Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 14 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Arthroscopy Techniques

Staged Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Functional Hemiarthroplasty With Retained Humeral Implant: A Salvage Technique

  • Tomas Aguirre1
  • Mikalyn T. DeFoor1,2
  • Nate J. Dickinson1
  • Faith A. Unger1
  • Max Vidal1
  • Madeline Blankenship1
  • Matthew T. Provencher1,2
  1. 1Steadman Philippon Research Institute Vail Colorado U.S.A.
  2. 2The Steadman Clinic Vail Colorado U.S.A.
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

With the increased incidence and indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the increased need for revision shoulder arthroplasty also continues to rise. Therefore, revision strategies and techniques are essential to optimize patient outcomes and preserve function, particularly in the challenges of glenoid failure, poor glenoid bone stock, and/or poor native bone quality. Because of the risk of intraoperative fracture, increased blood loss, prolonged operative time, excessive implant costs, and the high risk of complications of a humeral stem extraction and revision, extraction of a well‐fixed humeral stem may be unnecessary and undesirable. When feasible, stem retention is preferred, which can lead to reduced surgical morbidity, cost‐saving practice habits, and better patient outcomes, especially in systems lacking platform convertibility. This Technical Note expands the reconstructive salvage options in systems lacking platform convertibility through conversion of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty to a functional hemiarthroplasty by cementing a glenosphere onto a retained, nonconvertible, stemmed humeral tray. This technique may serve as a definitive solution or, more likely, a temporary construct in select salvage and revision cases, offering joint stability and pain control while preserving articular congruency and avoiding the morbidity associated with full‐component revision.

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. Cost-effectiveness of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty versus pyrocarbon hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a 10-year Markov cost-utility analysis
    Akin A. Adio, Andrew Bouras, Joseph A. Abboud +6
    Journal of Shoulder and Elbow ArthroplastyPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMCEurope PMC
  4. Long-term outcomes of hemiarthroplasty and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for atraumatic humeral head avascular necrosis
    Eric M. Cohen, William A. Ranson, Michael P. Kucharik +4
    Journal of shoulder and elbow arthroplastyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMCEurope PMCPMC
  5. Failure mechanisms after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty requiring revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty
    Alyssa R. Henriquez, Eoghan T. Hurley, Katelyn E. Parsons +5
    Journal of Shoulder and Elbow ArthroplastyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textSurgery & anaesthesiaPMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{aguirre2026staged,
  title = {{Staged Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Functional Hemiarthroplasty With Retained Humeral Implant: A Salvage Technique}},
  author = {Tomas Aguirre and Mikalyn T. DeFoor and Nate J. Dickinson and Faith A. Unger and Max Vidal and Madeline Blankenship and Matthew T. Provencher},
  journal = {Arthroscopy Techniques},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.1002/atn2.70295},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/atn2.70295},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Staged Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty to Functional Hemiarthroplasty With Retained Humeral Implant: A Salvage Technique
AU  - Tomas Aguirre
AU  - Mikalyn T. DeFoor
AU  - Nate J. Dickinson
AU  - Faith A. Unger
AU  - Max Vidal
AU  - Madeline Blankenship
AU  - Matthew T. Provencher
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/04
JO  - Arthroscopy Techniques
DO  - 10.1002/atn2.70295
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1002/atn2.70295
AB  - With the increased incidence and indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the increased need for revision shoulder arthroplasty also continues to rise. Therefore, revision strategies and techniques are essential to optimize patient outcomes and preserve function, particularly in the challenges of glenoid failure, poor glenoid bone stock, and/or poor native bone quality. Because of the risk of intraoperative fracture, increased blood loss, prolonged operative time, excessive implant costs, and the high risk of complications of a humeral stem extraction and revision, extraction of a well‐fixed humeral stem may be unnecessary and undesirable. When feasible, stem retention is preferred, which can lead to reduced surgical morbidity, cost‐saving practice habits, and better patient outcomes, especially in systems lacking platform convertibility. This Technical Note expands the reconstructive salvage options in systems lacking platform convertibility through conversion of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty to a functional hemiarthroplasty by cementing a glenosphere onto a retained, nonconvertible, stemmed humeral tray. This technique may serve as a definitive solution or, more likely, a temporary construct in select salvage and revision cases, offering joint stability and pain control while preserving articular congruency and avoiding the morbidity associated with full‐component revision.
SN  - 2212-6287
ER  -