Original Research

Instability After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Which Patients Dislocate?

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

Discussion

With more RTSAs being performed, evaluation of their common complications becomes increasingly important.18 We found a 3.0% rate of dislocation after RTSA, which is consistent with the most recently reported incidence4 and falls within the previously described range of 0% to 8.6%.19-26 Of the clinical risk factors identified in this study, those previously described were prior surgery, subscapularis insufficiency, higher BMI, and male sex.4 However, our finding of lower risk of dislocation after RTSA for primary rotator cuff pathology was not previously described. Although Chalmers and colleagues4 did not report this lower risk, 3 (27.3%) of their 11 patients with dislocation had primary CTA, compared with 1 (6.7%) of 15 patients in the present study.4 Our literature review did not identify any studies that independently reported the dislocation rate in patients who underwent RTSA for rotator cuff failure.

The risk factors of subscapularis irreparability and revision surgery suggest the importance of the soft-tissue envelope and bony anatomy in dislocation prevention. Previous analyses have suggested implant malpositioning,27,28 poor subscapularis quality,29 and inadequate muscle tensioning5,30-32 as risk factors for RTSA. Patients with an irreparable subscapularis tendon have often had multiple surgeries with compromise to the muscle/soft-tissue envelope or bony anatomy of the shoulder. A biomechanical study by Gutiérrez and colleagues31 found the compressive forces of the soft tissue at the glenohumeral joint to be the most important contributor to stability in the RTSA prosthesis. In clinical studies, the role of the subscapularis in preventing instability after RTSA remains unclear. Edwards and colleagues29 prospectively compared dislocation rates in patients with reparable and irreparable subscapularis tendons during RTSA and found a higher rate of dislocation in the irreparable subscapularis group. Of note, patients in the irreparable subscapularis group also had more complex diagnoses, including proximal humeral nonunion, fixed glenohumeral dislocation, and failed prior arthroplasty. Clark and colleagues33 retrospectively analyzed subscapularis repair in 2 RTSA groups and found no appreciable effect on complication rate, dislocation events, range-of-motion gains, or pain relief.

Our finding that higher BMI is an independent risk factor was previously described.4 The association is unclear but could be related to implant positioning, difficulty in intraoperative assessment of muscle tensioning, or body habitus that may generate a lever arm for impingement and dislocation when the arm is in adduction. Last, our finding that male sex is a risk factor for dislocation approached significance, and this relationship was previously reported.4 This could be attributable to a higher rate of activity or of indolent infection in male patients.34,35Besides studying risk factors for dislocation after RTSA, we investigated treatment. None of our patients were treated successfully and definitively with closed reduction in the clinic. This finding diverges from findings in studies by Teusink and colleagues2 and Chalmers and colleagues,4who respectively reported 62% and 44% rates of success with closed reduction. Our cohort of 14 patients with 15 dislocations required a total of 17 trips to the operating room after dislocation. This significantly higher rate of return to the operating room suggests that dislocation after RTSA may be a more costly and morbid problem than has been previously described.

This study had several weaknesses. Despite its large consecutive series of patients, the study was retrospective, and several variables that would be documented and controlled in a prospective study could not be measured here. Specifically, neither preoperative physical examination nor patient-specific assessments of pain or function were consistently obtained. Similarly, postoperative patient-specific instruments of outcomes evaluation were not obtained consistently, so results of patients with dislocation could not be compared with those of a control group. In addition, preoperative and postoperative radiographs were not consistently present in our electronic medical records, so the influence of preoperative bony anatomy, intraoperative limb lengthening, and any implant malpositioning could not be determined. Furthermore, operative details, such as reparability of the subscapularis, were not fully available for the control group and could not be included in statistical analysis. In addition, that the known dislocation risk factor of male sex4 was identified here but was not significant in multivariate regression analysis suggests that this study may not have been adequately powered to identify a significant difference in dislocation rate between the sexes. Last, though our results suggested associations between the aforementioned variables and dislocation after RTSA, a truly causative relationship could not be confirmed with this study design or analysis. Therefore, our study findings are hypothesis-generating and may indicate a benefit to greater deltoid tensioning, use of retentive liners, or more conservative rehabilitation protocols for high-risk patients.

Conclusion

Dislocation after RTSA is an uncommon complication that often requires a return to the operating room. This study identified a modifiable risk factor (higher BMI) and 3 nonmodifiable risk factors (male sex, subscapularis insufficiency, revision surgery) for dislocation after RTSA. In contrast, patients who undergo RTSA for primary rotator cuff pathology are unlikely to dislocate after surgery. This low risk of dislocation after RTSA for primary cuff pathology was not previously described. Patients in the higher risk category may benefit from preoperative lifestyle modification, intraoperative techniques for increasing stability, and more conservative therapy after surgery. In addition, unlike previous investigations, this study did not find closed reduction in the clinic alone to be successful in definitively treating this patient population.


Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E444-E450. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Quality and Quantity of the Elbow Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
MDedge Surgery
Up in Arms: Bilateral Luxatio Erecta Fracture-Dislocations
MDedge Surgery
High-Grade Articular, Bursal, and Intratendinous Partial-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: A Retrospective Study Comparing Functional Outcomes After Completion and Repair
MDedge Surgery
Glenohumeral Joint Sepsis Caused by Streptococcus mitis: A Case Report
MDedge Surgery
Pain starting in knee later arises in other joints
MDedge Surgery
Incidence of and Risk Factors for Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism After Shoulder Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery
Risk Factors for Early Readmission After Anatomical or Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery
A Guide to Ultrasound of the Shoulder, Part 3: Interventional and Procedural Uses
MDedge Surgery
Liposomal Bupivacaine vs Interscalene Nerve Block for Pain Control After Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis
MDedge Surgery
Arthroscopic Transosseous and Transosseous-Equivalent Rotator Cuff Repair: An Analysis of Cost, Operative Time, and Clinical Outcomes
MDedge Surgery