↓ Skip to main content

What Are the Complications, Survival, and Outcomes After Revision to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Older Than 80 Years?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
What Are the Complications, Survival, and Outcomes After Revision to Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty in Patients Older Than 80 Years?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11999-017-5406-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduard Alentorn-Geli, Nicholas J. Clark, Andrew T. Assenmacher, Brian T. Samuelsen, Joaquín Sánchez-Sotelo, Robert H. Cofield, John W. Sperling

Abstract

By the time patients with a failed shoulder arthroplasty require revision surgery, a substantial number are older than 80 years. The risk of complications of revision arthroplasty in this elderly population is largely unknown and needs to be considered when contemplating whether these patients are too frail for revision surgery. (1) What are the 90-day medical and surgical complications after revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in patients older than 80 years? (2) What are the 2- and 5-year survival rates after revision? (3) Was there an improvement in pain at rest or with activity, range of motion (ROM), and strength after revision surgery? Between 2004 and 2013, 38 patients who were older than 80 years (84 ± 3 years) underwent revision surgery to a RSA. Of those, five were lost to followup before 2 years, and two had died within 2 years of revision surgery, leaving 31 for analysis of our survivorship, pain, ROM, and strength endpoints at a minimum of 2 years or until revision surgery had occurred (mean, 28 months; range, 1-77 months); all 38 patients were included for purposes of evaluating medical and surgical complications at 90 days. During the period in question, our general indication for using RSA included failure of previous shoulder arthroplasty because of instability, glenoid loosening with bone loss, or rotator cuff insufficiency. The indication for revision to RSA did not change during the study period. The index procedure (revision to RSA at the age of 80 years or older) was the first revision arthroplasty in 33 (87%) patients and the second in five (13%) patients. We tallied 90-day medical and surgical complications by performing a retrospective chart and institutional joint registry review. The cumulative incidence of implant loosening (implant migration or tilting, or complete radiolucent lines present) and revision surgery was calculated at 2 and 5 years using competing risk of death method. Pain levels at rest or with activity (rated in a 1 to 5 Likert-type scale) were collected through a retrospective chart review and values before and after surgery were compared. Medical complications occurred in three of 38 (8%) patients and surgical complications occurred in five of 38 (13%) patients. The 90-day mortality was 3% (one of 38 patients), and the total mortality was 26% (10 of 38 patients). The cumulative incidence of revision was 11% (95% CI, 0%-20%) at 2 years and 16% (95% CI, 1%-30%) at 5 years; the cumulative incidence of loosening was 8% (95% CI, 0%-20%) at 2 years and 16% (95% CI, 1%-30%) at 5 years. Pain at rest or with activity improved from pre- to postoperation (preoperative: median, 4 [range, 2-5]; postoperative: median, 1 [range, 1-4]; median difference: -2, 95% CI -3 to 0; p < 0.000). The active ROM improved during the preoperative compared with postoperative periods: mean ± SD forward flexion of 52° ± 40° to 109° ± 44°, respectively (mean difference: 56; 95% CI, 40-72; p < 0.000), and mean ± SD external rotation of 15° ± 22° to 31° ± 21°, respectively (mean difference: 16; 95% CI, 8-25; p < 0.000). Age should not be used as a reason to not consider revision surgery to RSA in patients older than 80 years. Further studies with a prospective design, larger sample size, investigating risk factors for complications or poor outcome, and incorporation of functional scores are required. Level IV, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Other 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 30 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Engineering 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 39 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2017.
All research outputs
#5,402,428
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,372
of 7,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,140
of 325,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#14
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,356 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.