Hemiarthroplasty continues to be a common surgical treatment for glenohumeral arthritis. Unfortunately, some patients will develop painful glenoid arthrosis necessitating revision to total shoulder arthroplasty. Previously reported results of revision have demonstrated variability in results and difficulty. The purpose of this study was to determine the difficulty and results of revision from hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty utilizing modular component systems.

Between 1995 and 2007, the authors identified 15 patients who underwent revision from hemiarthroplasty (HA) to total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Patients were assessed with the use of a UCLA score and a visual analogue scale at the time of the latest follow-up (mean, 40 months; range, 24-70 months). Radiographs were assessed for the presence of glenoid loosening, subluxation, and shift in component position.

Revision HA to TSA was significantly associated with pain relief (P < .01) as well as improvement in forward elevation from a mean of 91° to 141°. According to the UCLA scoring, the result was excellent in 9 shoulders, good in 5, and fair in 1. No instances of humeral or glenoid loosening were identified at the most recent examination. Only 2 stem revisions were necessary in this series of modular shoulder arthroplasties.

The data from this study suggest that revision of painful HA for glenoid arthrosis to TSA is a reliable procedure with good improvements in pain, range of motion, and function. With modular components, the complexity of the procedure is minimized. Poor results and the need for stem revision are infrequent occurrences.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
77% Article relates to my practice (7/9)
22% Article does not relate to my practice (2/9)
0% Undecided (0/9)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

55% Yes (5/9)
33% No (3/9)
11% Undecided (1/9)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/9)
88% No (8/9)
11% Undecided (1/9)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

11% Level 1 (1/9)
22% Level 2 (2/9)
44% Level 3 (4/9)
22% Level 4 (2/9)
0% Level 5 (0/9)