Aseptic glenoid loosening or failure in total shoulder arthroplasty: revision with glenoid reimplantation

Hypothesis and background antation of a new glenoid component for symptomatic glenoid failure after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is a well-established surgical strategy. In case of aseptic glenoid loosening or failure, revision of TSA by reimplantation of a cemented glenoid implant would be a reliable therapeutic option. als and methods etrospective multicenter study included 42 TSAs with symptomatic failed glenoids revised by reimplantation of an all–polyethylene (PE), cemented glenoid component. All patients were reviewed clinically and radiologically, with a mean follow-up of 74 months. s iled initial glenoid component was metal backed in 32 cases and PE cemented in 10. The main cause of glenoid failure was component loosening in 19 cases (46%) and PE wear or dissociation in 23 (54%). Associated complications were very frequent, including rotator cuff tears, subscapularis insufficiency, and prosthesis instability. At last follow-up, 7 patients (17%) had already been re-revised because of symptomatic recurrent glenoid loosening. The overall rate of recurrent glenoid loosening (re-revision plus radiologic loosening) was 67%. Soft-tissue problems and prosthetic instability were significantly associated with recurrent loosening. Of the 10 associated bone grafts performed during the revision procedure, all were partially or totally lysed. At follow-up, the mean Constant score was 57 points (gain of 16 points) and the mean active anterior elevation was 125° (gain of 19°). sion tudy suggests that revision of a TSA with reimplantation of an all-PE cemented glenoid component does not solve the problem of glenoid loosening. Soft-tissue failure and prosthetic instability are underestimated preoperatively and may explain, in part, the high rate of recurrent glenoid loosening.