groups.

RSA due to infection results in similar patient-reported outcome scores, range of motion, and revision rates when compared to rRSA for noninfectious causes. Our results suggest that despite the unique challenges associated with rRSA for infection, patient outcomes do not differ from cases attributed to noninfectious causes. More efforts are warranted to further validate and contextualize these findings, considering the protentional influence of patient-specific and implant-specific factors.