RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Revision shoulder arthroplasty can be challenging. One of the main considerations for surgeons is the type of implant that was placed in the initial surgery. Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (ASA) is used for cases of osteoarthritis as well as for fractures of the humeral head. Hemiarthroplasty can be used for complex proximal humerus fractures. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients that failed primary fracture hemiarthroplasty (FHA), or ASA for osteoarthritis and then required reoperation with a conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). METHODS: Patients with failed anatomic shoulder replacement, who had undergone conversion to RSA, were enrolled after a mean follow-up of 107 (85-157) months. Two different groups, one with failed ASA implanted for osteoarthritis and one with failed FHA, were created. At follow-up patients were assessed with standard radiographs and clinical outcome scores. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (f = 17, m = 12; 51%) suffered from a failed ASA (Group A), while the remaining 28 patients (f = 21, m = 74; 49%) had been revised due to a failed FHA (Group B). Patients of Group B had a poorer Constant score (Group A: 60 vs. Group B: 46; p = 0.02). Abduction (Group A: 115° vs. Group B: 89°; p = 0.02) was worse after conversion of a failed FHA to RSA in comparison to conversions of failed ASA. The mean bone loss of the lateral metaphysis was higher in patients with failed FHA (Group A: 5 mm vs. Group B: 20 mm; p = 0.0). CONCLUSION: The initial indication for anatomic shoulder arthroplasty influences the clinical and radiological outcome after conversion to RSA. Conversion of failed FHA to RSA is related to an increased metaphyseal bone loss, decreased range of motion and poorer clinical outcomes when compared to conversions of failed ASA implanted for osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III Retrospective Cohort Comparison Study.