Treatment of glenoid loosening and bone loss due to osteolysis with glenoid bone grafting

Twenty-four patients underwent conversion of a total shoulder replacement to a humeral head replacement with glenoid bone grafting for glenoid loosening due to osteolysis. Of the 24 patients, 18 (75%) had satisfactory pain relief at a mean follow-up of 33.4 months (range, 24-63 months). Four had good pain relief with conversion back to total shoulder replacement at a mean of 11 months (range, 9-15 months) after the index procedure, thus bringing the rate of overall satisfactory pain relief to 92%. Two patients continued to report significant pain and were not satisfied with the procedure. Significant functional motion improvements were not seen (P > .05). Graft subsidence was seen in 10 of 20 cases (50%). Bone grafting of glenoid defects in revision arthroplasty provides satisfactory improvement in terms of pain relief and, by improving bone stock, allows for placement of a glenoid component at a later date if there is persistent pain. However, high rates of graft subsidence are concerning.     

Patterns of loosening of the glenoid component

The incidence of loosening of a cemented glenoid component in total shoulder arthroplasty, detected by means of radiolucent lines or positional shift of the component on true anteroposterior radiographs, has been reported to be between 0% and 44%. Radiolucent lines are, however, difficult to detect and to interpret because of the mobility of the shoulder girdle and the obliquity of the glenoid which hinder standardisation of radiographs. We examined radiolucencies around cemented glenoid components in 48 patients, with a mean follow-up of 5.3 years, and found progressive changes to be present predominantly at the inferior pole of the component. This may hold a clue for the mechanism of loosening of this implant. In five patients we performed an additional analysis of loosening of the glenoid component using digital roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA). After three years, three of the five implants had loosened (migration 1.2 to 5.5 mm). In only one, with gross loosening, were the radiological signs consistent with the RSA findings. When traditional radiographs are used for assessment, the rate of early loosening is underestimated. We recommend that RSA be used for this.     

Glenoid or not glenoid component in primary osteoarthritis

The optimal choice for the treatment of end-stage primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis remains controversial, with alternatives including total shoulder replacement (TSR) and humeral head replacement (HHR). The objective of this review is to analyze the effect of TSR compared with HHR on rates of pain relief, range of motion, patient satisfaction and revision surgery in patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Compared with HHR, TSR provided significantly greater pain relief, gain in forward elevation, and gain in external rotation and patient satisfaction. Furthermore, TSR required significantly less revision surgery glenoid component loosening than patients undergoing HHR (progression of osteoarthritis changes with subchondral sclerosis, joint space narrowing and glenoid subsidence). A convex-back pegged glenoid component with a modern instrumented cement pressurization technique achieves risk of loosening. For 10 years, a high interest regarding new designs of un-cemented metal back glenoid components has developed with promising results, because they allow glenoid bone graft in case of glenoid erosion or dysplasia and a one-stage glenoid bone reconstruction in case of revision surgery.     

Revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid component loosening

Although glenoid component loosening has been recognized as a common reason for failure after total shoulder arthroplasty, there are few studies on the outcome of revision surgery for this problem. The purpose of this study is to determine the outcome of patients who underwent revision for glenoid component loosening. Between 1976 and 2002, 68 shoulders in 66 patients underwent revision for glenoid loosening at our institution. Group I consisted of 33 shoulders that underwent placement of a new glenoid component, and group II consisted of 35 shoulders that had removal and bone grafting without glenoid reimplantation. Follow-up averaged 3.8 years for group I and 6.2 years for group II. There was significant overall improvement in pain from preoperatively to postoperatively in both groups (P = .0001). Pain relief occurred in 23 of 33 shoulders in group I and in 24 of 35 in group II (P = .9203). Regarding range of motion, there was no significant change from preoperatively to postoperatively (P > .05), except for active elevation in group I (P = .0387). Patient satisfaction occurred in 24 in group I and in 19 in group II (P = .1150). The rate of survival free of reoperation at 5 years was 91% (95% confidence interval, 81% to 100%) in group I and 78% (95% confidence interval, 63% to 96%) in group II (P = .3019). When the Neer result rating was applied, 9 shoulders in group I and 3 in group II had an excellent or satisfactory result (P = .0432). Twenty shoulders had late positive cultures, most commonly, Propionibacterium acnes. Glenoid revision surgery will often lead to pain relief and patient satisfaction. There is a slight clinical benefit to reimplanting a glenoid component whenever structurally possible. Positive cultures in revision surgery are common, with uncertain clinical significance.     

Arthroscopic glenoid removal for aseptic loosening in total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundGlenoid loosening is the most common long-term complication of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and frequently necessitates revision. Though arthroscopic glenoid removal is an accepted treatment option for glenoid loosening, there is a paucity of outcomes literature available. The purpose of this study was to report the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic glenoid removal for failed or loosened glenoid component in TSA. We hypothesized that arthroscopic glenoid removal would produce acceptable clinical and patient-reported outcomes while limiting the need for further revisions.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 11 consecutive patients undergoing 12 arthroscopic glenoid removals for symptomatic glenoid loosening by a single orthopedic surgeon between March 2005 and March 2018. Indication for arthroscopic glenoid removal included symptomatic glenoid loosening with radiographic evidence of a 1-2 mm radiolucent line around the glenoid. Shoulder range of motion, functionality (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test), and pain (visual analog scale [VAS]) were evaluated. Radiographs were assessed for glenohumeral subluxation, humeral superior migration, and glenohumeral offset following glenoid removal.ResultsThe mean follow-up period since arthroscopic glenoid removal was 55 months (range, 20-172 months). Glenoid component removal significantly reduced forward elevation, with a mean decrease from 147 ± 13° preoperatively to 127 ± 29° postoperatively (P= .031). However, there was no significant change in external rotation (44 ± 9° vs. 43 ± 19°; P= .941) or internal rotation (L4 vs. L4; P= .768). Importantly, glenoid removal significantly decreased VAS pain scores from 7 ± 3 preoperatively to 5 ± 3 postoperatively (P= .037). Additionally, improvement in ASES approached statistical significance, increasing from 33 ± 25 preoperatively to 53 ± 28 postoperatively (P= .055). With regard to radiographic outcomes, there was no evidence of glenohumeral subluxation and humeral superior migration developed in 1 patient. However, there was significant medialization of the greater tuberosity relative to the acromion, with a mean lateral offset of 6 ± 7 mm preoperatively and −2 ± 4 mm postoperatively (P= .002). Two patients required conversion to reverse TSA for persistent pain. There were no complications.DiscussionThese findings suggest that arthroscopic glenoid removal for symptomatic glenoid loosening is a viable option to improve pain while limiting the need for additional reoperations and decreasing the risks associated with revision arthroplasty. However, continual follow-up to monitor medialization is recommended.Level of EvidenceLevel IV; Case Series; Treatment Study     

Classifications of glenoid dysplasia, glenoid bone loss and glenoid loosening: a review of the literature

So far, glenoid implantation still remains a challenge and is technically demanding even for an experienced shoulder surgeon. Each shoulder pathology has its own evolution. In primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, glenoid involvement and proper morphology vary considerably. Erosion is more posterior and inferior. In rheumatoid arthritis, glenoid erosion is more medial with a very weak and soft bone. In eccentric arthritis, glenoid erosion is most of the time superior. Glenoid component loosening has been recognized as one of the common indications for revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty. Scapular notching is specific to the reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Moreover, there is concern about the high frequency of glenoid components that demonstrate radiographic periprosthetic lucencies. There is little information available to guide clinical decision making regarding glenoid surgery. Placement or replacement with a standard glenoid component is usually possible. In some instances, bone graft reconstruction or the use of augmented or custom components can be an option. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the main glenoid erosion classifications.     

Clinical results of revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid component loosening

We retrospectively reviewed 32 patients who underwent glenoid revision surgery after total shoulder arthroplasty to compare the results of revision total shoulder arthroplasty with those of revision hemiarthroplasty and to identify factors associated with poor results after revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenoid component loosening. Results were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 4 years (range, 2-8 years). Glenoid reimplantation resulted in significant pain relief (P < .0001), improvement in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (P < .02), and external rotation (24 degrees to 44 degrees , P < .004). Revision to a hemiarthroplasty also resulted in significant pain relief (P < .01) and improvement in ASES score (P < .05). For the treatment of glenoid loosening without glenohumeral instability, both reimplantation of a glenoid component and revision to a hemiarthroplasty improved function, satisfaction, and level of pain. Reimplantation of a new glenoid component offered greater improvements in pain (P < .008) and external rotation (increase of 20 degrees versus 3 degrees , P < .03) compared with hemiarthroplasty. For patients with preoperative glenohumeral instability, revision surgery did not improve motion, function, or pain significantly. Risk factors associated with a poor outcome after revision arthroplasty included persistent glenohumeral instability, rotator cuff tears, and malunion of the greater tuberosity.     

Outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty revision with glenoid reconstruction and bone grafting

Purpose

Extensive glenoid bone loss after failed shoulder arthroplasty represents a challenge for revision arthroplasty. Treatment options vary widely and have been a source of controversy among experts.

Methods

Between 2004 and 2010, a total of 17 patients underwent glenoid reconstruction surgery using an autologous iliac crest bone graft and secondary revision arthroplasty due to extensive glenoid bone loss after failed previous total shoulder arthroplasty. The outcomes were assessed by means of clinical examination, Constant score, and bi-plane radiography as well as pre-, postoperative and follow-up CT.

Results

Before the revision surgery, the mean Constant score was 24 ± 17 and improved to 40 ± 13 after the glenoid rebuilding and revision arthroplasty. CT imaging revealed adequate glenoid bone stock restoration with no relevant graft resorption or loosening of the glenoid. The average postoperative antero-posterior diameter of the glenoid was 28 ± 3 mm which had decreased to 25 ± 3 mm at follow-up. The average postoperative version of the glenoid was 95.7° ± 6° and had decreased to 98.5° ± 4° at follow-up. Both the glenoid version and diameter had changed significantly (P < 0.001) comparing postoperative and follow-up CT-scans.

Conclusion

Glenoid reconstruction surgery using an iliac crest bone-block autograft prior to revision arthroplasty represents a valuable salvage procedure in cases of extensive glenoid bone loss after primary shoulder arthroplasty. Sufficient glenoid bone stock restoration is indispensable for reliable fixation of glenoid components and in turn a satisfactory clinical outcome.     

A CT scan protocol for the detection of radiographic loosening of the glenoid component after total shoulder arthroplasty

Background and purpose

It is difficult to evaluate glenoid component periprosthetic radiolucencies in total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) using plain radiographs. This study was performed to evaluate whether computed tomography (CT) using a specific patient position in the CT scanner provides a better method for assessing radiolucencies in TSA.

Methods

Following TSA, 11 patients were CT scanned in a lateral decubitus position with maximum forward flexion, which aligns the glenoid orientation with the axis of the CT scanner. Follow-up CT scanning is part of our routine patient care. Glenoid component periprosthetic lucency was assessed according to the Molé score and it was compared to routine plain radiographs by 5 observers.

Results

The protocol almost completely eliminated metal artifacts in the CT images and allowed accurate assessment of periprosthetic lucency of the glenoid fixation. Positioning of the patient within the CT scanner as described was possible for all 11 patients. A radiolucent line was identified in 54 of the 55 observed CT scans and osteolysis was identified in 25 observations. The average radiolucent line Molé score was 3.4 (SD 2.7) points with plain radiographs and 9.5 (SD 0.8) points with CT scans(p = 0.001). The mean intra-observer variance was lower in the CT scan group than in the plain radiograph group (p = 0.001).

Interpretation

The CT scan protocol we used is of clinical value in routine assessment of glenoid periprosthetic lucency after TSA. The technique improves the ability to detect and monitor radiolucent lines and, therefore, possibly implant loosening also.Glenoid loosening is the main complication of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). In a recent analysis that included 33 clinical studies and 2,540 shoulder arthroplasties from 1996 to 2005, the rate of aseptic loosening was reported to be 39%; of these, 83% involved the glenoid component (Bohsali et al. 2006).In current practice, patient evaluation after TSA is based on successive clinical and radiographic assessments with plain and profile radiographs. Radiolucent lines are often seen around the glenoid implant on plain radiographs, and they are thought to be linked to glenoid loosening. The mean rate of radiolucent lines has been reported to be 80% (Bohsali et al. 2006) in a series with more than 10 years of follow-up, which indicates the scale of the loosening problem. The reported occurrence of radiolucent lines also varies greatly between published studies (from 0% to 100%) (Cofield 1984, Barrett et al. 1987, Torchia et al. 1997, Boileau 2000, Mileti et al. 2004, Desmukh et al. 2005, Martin et al. 2005, Szabo et al. 2005). Thus, it appears that the radiolucent lines seen on plain radiographs have only a tenuous link with loosening. One possible reason for this is that radiolucent lines are not always seen, even when the implant really is loose. Yian et al. (2005) used computed tomography (CT) to identify and assess radiolucencies in the glenoid fixation for the purpose of evaluating component loosening. However, they concluded that major artifacts (caused by the metallic humeral head) severely blurred the images, preventing reliable analysis of the implant fixation.We describe a simple and reproducible patient-positioning protocol that moves the metallic humeral head out of the CT scan acquisition plane, reducing metal artifacts and thereby providing clear images for analysis and monitoring of radiolucent lines adjacent to the glenoid fixation.We quantitatively assessed the usefulness of the protocol for evaluation of glenoid component periprosthetic radiolucency and compared it to that of standard methodology using plain-film radiographs to assess loosening. A secondary aim was to assess radiolucent lines in 11 patients to demonstrate the feasibility and the usefulness of the method.     

A CT scan protocol for the detection of radiographic loosening of the glenoid component after total shoulder arthroplasty

Background and purpose It is difficult to evaluate glenoid component periprosthetic radiolucencies in total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) using plain radiographs. This study was performed to evaluate whether computed tomography (CT) using a specific patient position in the CT scanner provides a better method for assessing radiolucencies in TSA.

Methods Following TSA, 11 patients were CT scanned in a lateral decubitus position with maximum forward flexion, which aligns the glenoid orientation with the axis of the CT scanner. Follow-up CT scanning is part of our routine patient care. Glenoid component periprosthetic lucency was assessed according to the Molé score and it was compared to routine plain radiographs by 5 observers.

Results The protocol almost completely eliminated metal artifacts in the CT images and allowed accurate assessment of periprosthetic lucency of the glenoid fixation. Positioning of the patient within the CT scanner as described was possible for all 11 patients. A radiolucent line was identified in 54 of the 55 observed CT scans and osteolysis was identified in 25 observations. The average radiolucent line Molé score was 3.4 (SD 2.7) points with plain radiographs and 9.5 (SD 0.8) points with CT scans

(p = 0.001). The mean intra-observer variance was lower in the CT scan group than in the plain radiograph group (p = 0.001).

Interpretation The CT scan protocol we used is of clinical value in routine assessment of glenoid periprosthetic lucency after TSA. The technique improves the ability to detect and monitor radiolucent lines and, therefore, possibly implant loosening also.     

Reimplantation of a glenoid component following component removal and allogenic bone-grafting

BACKGROUND: Glenoid component loosening has been a leading cause of failure of total shoulder arthroplasty. In the present study, we evaluated the outcome of reimplantation of a new glenoid component following removal of the previous glenoid component and placement of an allograft in order to determine the results, risk factors for an unsatisfactory outcome, and rate of failure associated with this procedure. METHODS: We reviewed the data on seven shoulders in seven patients. At the time of glenoid component reimplantation, two shoulders received a cemented all-polyethylene glenoid component, three received a bone-ingrowth metal-backed component with columns and screws, and two received a bone-ingrowth metal-backed component with columns and screws augmented with bone cement. The average duration of follow-up was seventy-nine months. At the time of the latest follow-up, all patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically, patient satisfaction was assessed, and the result was graded according to a modified Neer rating system. RESULTS: Two patients had positive growth of Propionibacterium acnes on culture of intraoperative specimens obtained at the time of revision surgery and had continuing pain, and both underwent repeat revision. The remaining five patients expressed satisfaction with the procedure and stated that they felt better following surgery. The mean preoperative pain score for these five patients (on a scale from 1 to 5) was 4.6, and the mean postoperative pain score was 2.4 (p = 0.0042). Range of motion, however, did not improve. The Neer rating of the result (determined for the five patients who did not undergo repeat revision) was excellent for one patient, satisfactory for one, and unsatisfactory (because of limitation of motion) for three. CONCLUSIONS: Reimplantation of a glenoid component into a previously grafted bed can provide pain relief for most patients, but motion cannot be reliably improved.     

Local arthroscopic bone grafting of a juxta-articular glenoid bone cyst

This report describes a rare, juxta-articular bone cyst of the posterior glenoid that developed after a fracture of the glenoid in a 38-year-old male. The patient had persistent pain, popping and stiffness of his right shoulder for 3 years, and failed to improve after a nonoperative rehabilitation program. At arthroscopy, the senior author transported an autogenous bone graft from the bare area of the humeral head to fill the glenoid cyst arthroscopically. At second-look arthroscopy approximately 1 year after the index procedure, the bone graft had consolidated within the original cystic defect and the surface was covered with fibrocartilage. The graft harvest site posteriorly on the humeral head had healed with a small amount of scar tissue at the articular margin. Comfortable motion and function were restored.     

Free fibula and corticocancellous bone grafting for salvage of a war-injured forearm

The treatment of a complex forearm injury inflicted by a wartime mine explosion is presented in this study. Apart from the soft tissue damage, a 4-part fracture of the radius and loss of 19 cm of the ulnar diaphysis were present along with lesions of the median and ulnar nerves. The radial pulse was intact. The first formal treatment of the wounding consisted of extensive soft tissue and bone debridement and external fixation of radius with an additional intramedullary K-wire. After wound closure was obtained, a free vascular fibula grafting of the ulna and corticocancellous bone grafting of the radius were performed. Bone union of both the radius and ulna was subsequently achieved and 9 years after the injury, the patient has full flexion and extension of the elbow, full pronation and 70% of supination. Motion of the wrist is limited because of an ulnar plus variant of the distal radioulnar joint. Hand function is still limited by chronic low-moderate median nerve palsy, but the ulnar nerve has recovered completely. The patient is able to pinch, has full finger extension and can make a fist. He is satisfied that he made the correct decision in not having an initial amputation for his injury.     

Correlation between radiographic risk for glenoid component loosening and clinical scores in shoulder arthroplasty

Glenoid component loosening is the weak point in the failure of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). In this study we analyse the radiographic risk factors observed on 86 cemented polyethylene glenoid components and their relationship with clinical signs at a mean follow-up of 5.8 years. Clinical assessment included Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and Constant-Murley score. Radiograms were taken to detect periprosthetic radiolucency, tilt, medial displacement and polyethylene thinning. Pearson’s correlation coefficient and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient were calculated for statistical analysis. In 61 patients (71%) lucent lines were less than 2 mm wide (grade 2) and in 6 cases (7%) they were ≥2 mm wide (grade 3 and 4). Thinning of the polyethylene was found in 11 cases (13%), glenoid tilt in 6 cases (7%) and medial migration of the component in 5 cases (6%). Complete glenoid prosthetic loosening was found in 3 cases (3.5%) associated with polyethylene wear and glenoid bone loss. The Constant-Murley score associated with radiolucency grade 3 and 4 was less than 45% (38.39 ± 8.9) (p < 0.05), while a score less than 56% (30.72 ± 8.7) was found in patients with glenoid tilt and medial migration (p < 0.01). The mean SST score was 4.8 ± 2.8 in case of glenoid tilt and migration of the component (p < 0.01). Removal of the glenoid component and conversion to hemiarthroplasty or reverse prostheses is suggested in painful glenoid loosening. An exhaustive analysis of radiograms is essential to detect early and late complications or risk factors of glenoid loosening.