BACKGROUND:
There remains a paucity of studies examining the conversion of failed hemiarthroplasty (HA) to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine a large series of revision HA to RTSA.

METHODS:
A population of 157 patients who underwent conversion of a failed HA to a revision RTSA from 2006 through 2014 were included. The mean follow-up was 49 months (range, 24-121 months). The indications for revision surgery included instability with rotator cuff insufficiency (n = 127) and glenoid wear (n = 30); instability and glenoid wear were associated in 38 cases. Eight patients with infection underwent 2-stage reimplantation.

RESULTS:
Patients experienced significant improvements in their preoperative to postoperative pain and shoulder range of motion (P <  .0001), with median American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Simple Shoulder Test scores of 60 and 6 points, respectively. There were 11 (7%) repeated revision surgeries, secondary to glenoid component loosening (n = 3), instability (n = 3), humeral component disassembly (n = 2), humeral stem loosening (n = 1), and infection (n = 2). Implant survivorship was 95.5% at 2 years and 93.3% at 5 years. There were 4 reoperations including axillary nerve neurolysis (n = 2), heterotopic ossification removal (n = 1), and hardware removal for rupture of the metal cerclage for an acromial fracture (n = 1). At final follow-up, there were 5 "at-risk" glenoid components.

CONCLUSION:
Patients experience satisfactory pain relief and recovery of reasonable shoulder function after revision RTSA from a failed HA. There was a relatively low revision rate, with glenoid loosening and instability being the most common causes.





Polls results
1

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

NO change
BIG change
94% Article relates to my practice (16/17)
5% Article does not relate to my practice (1/17)
0% Undecided (0/17)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

64% Yes (11/17)
17% No (3/17)
17% Undecided (3/17)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

5% Yes (1/17)
70% No (12/17)
23% Undecided (4/17)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/17)
11% Level 2 (2/17)
41% Level 3 (7/17)
47% Level 4 (8/17)
0% Level 5 (0/17)