Low risk of revision after reverse shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humeral fractures

• Main Authors: Kaisa Lehtimäki, MD, Jeppe V. Rasmussen, MD, PhD, Juha Kukkonen, MD, PhD, Björn Salomonsson, MD, PhD, Erica D. Arverud, MD, PhD, Randi Hole, MD, Anne-Marie Fenstadt, MSc, Stig Brorson, MD, DMSc, Steen Lund Jensen, MD, PhD, Ville Äärimaa, MD, PhD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2020-03-01
• Series: JSES International
• Subjects: Proximal humeral fracture; reverse shoulder arthroplasty; register study; revision; risk of revision; risk factors for revision
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468602619301664

Background: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has gained popularity in the treatment of proximal humeral fractures (PHFs), especially in elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of RSA implants for acute PHFs and risk of revision, as well as risk factors for revision. Methods: RSA implants for acute PHFs were identified from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association registry data from 2004 to 2016. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate implant survival. Cox multiple regression analysis was used to calculate the adjusted revision rate for sex, age, country of operation, and year of surgery. Results: The study included 1523 RSA implants for PHFs (84% women; average age, 77 years; average follow-up time, 2.5 years). The 5-year cumulative implant survival rate was 97% (confidence limits, 95.5% and 98%). Revision was performed for 33 implants (2%). The most common reason for revision was instability, occurring in 11 cases (0.7%), followed by fracture, occurring in 6 (0.4%), and infection, occurring in 5 (0.3%). Four different arthroplasty brands were used in this cohort, with the Delta Xtend in two-thirds of cases (n = 1025). Age younger than 60 years and male sex were associated with slightly higher rates of revision; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio of 2.02 with P = .075 and hazard ratio of 3.23 with P = .057, respectively). Conclusion: The use of RSA for acute PHFs is increasing in the Nordic countries. The short-term risk of revision is low. The main reason for revision of RSA for this indication is instability.