Trends in outcomes following aseptic revision shoulder arthroplasty

PurposeAs the incidence of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, RSA) increases, revision procedures will also increase with a corresponding need for counseling patients regarding outcomes. We hypothesized that different revision categories would have different complication profiles depending on both the indication as well as the nature of the prior hardware.MethodsA retrospective review of 1773 cases performed at a single tertiary health system utilized case postings and diagnoses to identify revision shoulder arthroplasty cases. Revisions were classified based on the prior hardware present, with basic demographics and other perioperative and postoperative outcomes recorded within the limits of available follow-up.Results166 surgical cases involving revision of prior shoulder arthroplasty metal hardware were identified with an average follow-up of 1.0 years. Immediate perioperative outcomes of revision cases were similar relative to the companion cohort of 1607 primary cases. 137 cases (83%) required no further revision surgery, while 19 cases (11%) underwent aseptic revision, and 10 cases (6%) were revised for periprosthetic infection. RSA hardware revised to another RSA had the highest repeat revision rate relative to the other revision categories (32% vs < 14%).ConclusionsRevision of reverse shoulder arthroplasty to a repeat reverse has the highest rate of subsequent all-cause revision, and these repeat revisions often occurred for periprosthetic infection. Despite a relatively high long-term complication rate following revision shoulder arthroplasty, immediate perioperative outcomes remain similar to primary cases, providing some preliminary evidence for policymakers considering inclusion in future value-based care models.