Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with structural versus nonstructural bone graft

• Published in: Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery 2019-01, Vol.28 (1), p.e1-e9
• Main Authors: Mahylis, Jared M., Puzzitiello, Richard N., Ho, Jason C., Amini, Michael H., Iannotti, Joseph P., Ricchetti, Eric T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder - methods; bone allograft; bone autograft; Bone Resorption - surgery; Bone Transplantation - methods; Female; Follow-Up Studies; glenoid bone grafting; Humans; Ilium - transplantation; Male; Middle Aged; Radiography; Range of Motion, Articular; Reoperation - methods; Retrospective Studies; reverse total shoulder; Revision arthroplasty; shoulder; Shoulder Joint - diagnostic imaging; Shoulder Joint - physiopathology; Shoulder Joint - surgery; Transplantation, Autologous; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1058-2746; 1532-6500
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2018.06.026

Revision shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss poses substantial surgical challenges. This study's purpose was to compare radiographic and clinical results of patients requiring structural iliac crest bone autograft (ICBA) for severe bone loss versus patients with less severe bone loss treated with nonstructural bone allograft (NSBA) in the setting of revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). A retrospective cohort of 30 patients (70% of the 43 patients who met the inclusion criteria) undergoing revision RSA with ICBA (n = 15) or NSBA (n = 15) between 2007 and 2015 were analyzed at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Radiographic assessment included bone graft integration, bone graft resorption, glenosphere tilt, glenosphere version, and the presence of scapular notching. Clinical assessment included active range of motion, Penn Shoulder Score, Veterans RAND 12-item health survey, and need for revision surgery. No radiographic difference was found between the ICBA and NSBA groups with regard to implant position, graft integration, scapular notching, implant shift, or failure of fixation (P > .05). Of 15 patients with ICBA, 14 (93%) had at least partial integration of the bone graft. Some degree of resorption of the bone graft was noted in 6 of 15 patients (40%). There was no significant difference in postoperative active range of motion, Penn Shoulder Score, or Veterans RAND 12-item health survey score (P > .05 for all comparisons). One patient in the ICBA group underwent revision surgery for glenoid baseplate failure. Revision RSA with glenoid bone grafting resulted in good clinical and radiographic outcomes at short-term follow-up. Patients requiring structural ICBA were not at increased risk of component failure, radiographic or clinical complications, or inferior clinical outcomes.