Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 8 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty

Failure mechanisms after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty requiring revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty

  • Alyssa R. Henriquez1
  • Eoghan T. Hurley1
  • Katelyn E. Parsons1
  • Devika A. Shenoy1
  • Justin Leal1
  • Jay M. Levin1
  • Michael A. Moverman1
  • Christopher Klifto1
  1. 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has substantially grown in use over the past 2 decades and is now commonly used for the treatment of cuff tear arthropathy, complex fractures, revision arthroplasty, and rotator cuff insufficiency. Although rTSA demonstrates reliable outcomes, it has a distinct complication profile compared to hemi-arthroplasty or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Prior studies often focus on complication rates rather than the distribution and timing of revision indications. The purpose of this study was to characterize failure mechanisms following primary rTSA and to describe the time from index surgery to revision by indication.

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing revision of a primary rTSA at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2025. Revision indications were categorized as instability, infection, fracture, hardware complication, aseptic loosening, pain, or stiffness. The primary outcome was the distribution of revision indications. The secondary outcome was the time from index rTSA to revision, reported as median months with interquartile ranges (IQRs).

Results: A total of 179 revision rTSAs were included. The mean age at revision was 69.8 ± 8.9 years, and 44% of patients were female. The median time from index to revision was 13.8 months (IQR 2.3-28.1). Instability was the most common indication for revision (30.7%), followed by infection (19.6%), aseptic loosening (18.4%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (15.6%). Hardware complications (8.4%) were also notable contributors to revision. Instability (9.1 months; IQR 1.6-19.8), fracture (10.7 months; IQR 3.2-27.6), and hardware complications (8.6 months; IQR 1.7-25.1) occurred early in the post-operative course. By comparison, aseptic loosening (16.5 months; IQR 3.7-28.9) and infection (25.7 months; IQR 5.0-37.0) were associated with longer intervals from index to revision.

Conclusion: Revision following rTSA is most commonly due to early mechanical complications such as instability and fracture. By contrast, infection demonstrated a longer interval to revision, while aseptic loosening showed component-specific timing, with earlier humeral and later glenoid/baseplate failures. Recognition of implant-specific failure timing may improve surgical planning, patient counseling, and post-operative surveillance.

Related

  1. Revision arthroplasty is associated with significantly higher morbidity but not mortality compared with primary shoulder arthroplasty
    Nicholas J Morriss, Jordan H Manning, Omkar N Prabhavalkar +2
    Shoulder & ElbowPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC
  2. Use of a high-speed pencil-tip burr for removal of well-fixed humeral components in revision shoulder arthroplasty
    John Abdelshaheed, Ryan Morrall, Zachary A. Grand +4
    Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplastyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
  3. Staged Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Functional Hemiarthroplasty With Retained Humeral Implant: A Salvage Technique
    Tomas Aguirre, Mikalyn T. DeFoor, Nate J. Dickinson +4
    Arthroscopy TechniquesPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC
  4. Mixed Reality and Augmented Reality in Complex Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty: Head-mounted Displays for Glenoid Baseplate Positioning
    Sanjeevi Bharadwaj, Naveen Jeyaraman, Subasri Balasubramanian +3
    Journal of Orthopaedic Case ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaDOAJEurope PMC
  5. Customized glenoid implants in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: assessing revision rate and causes of failure in the Australian Joint Registry
    Megan C. Banks, Stefan Bauer, Peiyao Du +2
    Journal of Shoulder and Elbow ArthroplastyPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{henriquez2026failure,
  title = {{Failure mechanisms after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty requiring revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty}},
  author = {Alyssa R. Henriquez and Eoghan T. Hurley and Katelyn E. Parsons and Devika A. Shenoy and Justin Leal and Jay M. Levin and Michael A. Moverman and Christopher Klifto},
  journal = {Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1016/j.jsea.2026.100107},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsea.2026.100107},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Failure mechanisms after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty requiring revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty
AU  - Alyssa R. Henriquez
AU  - Eoghan T. Hurley
AU  - Katelyn E. Parsons
AU  - Devika A. Shenoy
AU  - Justin Leal
AU  - Jay M. Levin
AU  - Michael A. Moverman
AU  - Christopher Klifto
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/05
JO  - Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Arthroplasty
DO  - 10.1016/j.jsea.2026.100107
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsea.2026.100107
AB  - Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has substantially grown in use over the past 2 decades and is now commonly used for the treatment of cuff tear arthropathy, complex fractures, revision arthroplasty, and rotator cuff insufficiency. Although rTSA demonstrates reliable outcomes, it has a distinct complication profile compared to hemi-arthroplasty or anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. Prior studies often focus on complication rates rather than the distribution and timing of revision indications. The purpose of this study was to characterize failure mechanisms following primary rTSA and to describe the time from index surgery to revision by indication.  Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing revision of a primary rTSA at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2025. Revision indications were categorized as instability, infection, fracture, hardware complication, aseptic loosening, pain, or stiffness. The primary outcome was the distribution of revision indications. The secondary outcome was the time from index rTSA to revision, reported as median months with interquartile ranges (IQRs).  Results: A total of 179 revision rTSAs were included. The mean age at revision was 69.8 ± 8.9 years, and 44% of patients were female. The median time from index to revision was 13.8 months (IQR 2.3-28.1). Instability was the most common indication for revision (30.7%), followed by infection (19.6%), aseptic loosening (18.4%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (15.6%). Hardware complications (8.4%) were also notable contributors to revision. Instability (9.1 months; IQR 1.6-19.8), fracture (10.7 months; IQR 3.2-27.6), and hardware complications (8.6 months; IQR 1.7-25.1) occurred early in the post-operative course. By comparison, aseptic loosening (16.5 months; IQR 3.7-28.9) and infection (25.7 months; IQR 5.0-37.0) were associated with longer intervals from index to revision.  Conclusion: Revision following rTSA is most commonly due to early mechanical complications such as instability and fracture. By contrast, infection demonstrated a longer interval to revision, while aseptic loosening showed component-specific timing, with earlier humeral and later glenoid/baseplate failures. Recognition of implant-specific failure timing may improve surgical planning, patient counseling, and post-operative surveillance.
SN  - 2471-5492
ER  -